So our journalism ethics discussion this week covered graphic photos--and we all know how viseral they can be.
According to my Prof: "Finally, journalists must take great care with the use of graphic photos.We must be courageous enough to use them when the message they send is important, but smart enough not to use them to shock or for their sensational value. Graphic photos that illustrate the consequences of government policy are often used even if they might offend."
And to drive home the point her discussion question asked, "Can you think of a recent photo or video that you found disturbing or offensive? Was there a good reason to run it, even at the risk of offending people?"
I used as an example when the Gazette two years ago put an AP photo on page one of a small child's lifeless hand sticking up out of the rubble clutching a pen--which more than graphically illustrated the damage the earthquake inflicted on China's Sichuan province where schools, because of shoddy construction, collapsed like a house of cards.
Today's AP photo graphically illustrates the government policy in Iraq for animal control. No question about that. My only question is, did they have to use such a cute dog?
My previous complaint
2 comments:
"If it bleeds it leads." Sad but true.
"We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet?
You know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet
Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry."
Post a Comment