I delayed viewing the slide show for several hours the other night because I was not looking forward to a graphic depiction of war time violence. When I finally mustered up the nerve to watch, it was with trepedition. However, I think that it was tastefully done considering the content. I rewatched it a second time to ensure I had an objective viewing from which to comment on. While the family is a significant stakeholder to consider, I believe that this story and corresponding photos should have been published as some news institutions choose to do because it is based upon the foundation that this was the worst battle to date. After viewing the other photos from war that were shared in class, including the Pulizter Prize winning one, my opinion is stronger that this photo should not have been withheld.
Jeanette
href="<$BlogItemURL$>"><$BlogItemTitle$>
2 comments:
Tasteful isn't quite the word I'd use. I'm okay with a news story being brutal and to the point, so long as all of it's claims are legitimate and the point is not to be sensationalist drama, but conveyance of realistic information.
Even if the photo was a lot more violent and bloody than the one taken, I still believe it should be posted. I believe that the nature of a photo of a dead soldier is irrelevant so long as it's presented in a respectful manner with the intent to inform.
I agree---the intent to inform is the operative word when dealing with issues such as these. Last spring, I took the Breaking News class taught by Dan Bersak and incidentally he is the person that took that infamous photo of the girl shot during the Red Sox post win riot. The one with the cops turned away. We spoke about the ethical issue he had to face, especially since he is a trained first responder. He had a choice to make, much like the photographer here who admitted she grappled with whether to help or not. Obviously, he chose to snap some shots instead of help. He said his reason for doing so was because there were some people helping her at the time and he was trying to tell a story and not interfere with what was happening so as to change the story. (The story there being the cops that paid no attention).
So I guess what I am trying to say in a long roundabout way is that he told a very important story with his picture and those officers were punished for their inaction. In the grand scheme of things, that one photo, gruesome and disturbing as it was, made a difference for many people. The police were punished for their inaction. It made the public more aware of who was "protecting" them so they could fix it. Just like a disturbing picture of a marine dying makes the public more aware of the casualties and harms of war so that maybe we can do more to try and avoid it in the future or be thankful to those who have no choice but to fight for us.
Post a Comment