• 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.

    May 4, 2011 at 7:24 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 4, 2011 at 7:13 p.m.

  • I vote for the photo on an inside page, with a warning on the front page. It is news and you are a newspaper.

    May 4, 2011 at 4:08 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 4, 2011 at 1:41 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    May 4, 2011 at 11:43 a.m.

  • Yes you have to show'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/ can't tell me one is more upsetting than the other?

    May 4, 2011 at 11:36 a.m.

  • 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

    May 4, 2011 at 10:53 a.m.

  • Don't do it.

    May 4, 2011 at 10:34 a.m.

  • "Family newspaper"?? Does that mean you only publish "nice" stories? Only family-oriented stories? Please define....

    May 4, 2011 at 10:08 a.m.

  • 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.

    May 4, 2011 at 8:42 a.m.

  • 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.

    May 3, 2011 at 11:03 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 3, 2011 at 7:55 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 3, 2011 at 7:41 p.m.

  • For once I completely agree with Mike. Publish the picture. Online only preferably.

    May 3, 2011 at 7:30 p.m.

  • 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 (internet public library).

    May 3, 2011 at 6:42 p.m.

  • Uhhhh, Yeah. It's news, isn't it?

    May 3, 2011 at 5:35 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 3, 2011 at 5:16 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 3, 2011 at 5:15 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    May 3, 2011 at 5:12 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 3, 2011 at 4:53 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 3, 2011 at 4:38 p.m.

  • Be a respectable publication and do not publish the pictures. They are not needed - they are nothing but an accoutrement to the story

    May 3, 2011 at 4:31 p.m.

  • 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.

    May 3, 2011 at 4:28 p.m.

  • -- 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

    May 3, 2011 at 4:25 p.m.