« Fathers | Main | Fields of dreams II »
June 19, 2006
More on that photo
At the risk of offending with too much defending, I’d like to respond to a couple of comments readers made about “The war hits home.” This was my entry last week about our use of a photograph of the girlfriend of Russell Durgin crying as she watched a television news report of his death in battle in Afghanistan.
Here are excerpts from the comments:
“The photographer must have returned with a variety of other shots that would have added visual impact to the story without displaying for the world a family’s moment of grief. The current trend in mass media to seek out and display the most private, painful or tragic aspects of human emotion . . . diminishes our respect for each other and our society.”
And:
“The true test of journalists should be, can they paint a picture in the mind’s eye without the use of a visual aid? . . . A picture of his girlfriend on the front page being depicted as devastated is shameful, invited or not.”
The true test of journalists is to use all the talent and judgment they have to convey to the public the reality of what happens. A photojournalist’s job is to capture THE moment that encapsulates an event. Yes, to some extent it is the reporter’s job to “paint a picture in the mind’s eye,” but the words and pictures should work together to tell the story.
As for the current media trend being to convey “the most private, painful or tragic aspects of human emotion,” there is nothing new or recent about it. It has been part of what the media do for as long as there have been media. I would only add that this tradition also includes the responsibility to capture the other end of the emotional spectrum – the joy, love and surprise of human events. There was no joy in the photograph in question, but there was love, and there was caring.
And far from diminishing respect for each other, publishing that picture should only enhance readers’ respect for Michele Dougherty, the Durgin family and the sacrifice of Russell Durgin. The photograph was the farthest thing from a gratuitous appeal to base emotion.
As far as I am aware, there was no internal dissent at the Monitor over publishing this picture. But there are news photos over which we argue. Dan Habib, the photo editor, usually knows when a photo might be too graphic or raise other issues of taste. In such cases, we always discuss the pros and cons openly and make the best decision we can. And while we know many of our readers see – and even seek out – graphic images on television and the internet, the standards we employ are far higher than the standards of those media.
That said, as a rule, I would rather that when we err, we err on the side of publication. We would not be doing our job if we withheld vital information, including images that wrench the heart, for fear of offending some readers.
Posted by Mike Pride at June 19, 2006 08:45 AM