As journalists, only writing about stuff is not sufficient to tell the whole news to readers, photo is another key element of a good story. But making decisions about whether to run certain photograph or not sometimes could be tougher compared with making decisions on content. Because image has more straightforward impact on audience than words.
Last week in my last class of journalism ethics, a very disturbing photograph published on Mercury News was showed to the class. It’s Richard Allen Davis, the convicted killer of abducted child, giving vulgar gesture to the camera. It’s unclear that who/what is his target and why he did this gesture, but the fact that the editor approved this photograph to be published on the front page has caused controversy.
“Would you run this photograph?” The answer is not easy. This photo is offensive, shocking, disturbing, while it feeds the audience’s curiosity about the character of a convicted killer. The editor made his choice, but I think if I were him I would do the opposite.
As Foreman concluded in his book, when journalists analyze the news value of an offensive photograph, they also need to consider the ways of minimizing the likely harm. The photograph on the front page of a newspaper of a killer who showed no regret but only hate to the public would haunt the victim’s family in a lifetime.
A good example is the report on LA Times Javier Bolden, one of the shooter that killed Ying Wu and Ming Qu, smiling when Wu’s father addressed the court about his loss. The reporter decided not to publish the photo and did not include the scene of the smiling in the video as well.
Foreman’s solution is simple and helpful in this case. I guess if I encounter this sort of issue, I’ll make my decision based on this statement:
“Decisions on this kind of content have to be on case-by-case basis. These decisions weigh the degree of offense and the news value of the specific photograph or video.”
To be continued 