All these photos were too graphic for my tolerance level and I had difficulty deciding which I would choose to print. Here's what I came up with...
Dwyer photo: While reviewing this series of photos, several questions came to mind. Does the paper have to be sensitive to Dwyer's family and friends? Is it appropriate and respectful to show this man at his lowest point for all the public to see? Understandably, as Pennsylvania treasurer, Dwyer was a public figure, so his role in the spotlight is a given. That being said, I would most consider printing the first of the four because it captures his emotions in a way that maybe text could not. It can complement the story well.
1. This photo is OK to print because it is neither harming nor inhumane.
2. This photo is not OK to print. I've made the argument to run the Dwyer photo because it does a good job of capturing his emotions. Although this photo does an equally or even better job of capturing raw emotions of the persons pictured, the contents of the photos make it not OK to print. In this photo, the body bag is open and the dead boy is seen lying on the ground. Printing a photo of a dead body is disrespectful and distasteful.
3. Again, out of respect for the victim's loved ones, this photo should stay out of print. The victim's face is somewhat identifiable and there are bits of whatever was shot off the victim's body on the floor. The gruesomeness of this photo is too extreme.
4. I think this photo is OK to print, but I don't see it as necessary. The writer could show this scenario within the text.
5. This photo is not OK to print. The caption states that the woman's face is blurred to protect her identity. If this woman saw this photo, the papers who printed this are forcing her to relive this moment. Also, many of the faces in the crowd are identifiable. This could cause problems of mistaken identities.
I know pictures attract readers to a story, but printing the most shocking photos for dramatization should not be used as a deciding factor.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
"Station to station, desensitizing the nation" -Jack Johnson, singer-songwriter
Reporting on tragedies is, to say the very least, a tough job. On top of that, having to portray tragedies in an ethical light poses its own issue.
When I think about the news I saw and read about both the NIU and Virginia Tech shootings, images of victims, some bloody, being carried by police or on stretchers with bandages around their limbs pop into mind. In some photos, the faces of these victims are seen clearly and most likely recognizable to their family and friends. Did papers need to publish these photos? The Los Angeles Times, Alabama's Press-Register and New Mexico's Daily Lobo are just a few that did. Is reading something along the lines of "five dead at school shooting" not as believable as seeing a scene of the tragedy? Do we really need to see to believe?
I found an interesting read online that explains the use of photos portraying "Victims of Violence." Although one of the sources, Ombudsman George Beveridge, argues that written words are unable to convey the emotions evoked through photos, does the shock factor outweigh the negative effects on those personally involved? Beveridge defended his paper's decision to publish gruesome photos of killed U.S. servicemen who had attempted to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980; their bodies were "char-red." He argues that as long as the photo is accurate, it is OK to publish.
The Society of Professional Journalism's Code of Ethics states that journalists should, yes, seek truth, but should also minimize harm. I'm sure family members and friends of the victims pictured in the school shooting were harmed when they saw a photo of their loved one in the middle of the tragedy. In times like these, where immediate contact with victims are nearly impossible, the first news received about loved ones may have been captured in a published photo. There is harm caused here. When I view these images, I feel the sadness and hurt of the tragedy; I can't imagine what it must be like to personally know these individuals. I mean all I can relate to is the fact that we're all students on a campus pursuing some sort of degree. These photos serve to put us in the scene of the tragedy by showing the real, raw truth of the event, but is doing so ethical? Do these pictures serve a greater purpose?
I can't decide...
When I think about the news I saw and read about both the NIU and Virginia Tech shootings, images of victims, some bloody, being carried by police or on stretchers with bandages around their limbs pop into mind. In some photos, the faces of these victims are seen clearly and most likely recognizable to their family and friends. Did papers need to publish these photos? The Los Angeles Times, Alabama's Press-Register and New Mexico's Daily Lobo are just a few that did. Is reading something along the lines of "five dead at school shooting" not as believable as seeing a scene of the tragedy? Do we really need to see to believe?
I found an interesting read online that explains the use of photos portraying "Victims of Violence." Although one of the sources, Ombudsman George Beveridge, argues that written words are unable to convey the emotions evoked through photos, does the shock factor outweigh the negative effects on those personally involved? Beveridge defended his paper's decision to publish gruesome photos of killed U.S. servicemen who had attempted to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980; their bodies were "char-red." He argues that as long as the photo is accurate, it is OK to publish.
The Society of Professional Journalism's Code of Ethics states that journalists should, yes, seek truth, but should also minimize harm. I'm sure family members and friends of the victims pictured in the school shooting were harmed when they saw a photo of their loved one in the middle of the tragedy. In times like these, where immediate contact with victims are nearly impossible, the first news received about loved ones may have been captured in a published photo. There is harm caused here. When I view these images, I feel the sadness and hurt of the tragedy; I can't imagine what it must be like to personally know these individuals. I mean all I can relate to is the fact that we're all students on a campus pursuing some sort of degree. These photos serve to put us in the scene of the tragedy by showing the real, raw truth of the event, but is doing so ethical? Do these pictures serve a greater purpose?
