AP Photo: Should they have shown it?

[Cajungaltx]

STORY LINK

The photo isn't at that link - just so you are aware.

Here's the short version - photographer captured images of a 21 year old Marine who was hit by a RPG - he sustained massive, life ending, injuries. They (reporters) spoke to the family, who asked them NOT to show the photos. Apparently the Defense Secretary called practically BEGGING them not to publish the photos.

Apparently they did (although some places, especially close to the hometown of this soldier did not) decide to publish the image because they felt it was newsworthy.

What do you think?

I kind of view it like shooting images from a car wreck or such - you just don't do it. At least not with the deceased in the image.

Do you think that 'any' image is worth publishing - if it's newsworthy?

[dryicerx]

Originally Posted by Cajungaltx

Do you think that 'any' image is worth publishing - if it's newsworthy?

All photos are worth publishing if it's newsworthy (maybe sensor a bit for publishing but show and convey the story of it)... I feel for the family, but it's a war... I mean what kind of photo journalism from a war zone is it if you are only showing the 'aww happy photos'

[Truckman]

I think there are quite enough opportunities in a war zone to bring the hooror to the home audience without throwing that horror in the face of a grieving family...R.I.P. Lance Cpl. Bernard...Ben

[JohnT]

I agree with Ben. Very poor judgment on the publisher's part.

[Davidtxs]

Not just NO but HELL NO the other photos in the series convey the story quit well. Sooner or later some family member will see them

Originally Posted by dryicerx

All photos are worth publishing if it's newsworthy (maybe sensor a bit for publishing but show and convey the story of it)... I feel for the family, but it's a war... I mean what kind of photo journalism from a war zone is it if you are only showing the 'aww happy photos'

I hope you dont feel the other shots in the series are so called Happy Photos

[Tom]

I have no problem with publishing the photos as they were newsworthy, but with the family really wanting them not publish, I probably wouldn't personally publish it. It would be one thing if it was a life changing shot. It is not, the shot isn't that great.

[dryicerx]

Originally Posted by Davidtxs

Not just NO but HELL NO the other photos in the series convey the story quit well. Sooner or later some family member will see them


I hope you dont feel the other shots in the series are so called Happy Photos

Well being to a active war zone and seeing much much more gruesome situations, I can definitely say this isn't even scratching the 'story'. (unless there were more than one photo of the solider, in which case I need to re-evaluate this)

I side with both, in a way I don't think it's right that they did run it because their family asked not to. But then again, they these reporters are reporting the story, you can't bend back and forth to everyones request when you're reporting.

It's a very unfortunate situation, I don't think there is any type of right position to take here (published or not, we've lost a brave soul).

[cooltouch]

I tend to agree with the general sentiment that the photo should not be published in deference to the family's wishes.

But I am also reminded of Matthew Brady, and how his images revealed the aftermath of war's brutality. I do not think that any serious present day photographer would wish that Brady had decided, instead of choosing a career in photography, to become a horticulturist or some such.

I guess what I'm getting at is this: in the fullness of time, photography such as this (and leave us not forget the widely distributed photos and videos of atrocities committed by jihadists against American contractors and journalists) serve to remind a society of what actually transpired "way back then."

Michael


Michael

[Arnor]

Hi Donna,

Where the money rules, the money rules. I think that's what it boils down to. Horror images sell. Plain and simple - and awful. I feel for those on the receiving end, but this is the world we live in.

Best regards,

[johnastovall]

Yes, they should have published. That's what war is about. We need to see it.

How about this?

I'm am amazed at all the people here who stand for censorship.

[mccls1030]

NO they should not have. But news is all about SELL SELL SELL, and this is just one more example of the insensitivity of the news media.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by mccls1030

NO they should not have. But news is all about SELL SELL SELL, and this is just one more example of the insensitivity of the news media.

Sensitivity is showing the truth not bending to hysterical emotions. I don't think people are rushing out to buy news papers with a copy of that picture in it.

[Jenny Z]

Going against the family's wishes was in very bad taste. The media ain't what it used to be, back when they did things like not publishing photos of President Roosevelt in a wheelchair because he wanted privacy.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Jenny Z

Going against the family's wishes was in very bad taste. The media ain't what it used to be, back when they did things like not publishing photos of President Roosevelt in a wheelchair because he wanted privacy.

It's not about 'bad taste." It is about what the camera saw. The media today is better for not keeping the public in the dark and courting favor with any one or group. As for Roosevelt in the wheelchair, it had nothing to do with his privacy but his wanting a fourth term and not wanting the public to know how badly his health had gotten.

[Truckman]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Sensitivity is showing the truth not bending to hysterical emotions. I don't think people are rushing out to buy news papers with a copy of that picture in it.

There's quite a difference in seeing those words as a disembodied paragraph meant for a vague, faceless readership and saying them in person as a man facing a grieving family...Try it sometime and let me know how it works out for you...Ben