Today I made a judgment call. As an editor, I do this a lot. But the decision to not run the extremely graphic photos of the Empire State Building shooter's lifeless body was among the most important I've made this year.
It's been a tough year in the newsroom, with a seemingly endless stream of violent shootings in very public places. Until today, the most recent was the Aurora, Colo., "Dark Knight" massacre. During these times, the news team has to make dozens of on-the-fly decisions about how we'll approach a breaking and still-developing story and what is news and what is simply exploitation.
The images that came out of Aurora were disturbing, yet not graphic. The images I saw today shortly after the shootings just outside the Empire State Building were graphic, disturbing and instantly unforgettable.
So why didn't I run them?
When I looked at the photo of the man lying on the ground, surrounded by police officers and clearly dead of a gunshot wound to the head, I could barely believe it. It's not the kind of image I see without warning on TV, on the web, in newspapers. Even after a caution, networks usually don't show something that graphic (though they sometimes do, I know).
It's actually a series of images, which have since been removed, on a Flickr account. The photographer was in the area and took five or six very clear images of the police moving around and the victim, who was lying very, very still in a pool of blood.
Seeing it felt like punch in the gut. It made me queasy, but the image itself did not add anything to our news reporting.
We discussed the photos in the newsroom. Should we run them? No one wanted to and I decided against it. Another photo emerged, this time on Instagram, of a victim (he may have been an Empire State Building tour ticket-taker) who was wounded but not obviously dead. This one was somewhat less graphic and, yes, I considered running it. The guy who took the photo was inundated on Twitter with requests from other news organizations to run it.
We did not join the chorus, though, when we realized we weren't 100% sure if the victim was dead or alive and if his family had been notified. At the time, the numbers of wounded and killed were unknown, as was the severity of the injuries. Again, I couldn't say that this image would have added anything to Mashable's report on the event, so I passed. Later in the afternoon, when it became clear that the man in the photo was injured but expected to recover, we ran the photo in a related story.
Overall, I think I made the right call.
Graphic images of dead and wounded people do not make the news any more or less real. The shootings at the Empire State Building happened. Mashable's job is to tell that story and give it context. Such images doubtlessly trigger strong emotions, but they did not help unravel the conflicting reports of the total number of people shot or make sense of the somewhat contradictory versions of the sequence of events.
Other sites, though, clearly felt differently and ran the photos. Some of the readers and those who followed the links to the stories through Twitter were upset. I'm not here to bash those newsrooms, because I know it's a tough decision. Each editor believes that he or she knows their readers and what they can and can't stomach and what kind of information they desire.
I simply didn't think the Mashable audience wanted to see those images. I wish I never had. But maybe that's just me.
It is hard to know where to draw the line on graphic photos and video. People say they know pornography when they see it and it's easy to weed out. Is violence the same way? We see violence in film, but know it's fake, so perhaps that makes it okay. The violence in, say, the Expendables is far worse than these images, and yet, I don't have the same reaction because I know no one has died; it's all make-believe.
When I saw that photo of a body on the ground in a pool of blood, I felt very differently than when I saw that movie. I guess, as with pornography, you know the real thing when you see it.
So if I'm so certain, why ask the question? Because I have doubts. Three photos immediately come to mind and they are, perhaps, only slightly less graphic that the images I saw today: Martin Luther King lying on the balcony, surrounded by supporters shortly after being shot by James Earl Ray; the Kent State massacre where a young woman is weeping over the face-down body of a shot classmate; and Robert F. Kennedy, captured eyes open, with a pool of blood spreading out below him as he succumbs to a gunshot wound from his assassin, Sirhan Sirhan. Those, too, are all arresting images.
I've been seeing most of them since I was young. They're all in black and white, so blood, if there is any, is black. No wounds are visible and the Kennedy photo is almost, to be honest, artistic. Still, I imagine some will point to these examples as they make a case for why I'm just plain wrong.
So here begins a conversation. Was I wrong? Should Mashable have run those images? What would you think if you saw such an image on the site? Weigh in in the comments.
Image courtesy of iStockphoto, carlballou
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario