The woman in black strokes the child’s forehead, a girl of about 10, sandy hair tied back off her bloodied face. Is the woman hopelessly trying to comfort that little girl, perhaps praying for her?
The sandy-haired girl lies shrouded beneath a starched-white sheet, pulled down to reveal her pallid face, lips pursed, eyes void of expression. Is she finding any peace now? So young, such unimaginable terror.
The woman in black stoops low to the ground, close to the youngster. She clutches her throat, as people often do when confronted with sudden and complete despair. Is she choking back the sobs, holding in the anger? So incredibly sad. So utterly senseless.
The sandy-haired girl’s toes poke out of the other end of the sheet, toes dirtied now, toes that no longer will help her playfully run and romp and race. Is the world gone mad? Did these bastards really do this to kids?
I’m studying the Sept. 4 front-page photo of the Russian-school siege that ended ina 9/11-like blood bath with more than 350 dead. I’m feeling the same emotions I did when I first looked at this photo — shocked and disturbed by the violence, upset and even confused that the victims included so many young innocents.
My God, I said to myself then, why would anyone kill children? I suspect many of you asked the same.
And I’m searching for the right way to respond to the readers who found the photo appalling and inappropriate, who consider the Akron Beacon Journal irresponsible and insensitive for publishing it.
For example, consider these comments from Richard Streck: “I am a physician who has worked caring for major trauma victims. I am not squeamish. The photo was the most insensitive, tasteless depiction that I have ever seen in print.”
Streck, who identified himself as senior vice president medical affairs at Akron General Medical Center, began his e-mail by canceling his subscription and ended it by describing the newspaper in this way: “It is not fit to line the bottom of a bird cage, much less read.”
Most of the complaints came from parents who said the front-page position prevented them from shielding their kids from the photo’s devastating image.
“My two youngest children were horrified by the picture on the front of your newspaper,” wrote Brian Lynner of Stow. “Perhaps when the ABJ decides to run graphic pictures of lifeless children on their front page, they should consider delivering the paper in a plain, brown wrapper.
“Its intent — in my opinion — was pure shock value!” he suggested. “Your editorial compass appears to be broken.”
Another condemnation came from Mark Hayden of Akron, who asked, “Is that reporting the news?” His answer? No, that’s exploitation. “It’s a shame that the ABJ would stoop to this level for the sake of selling more copies, but it really doesn’t surprise me.”
Exploitation? Hardly. The Beacon Journal circulation salespeople like high school football photos on Saturday’s front page because they help sell papers. Salespeople and editors often see the front page from different perspectives.
No, the editors knew this photo would hurt sales. They expected a rash of complaints. They understood it would hammer readers on a visceral level, resulting in a range of emotional responses that included anger directed toward the newspaper.
So, why was it published? Because with one intensely powerful image, this photo effectively communicated on several levels the immense tragedy that took place. It hit home, hard.
Why not just words? As one caller asked, “Don’t you think we can comprehend children dying without your showing us their bodies?”
Perhaps that’s true for some. But this photo touched everyone, profoundly, and in ways that words cannot.
Could the photo have been printed on an inside page with a warning on the front page? Yes, that was one possibility discussed by the editors as they agonized over the decision. But no other page has more impact or a wider reach than the front page.
What about the photo’s traumatizing effect on young readers? The editors balanced that significant concern with the newspaper’s need to serve its much larger adult readership. It was hoped that parents would use the photo to explain the tragedy and to discuss the changing nature of the world.
Other photos, more bloody and more virulent, were discarded as being gratuitous and disrespectful. The editors selected this photo because of its vivid reminder of today’s new reality, one in which unspeakable violence can reach any of us at any time.
And it was selected because it evoked such strong emotions in them, and they knew readers, especially parents, would be horrified by the carnage inflicted on children.
A week later, it continues to disturb me.
The woman in black looks upon the sandy-haired girl and mourns the loss of a child, not with hysterical shock, but with a quiet dignity, almost a tender tranquility. Is she screaming inside, now wanting to kill, to avenge?
The sandy-haired girl rests on a stretcher, one in a long row of kid-filled stretchers, pulled out of a place that once held the joyful and carefree sounds of youth, but where now only cries of grief remain. Is nothing sacred anymore? Is no one safe?
