So is posting a photo of a dead person laying on the street on the MacResource forum is ok now?

[Lew Zealand]

Thanks for that insight Ombligo, I found it valuable.

[RAMd®d]

To say the image doesn't bother me wouldn't be accurate.

But it wasn't posted for amusement, and the pic itself isn't gore or gross.

I see it as a comment on tragedy, even without context of the five Ws.

To me, intent plays a big part in my reaction.

For my part, I've found the Darwin comments to be far more offensive then this pic.

I'll rephrase- I find the Darwin comments to be crude, thoughtless, and bereft of dignity and compassion. But hey, that's just me.

This pic is none of that.

[Blankity Blank]

Ombligo wrote:
Time for the old photo-editor to chime in.

... 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.

Are you saying the photo itself should be less ambiguous, or is it acceptable practice for the detailed context to be in the text of the story?

Reading the Guardian’s story I found the second aspect present; and I would have no argument that the photo on its own is sorely lacking in the storytelling component.

Thinking back, I’m not even sure if the photo was taken by a professional or a bystander (The term ‘citizen journalist’ makes me want to throat punch the speaker miley-signs006: ).

[Ombligo]

Ideally, a photo should not be ambiguous - it also should stand on its own as a storytelling element. The word and the photos should work together to explain the story, not to explain each other. Each element should be able to stand independently of the other. But together they should exceed the storytelling of each alone.

That is not always possible but in the strongest visuals, it generally is.

[Speedy]

[spoiler=Dead body, not for the sensitive.]

[/spoiler]

[RgrF]

The source has something to do with the decision as well, In a previous life I edited and ended up publisher of a local newspaper. It was a serious broadsheet that ended up a tabloid, although never stooping to what are regarded as tab standards.

I mentioned that because when I first saw that photo I thought two things.
First: does this tell a story in a way no headline can and that the Chinese government won't and
Second: Do I trust the source, in this case The Guardian, to have vetted both photo and story.

I posted the thread so that answers the first and as to the second, I've been reading The Guardian for years and find it to be a reliable trustworthy news site.

This isn't kindergarten, if the photo offended some sensibilities - well life or in this case death often does that. AFAIK this isn't an escapist forum but one that deals with issues that range from profane to sublime to mundane.

Most of my posts would probably be filed under the last category.

[NewtonMP2100]

....you are dead....on......

[mattkime]

Didn't bother me.

[NewtonMP2100]

....this is a grave.....accusation.....

[RAMd®d]

Ideally, a photo should not be ambiguous - it also should stand on its own as a storytelling element. The word and the photos should work together to explain the story, not to explain each other. Each element should be able to stand independently of the other. But together they should exceed the storytelling of each alone.

A terrific, concise explanation.


I first saw that photo I thought two things.
First: does this tell a story in a way no headline can and that the Chinese government won't and
Second: Do I trust the source, in this case The Guardian, to have vetted both photo and story.

Another on point, salient comment.