Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
DanEaston, the consensus that says skeptics will continue to be skepticle is completely ignorant. Not coming out and proving it makes one skepticle. Just hearing it from a bunch of politicians that a person that had rumored to be dead was killed at a place no one believes he would ever be at by an ultra top secret team that no one knows who is on and can say they are on, and FOR ONCE we honor/dishonor muslim tradition and then bury him quickly with the sharks...yeah not releasing the photo did more damage than good. I guess he is a little different that Hussein and his brothers, different from the leader of the taliban which I saw on multiple news sources with 10 bullet holes....yeah we always dont put the picture out....bologne. The specific purpose is putting the entire nation, including the families who lost people on 9/11, at ease.
Very interesting discussion. I'm at a conference with a bunch of other US and Canadian publishers. The majority say they wouldn't publish. Primary reason is that we don't show images of dead without a very specific purpose and these images won't serve any purpose because skeptics will continue to be skeptical, and ultimately publishing them just fans the flames of hatred.
Even though it appears these photos aren't being released now, this has been an excellent discussion. Photos tend to stir emotions more than just about anything else we publish. They are that powerful.Here's another column on the topic:http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/ethics/?p...
I vote for the photo on an inside page, with a warning on the front page. It is news and you are a newspaper.
Moot point now. I support our Presidents choice to not release the photos. They would serve no purpose than to incite more hatred. If folks want blood watch TV.
Well, I spoke too soon:http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/...
No decision to make.
Fascinating feedback. Thanks to all. Keep those thoughts coming. Nothing new yet on the U.S. government decision regarding releasing the photos.
KCI, you ask a question about what is a family newspaper. Others say the photo is clearly news, so what's the question. Still others say no way should we publish the horrible image.
Newspapers have long tried to balance between being a publication the entire family can be comfortable reading and presenting the unvarnished truth in all of its ugly forms. Another way of saying that is we consider the community's standards before we publish. As you can see from the dictionary definition, that's an open and ever-shifting test:
"Community standards are local norms bounding acceptable conduct. Sometimes these standards can be itemized in a list that states the community's values and sets guidelines for participation in the community. ...."
Sometimes, the news is so important and compelling that we publish even though we know we will upset some or even many readers. We never set out, though, to do that gratuitously.
Based on the reaction so far, I'm leaning toward a middle ground and publishing the photo in some sort of limited way.
This comment was removed by the user.
Yes you have to show it...it's major news. And on the front page, you can't tell me it would not be the biggest story? You did show the two towers smoking on 9/12/2001....you can't tell me one is more upsetting than the other?
Had a really nasty solution to the dilemma...Get a really big enlargement made of the most gruesome photo and get W.P.Tasin to carry it around town for you. He likes to do that sort of thing,i'm told.Patrick Barnes
Don't do it.
"Family newspaper"?? Does that mean you only publish "nice" stories? Only family-oriented stories? Please define....
Maybe on-line only. I know I don't care to see them and that will allow me to read my morning paper in peace. I don't need to see them to believe that he's really the guy they offed.
Do not publish the picture. We have enough folks looking for the next car wreck. He is dead. The photo will not make him any deader. There is no reason to give his followers more reason to act like he was a idol instead of a animal that would eat his young.
No photo. Why reduce ourselves to the level of the Taliban or Al Queda? We killed Osama -- all you birthers and disbelievers can take it or leave it. We don't care.
It's a major event and perhaps the biggest news story of the year.
Choosing not to publish it would amount to nothing more than strong-handed censorship.
News photos aren't meant to be cute or artsy. They are meant to document a moment in time. And they can -- on occasion -- be rather gruesome, as in the case of fatality scenes, murders, etc.
If someone can't handle the photo of Bin Laden, then they probably shouldn't be reading a newspaper at all in the first place. And they sure as heck shouldn't own a TV set.
After all, there'll be more blood and gore on the next episode of CSI than what the Bin Laden photo would show.
For once I completely agree with Mike. Publish the picture. Online only preferably.
The Advocate should publish the photo. I would prefer it be online only, but if it is to be in the print edition, an inside page would be more suitable. If it chooses not to publish these pictures, those of us who wish to see them can find them in many national and international newspapers found at www.ipl.com (internet public library).
Just found this article that goes into more depth on the issue:
Uhhhh, Yeah. It's news, isn't it?
We deserve closure, so I am in favor of showing the body. I don't even mind if the gruesome part of the head wound is blurred, but I do want to see the body.However, I also feel as though that the Advocate should have the image on a page buried within section A of the paper with a warning.
Yes, make it available online, not in print. The Mexicans have his picture online. Just google "blogdelnarco" and you can find it on the right side bar of this site. They also have one of his bedroom, if you can stomach the pictures they post of their drug war casualties. I believe OBL’s picture is authentic. It was posted sometime before Monday morning.
I really and truly despair that we haven't evolved past cheering at the words "killed" or "dead," and that some would even want to see that image. Here's an idea, editorial staff: You are educated. You have journalistic ideals of integrity to uphold. Set an example, even if the national publications go the nasty, shameful, sensationalist way. Because if you publish that picture, it's nothing short of trash, whatever lame excuses you might make. But you have the opportunity to be a small Texas paper who took the high road and did what people like Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, Mandela, and King, Jr. might have advised. Don't give in to the blood lust! Set high humanist standards for your paper and make a difference in your community.
Do not publish it. If it can be found online, let it stay there. No use subjecting small kids to gruesome pics like that at home.
Be a respectable publication and do not publish the pictures. They are not needed - they are nothing but an accoutrement to the story
Publish the photo because we will either see it on TV,a magazine, another newspaper or the Internet.....If anyone believes that our national security leaders,military, or the Pakistan government took part in a conspiracy,they won't be swayed by a picture in the Advocate.....Chose the page of your choice because if you take too much time, most of your viewers would have already seen elsewhere...BTW good info in this morning's paper.
-- Publish the photo on an inside page with a warning on the front page. Rationale: We won't upset as many readers with this softer approach.
this seems like the best route to me