In recent columns, I’ve presented ethical dilemmas facing journalists, how readers say they
would handle those dilemmas, how some Courier-Journal editors would approach them and how other editors did handle them.
The purpose of the exercise has been to open the door on what journalists face, sometimes every day, in terms of what we cover and how we cover it. And I hoped also to demonstrate that sometimes there is no one right answer to a dilemma, and that another time, given a difference in circumstance, the answer might be different.
The source material for the ethical dilemmas was gathered by the Media Management Institute, affiliated with Northwestern University, and is presented in its book, The Newsroom Brain: A Working Guide to Journalism Decisions. They’ve given me permission to use the material and to quote generously from it in these columns.
Today’s ethical scenario, the last of three, deals with whether to print a graphic photograph that shows a teen-ager killed in the crossfire of gang warfare:
”Gang wars have raged at a public housing project for months, and now a 15-year-old boy has been shot and killed in the crossfire. One of your photographers was at a nearby school for a feature story when the gunshots rang out, and he was at the scene before the police arrived. He snapped several shots of the slain boy, blood running from his head, before authorities shooed him away. The photo editor brings the picture to you for a final decision: Do you print the photograph?”
Questions to ask yourselves: ”Who are the ‘stakeholders’ in this decision? What harm could be done by running this photograph? By not running it? What difference does the subject’s age make?”
The readers I heard from about this scenario were very torn. As one put it, the news media should not exploit — or sanitize — violence.
But that’s a tall and tricky order.
A sample of reader views:
”Tough call. I have empathy for the family, but you have an obligation to show life as it happens. Print the picture,” wrote Ken Shelton.
”This sceanrio could be replaced by the Standard Gravure incident that took place several years ago. I thought then, and still do, that it was wrong of The C-J to place the photos of the victims in their workplace on Page One. . . . I am very much aware of the saying ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’ However, you do not have to show the blood. Just tell about it,” wrote Ron Wolf.
”The photo should be run. It is news. However, it should be placed in an inner section of the paper and a warning notice should be prominently displayed on the front page,” wrote Bob and Betty Zielinski.
”Although (its running was) to demonstrate how cruel this senseless murder was, the rights of the family should be more important than sensationalism. I saw a picture in the paper this summer of a suicide bombing victim. It upset me terribly. I like action movies and am moderately sensitive. That picture still sticks in my mind because that was someone’s son or brother or friend. That was real. I know how cruel war is, and I didn’t feel I needed to be reminded. The same as with gang wars — the feelings of how the young boy’s family would feel should come first,” wrote Cathy Rosenbalm.
I took the scenario to CourierJournal Photo Editor James Wallace for his consideration. His thoughtful response addressed the important questions that are raised when newspapers consider printing such a tragically eloquent — but horrifying — photograph.
Wallace wrote:
”As photographers, our first inclination is to run the best photograph that is available. However, with experience we all have come to realize that the best photo is not always the most appropriate one. Each event is separate and unique and must be evaluated according to its specific value and impact. In this situation, I would choose not to run the photo as described in the scenario.
”In covering a story on gang wars I believe the challenge is to show the devastating impact it has on the community where it takes place, and not go for the sensational photo or story that misses the true nature of the problem. While the loss of life is significant, showing a corpse may not be the best way to proceed and could possibly sidetrack efforts and divert attention from the true objective, which is to call attention to the gang problem.
”Community sensitivity, invasion of privacy and even the impact on the family of the dead teen should also be considered in deciding whether to publish the photo. As journalists, even visual journalists, we should know how our community reacts to specific events and respond accordingly. However, it doesn’t mean we shy away from difficult decisions for fear of representing the truth. It is obvious the shooting occurred in a public setting, so there is no privacy invasion in this sense. But would we be invading the personal privacy of the teen and his family at this most vulnerable of times? Finally, how would I or any other person feel about seeing the graphic image of a loved one displayed prominently in the newspaper at their death?
”. . . The critical question is does the magnitude of the event and the resulting impact on the community take precedence over the concerns for all the above questions. In this situation, I say no. Any experienced photographer will provide more than one image from any situation. In this case, I would look over the entire ‘take’ of images and select one more appropriate for the coverage.”
There are no wrong answers in what the readers and the editor proposed in dealing with this terrible and tragic dilemma.
But the newspaper and editors who were really faced with it decided to print the picture.
Will Corbin, the managing editor of the Newport News, Va., Daily Press explained that his first reaction was that the photograph would not see print in the newspaper. ”. . . It was obvious that the picture was dramatic — and that it held the potential to upset readers on many levels: insensitivity to a family’s grief, sensationalism, graphic violence in a family newspaper.”
But, the more he and his staff looked at the picture, ”the more disturbing it became — and the more disturbing the prospect that it might never see print. . . . It spoke volumes about the problems of growing up where kids are too easily lost and guns are too easily found.”
Finally, they reasoned, ”This photograph would make our readers angry in a way that was worth upsetting them. It would leave a lasting and indelible impression as a troubling icon of our times. It would frighten them and sicken them and make them think and talk and maybe even act.”
As powerful as those arguments were, the journalists involved in this dilemma took one more step.
”As journalists and citizens, we wanted to see that picture in the paper,” Corbin wrote. ”As parents and neighbors, we knew we couldn’t publish it if it would add to the family’s hardship.”
They talked to the family of the young man who had been killed. The family told the newspaper to print the picture.
When readers called to object to the photograph, they were told the family had taken part in the decision to print the picture, and most were mollified.
But, Corbin wrote, ”The picture still disturbed them, a number of readers told me. But that’s good. That’s what it was supposed to do.”
