Fallen Marine

It is the job of a journalist to bring the truth to the people. In running pictures, photo journalism, I would have to say that I agree with their decision to run the photo. The picture brings truth to the exact momement of which the reporting was done about. People were able to see first hand the reality of the situation for themsleves. It was not as if the picture was taken and then described by the journalist for the people. Instead, the people were able to see first hand what the journalist saw and were able to infer the truth of the moment and the situation for themselves.

But, things are never that cut and dry. I agree with a lot of what has already been said on here about the privacy of the family and the father's wishes and the humanity issue behind the publishing of the photograph. I can be just as swayed by that side in most cases, except when it comes to journalism. I think that journalists would be cheating themselves and the public if they neglected to bring everything they had to the table. We are not in the situation as journalists are and because of this, they have a duty to bring the truth of the moment to the public and that is what I believe the journalist did in this situation.

I also do not believe that papers need to explain why they made the decision that they did to run a photo. As discussed in class with the Vietnam cover. I believe that by running an "explanation" of why they came to the decision to run a piece is like printing a retraction of sorts. "We ran the pic, but just in case we offend someone, here's why." I feel that situation is sort of a scapegoat. Run a pic, and stand by it. Report the truth. Some may feel that this is a hard core or irresponsible approach, but I strongly feel that journalists shoudl not wade through and only present diluted versions of situations. Run everything you have or do not run anything at all.