VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:33:10 11/30/08 Sun
Author: Paul Parzych
Subject: Re: Media Ethics Discussion
In reply to: Richard Lenoce 's message, "Media Ethics Discussion" on 17:59:45 11/21/08 Fri

Paul Parzych
Richard Lenoce
Mass Communication
Essay 5 Media ethics
1 December 2008

Scenario #5: "A photo that had to be used": Anatomy of a newspaper's decision
by Robin Hughes, Editor.
After a shooting spree at Standard Gravure by one of the printing company's former
employees, The Courier-Journal published a front-page photograph of one of the victims. The
photograph showed the dead victim lying on his back at the bottom of the stairs, his arms
spread out and his body partially resting on a track used to move large rolls of paper. The
photograph prompted more than 500 complaints and a lawsuit that went all the way to the
Supreme Court.
Should the Courier Journal published the photo? What purpose did publishing the photo
serve? Did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the family or the paper. Explain.







In this scenario, an editor of a newspaper decided to publish a graphic photo of an innocent homicide victim on the front page of a morning newspaper. While the newspaper editor claimed that publishing the photo served the public interest, I contend that the photo should never have been published in the first place, and if so, certainly not on the front page. In my opinion, publication of the photo demonstrated insensitivity, and a lack of respect towards the victim’s family, and only served to advance the profits and to promote the anti-gun agenda of the newspaper’s editorial staff. By publishing the photo of the dead man, the newspaper violated standards of decency and ethics that are held by respected journalistic organizations, and professors of journalism alike.

While researching this incident, I found the full article from which this scenario was apparently based, on a website of the Indiana School of journalism. According to the online editor’s notes that introduce the article, the lawsuit filed by the victim’s family, which was reviewed by the Supreme Court, was won by the newspaper. (Hughes). The article did not include a copy of the photo, and the online editor explains that “The Courier-Journal has denied permission to republish the photo here”, but states that “A copy of the photograph can be seen in FineLine, October 1989, p. 3” (Hughes). I could not find a copy of the photo, or the issue of the FineLine publication, which is just as well, because I really have no personal need to see any more dead people, and feel that a description of the photo is enough to convince me that publishing it was a bad idea. I wonder if the Courier-Journal’s refusal to allow publishing the photo is based on wanting to avoid future lawsuits, regret over publishing the photo in the first place, or if the decision is a corporate policy of the owners of the newspaper. According to the newspaper’s website, The Courier-Journal is owned by the “Gannett Co., Inc., a Fortune 500 company that publishes 103 daily newspapers worldwide, including USA Today”. (About the Courier Journal). While a locally owned newspaper has more freedom to print what it deems appropriate, one that is owned by a large corporation may be under tighter constraints.

Although I can’t be sure of the motive behind the newspaper’s refusal to allow the photo to be republished in the ethics article, there is no doubt that the editor felt he was justified in publishing the photo back in 1989. According to Hughes, the editor of the newspaper, David Hawpe states, “The photo did what I wanted it to do by showing the reality of what assault weapons are capable of," Hawpe said. "A less graphic photograph would not have been as effective" (Hughes). Hawpes explained that “the need to confront readers in our community with the full consequences of gun violence." was more important, and so decided to run the photo, despite the objections of the widow of the victim, who was spoken to before the photo was published. (Hughes). When asked if he would make the same decision, considering the effects it had on those who objected, Hawpe replied, “Yes, I’d do the same thing again," Hawpe said. "I am comfortable with our decision. No, that’s not the right word. We made a defensible decision." (Hugues). His rational is echoed by other editors, as well. Quill magazine, which is sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists, published an article entitled “Why did they do that?”, which discusses difficult ethical decisions made by newspaper editors. An incident is discussed in the article written by John Clark and Marla Miller, in which Victoria Snelgrove, a young journalist student, was killed by a plastic ball filled with pepper spray that was shot by a Boston policeman who was attempting to control a crowd of wild baseball fans. The student was hit in the eye, and died soon after. Photos of her were published the next day by two local papers, and like the Standard Gravure incident, hundreds of reads wrote letters of complaint. (Clark and Miller). Ken Chandler, The editorial director of The Herald explained his reasons for showing the photo, which was prominently displayed on the front page under a lurid headline; "Our aim was to illustrate this terrible tragedy as comprehensively as possible and to prevent a repetition by portraying the harsh reality of what can happen when a crowd acts irresponsibly," (Clark and Miller). In his explanation, Chandler admits that he published the photo in an attempt to control the behavior of crowds. Maybe he felt he was doing the right thing at the time, but his actions only served to add insult to the injuries suffered by the family and friends of the victim. Unlike the editor of the Courier-Journal, Chandler ultimately regretted his decision, and states, “In retrospect, the images of this unusually ugly incident were too graphic. I apologize to the Snelgroves and the community at large". (Clark and Miller). Did Chandler change his mind because he suddenly became genuinely sorry for the pain he may have inflicted on innocent people, or did he suddenly realize that angry readers can decrease sales just as much as lurid photos and headlines can increase sales?