I can't decide...
Friday, February 13, 2009
They say a picture is worth a thousand words...
In February 11th's Daily Illini, there was an article highlighting the University Dining Hall's new policy on disclosing nutrition information. Along with offering this information online, the dining hall now posts the information in the dining hall where it is more accessible and relevant to the students. This is all helpful and great, but I just don't know if all the facts provided by the dining hall are correct. The graphic provided by the DI disclosed the calories, protein, fat and carbohydrates in a serving of several foods, among them "jasmin rice." (Spelling error #1) In the jump of the article, there is a photograph of the actual hot food line, with nutritional information written in marker probably by a worker. From the photo, "Seasoned Green Beans," can be seen clearly and so can "Protien." (Spelling error #2) With spelling errors like these, I just don't know if I can trust that my seasoned green beans are actually one calorie from fat as posted.
But, I guess people can glance over minor details and take what the paper says to heart. After all, journalists are all about exposing the truth. Unfortunately, there are several journalists who abuse their privilege and outright lie. Such is the case with Jayson Blair. Blair fabricated countless articles for The New York Times before he was caught. Along with blatantly making up quotes and names, Blair never even attended the events he was assigned to cover. In my News Editing lecture, we watched an interview clip of Blair, and he described how he made up the last name of his main source in order to use this person's quotes. How can this source not tell the editor, or did he not read the story? Also, there are several rounds of editing in the newsroom, so how did the editor miss a person's name?
There's a trust that builds between editors and journalists, but there is a difference between trusting and merely double-checking facts in a story.
But, I guess people can glance over minor details and take what the paper says to heart. After all, journalists are all about exposing the truth. Unfortunately, there are several journalists who abuse their privilege and outright lie. Such is the case with Jayson Blair. Blair fabricated countless articles for The New York Times before he was caught. Along with blatantly making up quotes and names, Blair never even attended the events he was assigned to cover. In my News Editing lecture, we watched an interview clip of Blair, and he described how he made up the last name of his main source in order to use this person's quotes. How can this source not tell the editor, or did he not read the story? Also, there are several rounds of editing in the newsroom, so how did the editor miss a person's name?
There's a trust that builds between editors and journalists, but there is a difference between trusting and merely double-checking facts in a story.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
"Freakin' Fabulous"
Last week I searched high and low, visiting all campus bookstores, for the highly popular Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. To my dismay, none of the stores had it in-stock. With little options left, I headed over to Borders. As I was walking to the Reference section, I got distracted by this hot pink cover graced by none other than the fabulous Clinton Kelly. (Kelly co-hosts TLC's What Not To Wear with Stacy London)
It may seem that Clinton Kelly is just another reality TV star who, although is considered a fashion genius, may not be widely perceived as a smart guy. But, his credentials say he deserves way more credit. Kelly received a B.A. in Communications from Boston College and a master's degree from Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. He has also been editor/deputy editor of major fashion magazines, such as Marie Claire, Mademoiselle and DNR, before becoming the nation's go-to guy in fashion crises.
Although the title of Kelly's new book--Freakin' Fabulous: How to Dress, Speak, Behave, Eat, Drink, Entertain, Decorate, And Generally Be Better Than Everyone Else--made me cringe, my mild obsession with Kelly drew me in.
Naturally, as a journalism student, I turned to the chapter on how to speak. I was expecting to be bored with a laundry lists of do's and don't's and new, hip slang, with the occasional side of pretty pictures, but Kelly proved me wrong. Kelly was teaching grammar. He wrote about the differences between lie and lay; fewer and less. Yeah, he used silly examples, like "I lay my gin on the table," but at least he's getting the point across.
Kelly, like all journalists and writers, stresses the importance of proper grammar. A little punctuation mark in the correct place goes a long way. As journalists, our credibility rides on our ability to understand and apply the proper rules of grammar.
x
It may seem that Clinton Kelly is just another reality TV star who, although is considered a fashion genius, may not be widely perceived as a smart guy. But, his credentials say he deserves way more credit. Kelly received a B.A. in Communications from Boston College and a master's degree from Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism. He has also been editor/deputy editor of major fashion magazines, such as Marie Claire, Mademoiselle and DNR, before becoming the nation's go-to guy in fashion crises.
Although the title of Kelly's new book--Freakin' Fabulous: How to Dress, Speak, Behave, Eat, Drink, Entertain, Decorate, And Generally Be Better Than Everyone Else--made me cringe, my mild obsession with Kelly drew me in.
Naturally, as a journalism student, I turned to the chapter on how to speak. I was expecting to be bored with a laundry lists of do's and don't's and new, hip slang, with the occasional side of pretty pictures, but Kelly proved me wrong. Kelly was teaching grammar. He wrote about the differences between lie and lay; fewer and less. Yeah, he used silly examples, like "I lay my gin on the table," but at least he's getting the point across.
Kelly, like all journalists and writers, stresses the importance of proper grammar. A little punctuation mark in the correct place goes a long way. As journalists, our credibility rides on our ability to understand and apply the proper rules of grammar.
x
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)