Picture - When readers attack

He's closer to knowing what irony is than you are to knowing what sarcasm is.

 

Well that's ironic, Mr. Safire.

 

I would have run the picture small, but I definitely would have run it.

Gee, I stated an opinion without calling anyone else a dumbass. What a concept.

 

So does this mean people from other parts of the country are just inconsiderate pricks?

 

Problem is... that photo, if it deserves to run, deserves to run big.

Loses an awful lot small.

 

Finally, to the heart of the matter. You need to follow what's best journalistically.
A my last job, a good friend of mine was the governor's son. He asked what would happen if he would get charged with a DUI. Without hesitating I told him it goes somewhere on page one because he's a public figure. He said even if it costs you a friend? Less than a year later, he got a DUI. I was working front page and put it on the cover. Yep, I did lose a friend for a while, at least.
I'm not trying compare a father losing a child with someone getting a DUI, but I can trying to show that decisions are tough and there are influences on us. With many on this thread having kids, the decision on running such a picture can be skewed. A few have pointed that out. Would I want my picture on the cover if that happened to me? None of us would.
But the bottom line is we have a job to do to the best of our abilities and sometimes, many times, we have to put personal opinions aside for what is right as a journalist. It's our job to do so.

 

"Picture in the paper - least of his problems" is not a reason to run it.

Somehow your anecdote up there about your friend and the DUI just doesn't fit this situation. You should have just told the prick not to drink and drive.

 

I had the fortunate experience of dealing with Kevin Carter. He was a good man, a troubled man, and I needed subtitles to understand him over the phone. (He had a thick South African accent). Not many in our business have seen what that man's eyes and lens saw.

But, let me be clear. That photo, and ultimately his experience, was a contributing factor of his suicide, but it wasn't the reason. It makes for a better story, but it's just not the case. He was penniless and just lost his best friend (also a noted photographer). So, one of the greatest photographers of a generation, died without a friend or a buck. (I'm not justifying anything here).

But, it has been said, and I truly believe this, that Kevin's photograph that ran -- I believe in 1993 or early '94 -- in the NY Times saved tens-of-thousands, perhaps hundreds-of-thousands of lives.
So, you ask if that photograph is newsworthy? Not a doubt in my mind. Not one.

 

Amen.

RIP, Kevin.