While I can understand why editors would want to use graphic photos to illustrate the effects of tragedies, I can’t help thinking that their motivation to use such photos is to sell a lot of newspapers, along with promoting their agendas. Courier-Journal editor Hawpes feels that showing dead bodies is justified because it will show people the “full consequences of gun violence” (Hughes). Using this logic, a newspaper editor who opposes abortion could best serve the public by displaying aborted fetuses, as is often done by those who participate in anti-abortion rallies. For maximum impact, the photos should be in color, right on the front page, along with the names and pictures of the mothers and doctors involved. Continuing along this line of reasoning, an editor who feels strongly about war could justify showing photos of the bloody remains of soldiers who were killed by bombing, or land mines, on the basis of illustrating the horrors of war. While photos can more clearly illustrate the point of a story, consideration should be given to the families of the victims before deciding to publish photos of dead people, in my opinion. As far as I know, it is not illegal to publish photos of dead people, which is why, I presume, that the lawsuit filed by surviving family members resulted in a ruling in favor of the newspaper. Regardless of that, what is legal is not always ethical.

The Society for Professional Journalists “is the nation’s most broad-based journalism organization, dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and stimulating high standards of ethical behavior”, according to a statement on their website.(SJC). A code of ethics is presented that encourages reporters to “minimize harm”. The code states that” journalists should. . . Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. . . Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief. . . Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity. (Code of Ethics). In my view, the editor of Courier-Journal violated all of these rules by publishing the photo of the body of the victim. While the widow of the victim and her family were asked how they felt about the photo, their wishes were ignored. Publishing the photo on the front page, where it could not be avoided, certainly did not show good taste or compassion. I’m not sure what the SJC would have to say about the Courier-Journal photo, but in 2002, the ethics committee issued a statement that declared that Boston Phoenix newspaper’s editorial staff “crossed an ethical line when it printed a photograph of Daniel Pearl’s severed head.”, citing violations of the same ethics codes I listed above. (SPJ Ethics Committee issues statement on publication of Pearl photos). The photo in question was taken from a video made by the captors of Daniel Pearl, and was prominently displayed on the front page of the newspaper. In the statement, the committee explained that “Granted, there is a certain awful truth that the photo represents. The hatred his murderers have for Jews and Americans is crystallized in the image, but that truth does not outweigh the harmful shock to readers and to Pearl’s family”. (SPJ Ethics Committee issues statement on publication of Pearl photos). Because the Boston Phoenix and Courier-Journal newspapers both showed gruesome pictures of homicide victims on the front page, I fail to see why the SJC ethics committee would not consider them both guilty of violating the code of ethics. In chastising the Boston Phoenix for their use of the photo, the SJC committee made a statement that I feel is relevant to the Courier-Journal editors; “Ethical journalists respect the sensibilities of their readers, viewers and listeners. In this case, seeing the actual image adds little if anything to our already horrific imagination of the event”. (SPJ Ethics Committee issues statement on publication of Pearl photos).

Tim Mcguire, a journalism ethics professor at Arizona State University discusses the “wild west” mentality of new media, such as found in blogs and other internet postings. In his view, there is still a need for ethics standards when posting photographs in any media form, and has compiled a list that he has admittedly borrowed from various authors and colleagues. Within his list are a few items that demonstrate to me that the Courier-Journal was wrong to publish the photo. “Dead bodies carry a presumption that you don’t use it. All the flags have to go up. This must be discussed. Ask whether this photo is going to embarrass or shame an innocent person or a minor. If the flags have gone up and there is a discussion, will publishing this photo serve a larger purpose and contribute to the common good in some way? (Mcguire). Although the editors of the Courier-Journal did discuss publishing the photo before publishing it, and felt they were serving a greater good by informing people of the dangers of guns, they ultimately decided to ignore the wishes of the victim’s family. I am sure that with or without the photo, everyone who read the newspaper was aware of the dangers of guns after the killing spree.

