Gates to AP: Take that photo down!

Aside from everything else, there's this: AP provides the photo; it's up to the newspapers and their assessment of their readership in their job as gatekeepers whether to run it.

Of course, with all the news aggregation and everything else these days, that argument is much weaker than it was. Meanwhile, gatekeeper has become a dirty word as well. "Don't let those arrogant news bastards censor the news. Give people all the information and let them decide."

Of course, the oddity in this situation is that many of the people who say we don't need the "liberal mainstream media" being our gatekeepers anymore are the same people who don't think this photo should be out there anywhere.

 

a decent little story on such things...

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/special_reports/war_photos/history.html

 

All other things aside, I really don't think that the photo is very good, quality and composition wise.

 

This was the point I wanted to make. Ethical considerations aside, it's not a particularly good photograph.

 

When I finally saw the photo, I was surprised that was what had people in an uproar. It was hard to make anything out.

 

Me, personally, I don't think I could have run that photo after the family asked me not to. Probably why I don't have a job where I'm making those decisions. But after reading AP's lengthy explanation in E&P, I can respect what AP did.

 

What happens when a parent of a kid that drops a TD pass that could have won a game doesn't want the play mentioned in the story?

Or some family member doesn't want the picture of a car crash scene to run?

 

I'd agree if it was just that photo in a vacuum, but they released it as part of a photo story. In context, even though it's not a particularly strong photo, I think it's pretty important to the story.

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_13267099

Photographer Julie Jacobson narrates a slideshow of the events -

http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_13267099

 

How many of those opposed to the AP photo looked for it online? I would think most have seen it.

 

The only day of my life that I was ashamed to be a journalist was when our paper ran a photo on the front page of a single-car wreck involving 4 teens. 3 of them died and you could clearly see all 3 of them scattered around what was left of the car. Blood and body parts everywhere. This was a small town paper where most people knew these 3 boys.

Imagine how the 4th kid -- who was driving and survived -- dealt with this at the ripe age of 17? Do you think there was one single person in town that wanted to see that image? I was embarrassed that our paper did that and I was embarrased to be an employee that day.

The war photo is a little bit different though in my mind. It is telling a story of humanity and lets people know what is really going on over there. I don't think you can compare a car accident of people dying for no good reason with a war photo of people dying for a cause (well, whatever "cause" that really may be but that's another discussion for another day).

 

Agree. It's pretty poor.

And if the family had asked not to run it, I wouldn't. I don't think we need to prove that all's not well in war. And when you add that it's not a quality photo, too, it would have given me even more reason to not print it.

 

I see a difference in a car crash scene and the actual death itself.

You can tell a story without illustrating it.

Sometimes AP runs photos for the sake of the story behind it. I can't remember the subject, but some Hollywood dude had a story, and he was a friend of Tom Cruise. Might have been Jamie Foxx.

Cruise happened by and used the photog's camera to take a photo. AP ran the photo and made a big deal in the story that it had been taken by Cruise.

It was a ho-hum photo, but it generated more interest than the story.