A photo is worth 1,000 words
Columnist Rosemary Roberts, who teaches a college journalism class, asked me about this photograph on the front page of today's New York Times. Had this bombing occurred in Greensboro, she asked, would you publish this photo? She was anticipating just such a discussion in her class.
It's an emotionally wrenching, powerful photograph, although it's not overly bloody. My guess, and this is what I told Rosemary, is that we probably would publish it, but not necessarily on the front page.
Readers trust us to deliver the news of the day to their breakfast tables. Many of them don't want to be grossed out by a graphic photo, no matter where it is taken or how compelling it is. They consider it a violation of that trust. There are other photos, they would say, that would appropriately capture the death and devastation of the scene. "I should decide if I want these graphic images in my house, no you," they would say. I know because we have published photographs of dead bodies on the front page before, and I've heard from readers.
The other side of the publishing equation is this: We have to present the truth. If the bomb went off here, we'd have hundreds of photographs to choose from. Our first obligation to our readers is to publish those that tell the story in its truest, most accurate form. If the photos feature dead bodies, then that may be an image that is important for readers to see, know and understand.
All of this is pure speculation, of course, because a bombing in downtown Greensboro or High Point is out of my experience, thank God. Here's an article on the Times' decision and reader reaction.
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
There's a fine balance to be struck, and I think the Times generally does a good job in this department. Quite frankly, I think Americans too often get the "sanitized version of events" from their news sources. People complain that the news media is too negative, that they want to see more coverage of "touchy feelies", which is why we've been seeing more of these inane features stories about older local folks who collect weird stuff that local papers everywhere seem determined to run on their front pages. Personally, I don't feel newspapers are serving the public interest when they give in to such demands. It's called a NEWSpaper, not a "make you feel good about your life"-paper. Should coverage be more local? Undoubtedly. There are so many sources for national and international coverage now that small and mid-size papers need to refocus on local coverage in order to distinguish themselves. But a newspaper's first mission should always be to help readers expand their horizons and provide the information people need to be able to think critically about problems that need to be fixed, whether they be local, regional, national, or international issues. Sure, Uncle Bob with his collection of antique beer can tabs is a nice guy, and I think it's great that he has a hobby, but exactly what can I do with the knowledge an article about Uncle Bob provides me?
People need to see this stuff. We *should* be reminded, and often, that, no, the vicious attacks in Beersheba weren't carried out against an empty bus -- as we're allowed too fool our subconscious into believing when we see only the burnt-out shell as we so often do. We *should* be reminded that, yes, we lost 3000 friends, relatives, neighbors, countrymen on Sept. 11 nearly 3 years ago, but the people of Israel and many other countries in that region of the world live with the intense, immediate fear of sudden, violent death every day of their lives. Does it add stress to our lives? Sure. But maybe -- and this is truly an outside chance, I grant you -- that will motivate us try to do something about it.
Posted on September 2, 2004 7:15 AM