Re: Media Ethics Discussion -- COM101 Mass Communications

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:56:00 12/11/08 Thu
Author: Marangeliz Tirado
Subject: Re: Media Ethics Discussion
In reply to: Richard Lenoce 's message, "Media Ethics Discussion" on 17:59:45 11/21/08 Fri

Scenario #5: "A photo that had to be used": Anatomy of a newspaper's decision
by Robin Hughes, Editor.

After a shooting spree at Standard Gravure by one of the printing company's former
employees, The Courier-Journal published a front-page photograph of one of the victims. The
photograph showed the dead victim lying on his back at the bottom of the stairs, his arms
spread out and his body partially resting on a track used to move large rolls of paper. The
photograph prompted more than 500 complaints and a lawsuit that went all the way to the
Supreme Court.
Should the Courier Journal published the photo? What purpose did publishing the photo
serve? Did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the family or the paper. Explain.

After a shooting spree that occurred at Standard Gravure by one of the printing company's former employees, The Courier-Journal published a front-page photograph of one of the victims. The photograph showed the dead victim lying on his back at the bottom of the stairs, his arms spread out and his body partially resting on a track used to move large rolls of paper. There were more than 500 complaints and a lawsuit. The lawsuit was won by Courier-Journal which went all the way to the Supreme Court. As stated when Thomas Hardin an editor for Louisville Courier-Journal saw the photograph of the shooting victim lying dead he knew that was the "photo that had to be used." My opinion I believe Courier-Journal should have never published the photo that shows no type of respect for the victim�s family, it shows they have no type of character and are so insensitive. The victim�s family filed a suit, accusing the newspaper for intentionally and recklessly inflicted mental distress on the family and that publication of the photo was invading their privacy.
Hardin exact words were "In 25 years, I don�t remember a situation in our coverage area where an event was so tragic or public, "Coupled with the national debate on automatic weapons, the use of the photo was validated.�
People were shocked and disagreed with Hardin publishing the horrific picture.
David Hawpe another editor stated "We did think about the impact such a picture might have on the family and friends of the victim, and we also thought about the need to confront readers in our community with the full consequences of gun violence."
In their eyes the purpose for the photo to be published was to show the reality of what assault weapons are capable of. Hawpe�s and Hardin�s theory is that a less graphic photograph would not have been as effective. I think Hardin and Hawpe really didn�t take into consideration of the grieving family and they believed it was ok when it wasn�t. What upset me the most was that Hawpe and Hardin both agreed that they would do the same thing again they were happy with their decision of publishing the photo.

http://journalism.indiana.edu/resources/ethics/controversial-photos/a-photo-that-had-to-be-used/

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Media Ethics Discussion -- Deb Beardsley (Scenario # 1), 01:14:29 12/12/08 Fri

Re: Media Ethics Discussion -- Jamie Beckwith, 15:30:35 12/14/08 Sun