02-01-2020, 12:30 AM
Time for the old photo-editor to chime in.
This was always a contentious issue in the newsroom and I was in the conversation more times than I care to remember. It was never a decision taken lightly and the idea that if it bleeds, it leads was not ever used. First and foremost, did the photo contribute to the story in a way that words did not - was the image newsworthy. If an image did not pass that basic test then it was never used. Were there other images that told the story as well (or nearly so) without showing a body. If there were, then most likely the body shot would not be used. Was the deceased shown in a dignified manner? This one can be tricky to explain, but perhaps an example - if a person's genitals were visible then it would definitely give pause, but would not necessarily eliminate the image from use (think of concentration camp images). The goal was to inform not to exploit.
We always knew there would be objections to ever using an image showing the deceased regardless of the circumstances. We could not let those override news decisions. Americans are amongst the most squeamish people in the world. In many other places throughout the world, I could randomly select a day and would almost be guaranteed of finding a dead person in a newspaper or TV report.
A photo can sometimes bring home the message in ways words never can - images are extremely powerful and there must be used with care.
Images showing death are never going to be easy to look at, but that does not mean they shouldn't be viewed. Death is a part of life and sometimes it needs to be seen.
However, in this particular instance, I personally do not believe the image truly adds to the storyline. There are too many unanswered questions about the circumstances of the photo. This is not to say that a death photo could not raise to the level in the Coronavirus story, but this one did not.
This was always a contentious issue in the newsroom and I was in the conversation more times than I care to remember. It was never a decision taken lightly and the idea that if it bleeds, it leads was not ever used. First and foremost, did the photo contribute to the story in a way that words did not - was the image newsworthy. If an image did not pass that basic test then it was never used. Were there other images that told the story as well (or nearly so) without showing a body. If there were, then most likely the body shot would not be used. Was the deceased shown in a dignified manner? This one can be tricky to explain, but perhaps an example - if a person's genitals were visible then it would definitely give pause, but would not necessarily eliminate the image from use (think of concentration camp images). The goal was to inform not to exploit.
We always knew there would be objections to ever using an image showing the deceased regardless of the circumstances. We could not let those override news decisions. Americans are amongst the most squeamish people in the world. In many other places throughout the world, I could randomly select a day and would almost be guaranteed of finding a dead person in a newspaper or TV report.
A photo can sometimes bring home the message in ways words never can - images are extremely powerful and there must be used with care.
Images showing death are never going to be easy to look at, but that does not mean they shouldn't be viewed. Death is a part of life and sometimes it needs to be seen.
However, in this particular instance, I personally do not believe the image truly adds to the storyline. There are too many unanswered questions about the circumstances of the photo. This is not to say that a death photo could not raise to the level in the Coronavirus story, but this one did not.