To publish, or not to publish...

Tricky, tricky. Deciding whether or not to publish potentially distasteful photographs in a newspaper ain’t easy. But here are my thoughts why these photos should be published or not:

1a; 2a; 3a; 4a – Publish them all. If I had to limit it to three pictures, it’d be 1a, 3a, and 4a. If only two could published, I’d have 3a and 4a, and if I could only publish one photo, I’d have 3a published.

However, the photos work best in a series. By itself, 1a is a plain photo. But its significance is what makes the photo essential. R. Budd Dwyer literally sets the stage for what is about to happen with the way he holds out his hand to the audience. Intentionally or not, he’s acknowledging that he's on display, and that we're always watching. This creates an eerie nature to the scene, not only because he’s about to kill himself in front of the media, but because he’s a politician at a press conference -- a scene we all thought we were familiar with. In short, without 1a, the irony and oddity of the situation would be lost.

And without 4a, there would be no point in publishing any of the photos. People may say that 4a should not be published at all, since it is graphic in how you can see the Dwyer shoot himself dead. But there is nothing gruesome about the photo other than the context of the situation. And even then, the context isn’t too revolting, since the man was only harming himself.

1 – Publish

Oddly enough, it was tougher to decide whether or not to publish this photo of a little boy grieving the loss of his dog’s life than the photo of the suicidal politician guy.

One of the reasons for that is because of the subject’s age. In this photo, the distraught emotions of a small child is about to go on display. Since that is the case, it is important to understand the effects on the boy if he sees his photo in the paper. Would it prompt him to get sadder? I doubt it. The photo does not depict a mangled-looking dead dog, and it merely shows the boy crying by him. The only reluctance I have to publishing this photo is what the little boy’s reaction would be.

2 – Do NOT publish

You can see the face of the dead boy, so this is a definite no-no in my mind. Case closed.

3 – Do NOT publish

Hmmm… This is a murdered adult whose face you cannot see… But he is still a murder victim. I don’t think any photo that shows the mangled body of a murder victim should be published without the family's consent.

4 – Publish

If the boy died, I would not publish the photo. But since he’s OK, I think it’s OK to print it. However, he appears to be on private property. Since that is the case, permission from he or his parents to publish the photos must be given.

Although this gives me the heebie-jeebies, it’s still a great picture. And it’s difficult to see how it could offend anyone.

5 – Do NOT Publish (but I really want to)

This gave me the hardest time. Part of me desperately wants to publish the picture, so readers can see the faces of all the sexist pigs THAT (they’re not human) molested the woman. It's one of the most disgusting photographs I’ve ever seen… which is why I want it published. Not because I enjoy seeing others suffer, but because I want to know what’s out there. That’s the whole point of news, isn’t it?

Also, since there is absolutely no way of identifying the woman (Since I doubt any of those pigs actually knew her name, and since she certainly won’t be willingly giving it out), there’s no way anyone other than the victim could get offended… right?

Even if that is right, it doesn’t matter. In a sexual assault case, no photo should go public without the consent of the victim. Although it’s a great photo, seeing her body splashed over the covers of newspapers could be another punch in the stomach for the victim.