Random Thoughts

In the column above Dan Kennedy of the Boston Phoenix argues that the Herald hit a new low by printing these photos which add nothing to the story that couldn't be known via the accompanying article. I tend to agree that the Herald probably erred in using these photos, at least in full color on the front page. However, photojournalists do important work in that their images often capture newsworthy events. Life isn't always pretty and working photographers can't put their cameras down in spite of ugly or distrurbing events that unfold in front of them. So the question is how and when should photos like these be used?

Many readers felt that the photos are insensitive to the family. I definitely agree with that. Here is a young woman who is well-loved by her friends and family and the horrible last few minutes of her life are printed in the newspaper for all to see. I would guess that is extremely disturbing to say the least. However, from the newspaper's point of view there are probably many family members of the subjects of photos and stories that they run who are upset by what goes in the paper. So the newspaper has to weigh sensitivity to the family versus the newsworthyness and importance of the photos.

Then the newspaper has to take into account the community they serve and what the reaction to these photos would be. Small town newspapers usually shy away from graphic photos while bigger newspapers that serve a more tolerant and perhaps less sensitive readership have a tendency to run more graphic photos. We saw this in relation to prior photos that are referenced in Kennedy's column such as some recent photos of American soldiers who were killed in Iraq - some newspapers ran those photos front and center but others shied away because they knew that their readers who be extremely upset.

There is also an argument that could be made that says that a newspaper has a responsiblity to report the news and print photos regardless of how their readers react. Some stories should envoke horror, anger, disgust and sadness from readers because they are horrible stories. I don't think stories should be sugar-coated to go down easier as that tends to lead to facts being omitted. Graphic photos could also lead to a story having more of an impact and that is what some people thought was the case in relation to the photos in the Herald. But words can be just as powerful as a photo.

Graphic photos shouldn't be used specifically to sell newspapers and I suspect that is the case with the Herald. Just like when the New York Post used a graphic photo of a woman comitting suicide by jumping off a building on their front cover, I think the Herald was aware of the shock value of the photo and wanted to use it to move papers. Which is definitely the wrong reason to use the photos. In fact the Herald is probably enjoying all the attention they're getting from running these photos which is a shame because it takes away from the real story - that an innocent bystander, happy that her favorite team won, ended up dead instead of back in her dorm room at the end of the night.