In searching the internet for news about this incident, I encountered a book entitled “Photo Journalism an Ethical Approach”, written by Professor Paul Martin Lester of Cal. State university in Fullerton. In chapter eight, entitled “Juggling journalism and Humanism”, Lester discusses the Courier-Journal photo, and is not surprised that readers reacted so strongly to it, claiming that displaying the photo met “Six of the requirements for a reader firestorm”, which he listed in an earlier chapter as:”
“* it was taken by a staff photographer,
* it comes from a local story,
* the image is printed in color,
* the image is printed in a morning paper,
* the image is printed on the front page,
* it has no story accompaniment,
* it shows people overcome with grief,
* it shows the victim's body,
* the body is physically traumatized,
* the victim is a child, and
* nudity is involved. “(Lester ).
Lester speaks to the use of controversial photos in terms of people’s philosophical principles. He posits that photo journalists are interested in benefitting society as a whole, and feel it is their duty to show the day’s events, no matter how graphic the images are. In Lester’s view, this philosophy “could be interpreted as a form of Utilitarianism”. (Lester). As far as those who write letters of complaint about such images, Lester believes” The underlying philosophy for those letter writers is most probably the Golden Rule.” (Lester). Lester is likely referring to the philosophy of Aristotle’s “Golden Mean”, which he defines in chapter three as “. . . finding a middle ground, a compromise between two extreme points of view or actions” (Lester). Lester has no solution to bridging the gap between these two philosophies, but emphasizes that photo journalists need to use some form of ethics in order to be successful.

While I agree it is important to accurately record news events, I feel that everyone has a right to basic privacy, particularly after a family member suffers a traumatic event, such as a violent death. The death of a prominent person, such as a celebrity, or politician is certainly news, and it would be unrealistic to expect the press to not cover it, but out of respect for their families, the coverage should be as minimally invasive as possible. The death of an ordinary citizen as a result of a killing spree is also big news, but news media in all forms should take care to avoid offending the surviving family members, who are already feeling devastated. Seeing the injured corpse of a loved one on television or on the front page of a newspaper can haunt someone for years, and compound the problems they are suddenly facing. If there is any doubt about the photo’s impact on family members, I think an online response to the “a photo that had to be used” posting is very instructive, particularly because it was posted some 18 years after the incident;
“My father was shot in this incident. The picture that was on the front of the courier-journal was terrible. Can you imagine seeing your family member or friend spread out on the front page of the local paper like that? It was a terrible time for everyone and to be smacked in the face by it the next day was even more terrifying.” (Hughes).



Works Cited
“About the Courier Journal”. Courier-Journal. 30 Nov. 2008. /apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=999980212018>

“About the Society” Society of Professional Journalists 2008. 30 Nov. 2008.
.

Clark, John., and Marla Miller. “Why did they do that?”. Quill. Apr. 2005. Society of
Professional Journalists. Ebsco Host. MXCC Library. 6017/ehost/pdf?vid=8&hid=112&sid=28e0f57b-2bab-4d4e-a24d-f57ddf53a6c5%
40sessionmgr103>

“Code of Ethics”. Society of Professional Journalists. 2008. 28 Nov. 2008. ethicscode.asp>.

Hughes, Robin Lynn. “A photo that had to be used”. FineLine: The Newsletter on Journalism
Ethics, vol. 1, no. 7 (October 1989) 28 Nov. 2008. ethics/controversial-photos/a-photo-that-had-to-be-used/>

Lester, Paul Martin. Photojournalism an ethical approach. Hillsdale, New Jersey. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. 1991. 28 Nov. 2008. pjethics.html>.

Mcguire, Tim. “Mcguire on Media”. Weblog post. Cronkite.asu.edu. 24 Mar. 2008. 28
Nov. 2008. .
“SPJ Ethics Committee issues statement on publication of Pearl photos “. Society of Professional
Journalists 26 Jun 2002 30 Nov. 2008.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.