To run or not to run?

Editors face many ethical decisions with a newspaper - especially the photos. Through happiness, anger and sadness, photos have the ability to activate a lot of emotion and thought. But how far is too far? Readers sometimes accuse newspapers of selling their papers through emotion. Editors must make careful decisions when evaluating a photo. Although there are ethical considerations, there is not always a single, correct answer.

1. I chose to run the first photo of Bud Dwyer (1a). This photo gives the readers a clear enough image of what was happening. I believe the last two would be too graphic for readers to see. The second photo is OK. I like the first photo better, because it is not only more dramatic, but it is also a better picture. We discussed this photo in my J250 class (Ethics and Diversity) class last semester. A photographer also had a picture of Dwyer spinning the pistol around in the air. My ethical limit would be when he puts the pistol in his mouth and fires.

2. I debated a lot about this photo. The photo shows a little boy mourning the loss of his dog. I think this invades his privacy and would also play too much off the reader's emotions. However, the picture of the dog is clean; there is no blood, and the audience cannot see its face. I would only consider this photo if there was a situation that caused a car to hit the dog. For example, maybe the highway needs improvement.

3. This photo does not need to be published in a paper. If the picture with the dead dog was invasive, this picture is ten times more dramatic and intrusive. This picture shows too much emotion. Readers would not get much out of the photo either, besides tragedy.

4. This photo adds nothing to a paper. A story about a shooting in a newspaper plant would be more than sufficent. The readers do not need to see a picture of a dead man to believe there was a shooting.

5. This photo could be run, but only because the boy ended up being OK. I thought he had died at first, but after I saw he was OK, I think it is acceptable. I admit it is a very intesting picture, but it may not be for everybody. If I had to take a chance, I would run this.

6. No. This picture would not run in my newspaper. The upside to running this picture is that perhaps the perpetrators could be indentified. However, I believe this is the lesser of the good now. I'm concerned for the victim's privacy. Most likely, the only person who'll recognize the girl is her. Many readers would also be offended for such a graphic photo.

All editors have their own opionions and ethical standards. Editors must know the audience but also respect the subject's privacy and emotions. Whatever choice editors make, they must be able to back up their reasons when readers complain about a certain picture - or else it can come back to haunt them.