Monday, October 6, 2008

Photo Response

Photo 1: Boy grieving for his dog

Why you could run the photo: The main reason I can think of for running this photo is for the emotion that it captures. It definitely tells a story, and it's one the evokes a sense of grief that connects the audience to the story being told.

Why you wouldn't want to run the photo: This was obviously an extremely sad moment for the boy involved in his family, and God willing the idiot who hit the dog would be devastated by his or her actions. To run this photograph would expose a very personal moment.

Local or not: Even if this were a local photo, the issue that I have with it is that it's invading a personal moment while having no news value. Unless the accident with the dog caused a chain reaction of accidents that lead to a house catching on fire or a law being made about dog slaying, I really don't feel that the invasion of privacy is warranted.

Placement: For the same reason I wouldn't run the photo even if it were local, I don't think the placement has any part of this photo. It's still violates the boy's privacy whether or not it's on the front page or an inside page.

Verdict: I wouldn't run the photo.

Criteria: I couldn't imagine the sadness that I would feel if my dog was killed by a car accident. If this picture was taken with my brother mourning our precious puppy Maeve, I would be furious with the news organization and their decision making process.

Photo 2: A family mourns their loss

Why you could run the photo: Similar to photo 1, this photo tells a distinct story that is packed with emotion. The loss is tragic, and the photographer was able to capture just how awful of a moment this was in the lives of the little boy's family.

Why you wouldn't want to run the photo: Also similar to photo 1. The part that bothers me the most about this photo is that you can see the boy's face in it. It would be one thing if the photographer took a picture of the family grieving, a common photo after a death occurs, but the fact that you can see the boy in it makes it so much worse.

Local or not: This photo being local would actually serve as another reason why I wouldn't want to imagine it. Imagine being in first grade with the child who died and seeing this image when your parents read the newspaper over breakfast.

Placement: Maybe the child eating breakfast wouldn't see the picture if it were inside, but chances are the family will.

Verdict: I wouldn't run the photo.

Criteria: Every time I see a picture of children who have been killed, hurt, are starving, etc. I always think about how I would feel if that child was one of my younger siblings. It's easy to brush off these things when you don't feel connected to the child, but when I think that it could be one of them it breaks my heart. I don't see how you could run this photo when a photo of the family grieving without the body in it or when a photo of the crew looking for the child could be run instead.

Photo 3: Bud Dwyer kills himself

Why you could run the photo: This photo is the news story. It's an action shot about a gruesome act. There's not any blood in it, and I wasn't able to tell from looking at the picture that he had pulled the trigger and that the bullet was most likely in his brain until I was told that.

Why you wouldn't want to run the photo: The bullet was in his brain.

Local or not: I don't think that it would matter if this was local. Even if you were covering this incident from a local news organization, the suicide was televised, making it a national story and putting the local peg on the back burner.

Placement: Still gruesome on an inside page.

Verdict: I wouldn't run it.

Criteria: If I knew and cared about him, I would feel like this photo was haunting me, even if it wasn't as gruesome as some of the other ones might be. A picture of of the chaos that I'm sure ensued after this would tell the story as well.

Photo 4: Dead printing plant worker

Why you could run the photo: It's an excellent shot when it comes to the actual composure of the photo. The way that the lines in the photo work leads your eye directly to the body, making it hard to take your eyes away from the image. It also adds to the morose feeling the photo creates.

Why you wouldn't want to run the photo: Similar to other photos, putting yourself in the place of one of the plant worker's family or friends makes the image unbearable.

Local or not: Just like the picture of the boy who drown, having this photo run in a local newspaper could actually make it worse since it's more likely to be seen by people who knew the victim.

Verdict: I wouldn't run this photo.

Criteria: The reasons for why this photo shouldn't run trump the reasons why it should.

Photo 5: The boy with a piece of fence through his face

Why you could run the photo: It definitely tells the story, and quite frankly I don't know that words could capture the meaning as well at the photo does.

Why you wouldn't want to run the photo: Two words - ew, ouch.

Local or not: Since the boy survived I don't feel like this photo would be too disturbing for his family or friends to see, other than the fact that it looks extremely painful. I'm sure his friends might actually think it's cool.

Local or not: This photo wouldn't be relevant to a non-local audience, so if it were a local photo then it most likely should run.

Placement: Perhaps the image is too disturbing to run large, or as the lead photo on the front page, but if it were either small on the front page or on an inside page then I don't think it would be as bad.

Verdict: I'd run it, gross or not.

Criteria: Reversing the roles this time doesn't have the same effect. Had the boy died, then it would be another story.

Photo 6: A woman being sexually attacked by a mob

Why you could run the photo: The photo does tell the story in a way that maybe words couldn't as well. It's horrific. Not to mention that running it would bring some justice to the offenders and hopefully make people think about how the celebration effects those around them. Also, with the face blurred her identity is protected.

Why you wouldn't want to run the photo: This was by far the most disturbing image. I couldn't image how violated I would feel if I were that woman. Quite frankly if I were the photog I don't know that I would've been able to use my camera for beating the crap out of those guys. Sexual violence is is one of the worst things that could happen to a woman, making this picture utterly heinous.

Local or not: I could see wanting to ruin the lives of the men who did this as a reason to run this photo if it were local.

Placement: Once again, imagine the breakfast table with kids there. This image would be difficult to explain to them, meaning that the front page is definitely out of the question.

Verdict: Not a chance in hell would I run this photo.

Criteria: This photo was a struggle between my sympathy for the victim and the anger I felt toward the perpetrators. I want to run the photo to stick it to those fiends, however this could be unethical as in our legal system does claim that all criminals are innocent until proven guilty, and this photo is pretty damning. However, I'd be willing to overlook that. Still, in the end my obligation is to the victim, not to the criminals. If this happened to me, the last thing in the world I would want is for this photo to run, although I would like it for evidence why I fried the asses who did this.