Hi Guys.
If you all recall at the end of class today we looked at a photo on The Baltimore Sun's website.
It was from the article "18 shootings stem largely from drug feud police say Two fatally shot, 16 wounded in shootings on day of mayhem on Baltimore's east side" by Justin Fenton and Scott Calvert.
The photo was of a door with blood spatter. The caption read, "Blood can be seen spattered on the back door at the scene of a backyard cookout in East Baltimore at which people were shot and wounded". Professor Banisky asked us if we thought it was fine to put the picture in the paper.
Most of the people in class said it was because it was not that graphic.
I want to follow up by asking when is a picture too graphic? Can a picture be too graphic if it is the only source of what happened?
For example, during the Iran election, the only way to get the story out was for citizens to post pictures and blog. I for one feel that some of the pictures were a little bit too much, but it was the only way to learn what these people continue to go through.
So are certain photos allowed to be more graphic due to special circumstances?
Tell me what you think.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that certain pictures are definitely too graphic to use in a newspaper, whether online or in print. I actually didn't really like the picture of the blood spatter on the door. It was a very interesting, artistic, and powerful picture, but it is very dramatic. This isn't a movie, it's real life. That picture seemed more like a still from a horror film than a picture a reporter took at a crime scene where two people died.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where the line is exactly, and the picture in question in today's Sun is definitely on the border, but reporters must be careful when dealing with sensitive situations in which death is involved.
I think the blood spatter picture was too graphic, as I don't think people want to open their morning paper as they drink their coffee and see blood spraays from such brutal savegery. But, I can see why others would disagree.
ReplyDeleteThere are some things that indisputably too graphic, like corpses. I think pictures of deceased people's bodies -no matter who they are- should be kept out of the media.
I definitly do not agree with letting certain photos have the "ok" to be released if there is a special circumstance. I agree with Ann when it comes to corpses; they shouldn't be shown. I also don't think anything sexual in nature should be easily viewed on a newspaper.
ReplyDeleteToday's picture on The Baltimore Sun was a little creepy, but I can't really say it was too much
Maybe the rule should be: anything that a young child capable of understanding and can see should not be a photo allowed on a newspaper.
That could be a little harsh. Magazines contradict my rule, but I tried!
A lot of Pulitzer Prize winning photos contain very risque topics. Those pictures often do not grace the front page of the paper due ethical standards that the paper must withhold
ReplyDeleteI think a good photo is a good photo whether it is graphic or not. In the Baltimore Sun's case the most graphic of the pictures was not found on the front page so I think having that on the website really gives a good snapshot of what happened there. When a photo becomes an effective story or piece of art, then there should be no censorship in the picture.
Pictures are very important, but they only capture one moment, and one side of the story. When used correctly, they are a great enhancement to any story.
ReplyDeleteLook up "pulitzer prize vietnam photo" in google and you'll probably find the right picture. There's an amazing and disturbing picture from Vietnam of Vietnamese children running naked from a burning village. It's hard to look at the picture, but it shows just how depraved and destructive the war in Vietnam was, due to efforts from both sides.
Frankly, I don't think photos can ever cross the line. Maybe some shouldn't be on the front page, but it's a journalist's job to be honest and show the truth. Sometimes the truth is grotesque. I thought that the picture in the Sun was both artistic and enlightening. The contrast between the blood and the ketchup and mustard bottles showed not only that the incident occurred during a cookout, but also showed the sharp and scary break between casual gathering of friends and murder scene.
To add to Michael's point, I think that yes, it might be hard to see, but it's what happened and there is no denying it.
ReplyDeleteLike what we learned in the beginning of class, the story has to relate to people, and really have an effect on them. By having pictures like this it makes the reader realize the severity of the situation and it's easier to relate it to their own life. Even though it is gruesome to look at the picture, it adds extra to the story. I think that this is the purpose of all pictures and that it shouldn't be editing just because some people think that it might be too much for some readers to handle.
Thats not to say I think that about all scenarios, for instance I do agree with Shannon in that pictures containing sexual material should not be put in a paper even if it is relating to the story.
Pictures are extrememly important when it comes to getting the full look on a story. In my opinion I dont think the picture of the blood on the door was too much because that shows investigators what really happen in the result of the shooting.
ReplyDeletei think picture go to far when they violate the personal respect of someone. For example, if the media was to post an nude photo of someone to express that they were a sex offender. Even though that person has particating in that crime, I still feel as though that is persoanl humiliation, adding to the face that they have already been caught for being aa sex offender. Honestly, how much more edivence do you need.
So to conclude, I only think pictures are too much when they violate one personal respect, but if they add to the story they are perfectly fine.
I completely and honestly disagree. I don't believe that there is a line when it comes to posting pictures in a newspaper, whether it is in print or online. The public has a right to know what happens in their community and oftentimes a picture is the only way to convey the full message. Papers can include a disclaimer on a page before the picture saying that it may not be appropriate for some readers. Ann commented saying that she doesn't believe that corpses should be shown in print. Again I'm going to have to disagree. Pictures of corpses go to show, if you will, the graphic nature of some of humanities most brutal crimes. So, to conclude, pictures are an essential part of free press and to censor pictures is to hate America.
ReplyDeleteUntil next time,
ROCK ON!!!
Great comments guys.
ReplyDelete