Picture of dead boy on front page of newspaper.

Parent Cafe
1

<p>I wasn’t sure exactly where to post this, because I want both parent and student opinions on this, but I settled on the parent cafe because this is where similar-type threads are placed.</p>

<p>Anyway, someone I used to know pretty well passed away on February 7, 2008. He was driving (I believe that the news said he was speeding) on an icy road and he swerved left of center. He hit another car and then his car spun of the road into a ditch, went airborne, clipped a tree, rolled once, knocked over a tree stump, and hit another tree before coming to a stop. He was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the car. </p>

<p>He was conscious when the highway patrol arrived, but as they tried to stabilize him so they could life flight him to the hospital, he failed to respond and was pronounced dead at the scene.</p>

<p>He was 18 years old at the time. He used to be in my class, but was sent to an alternative boarding school for high school (I believe). He was in my homeroom one year and I got to be pretty good friends with him, although I had not talked to him in a few years. He was the youngest of ten children and I am pretty good friends with the second youngest (she is 19 and a freshman in the NEOUCOM program).</p>

<p>Now, here is where I need opinions. A city newspaper photographer arrived at the scene and took photos of the man lying on the ground with paramedics attempting to revive him. The newspaper then ran one of these photographs on their front page. You can’t see more than his legs and feet, but even what you can see, you can tell that he is in bad condition. [Smith</a> Road Fatal MVA on Flickr - Photo Sharing!](<a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/andrew_dolph/2250477837/in/photostream/]Smith”>http://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/andrew_dolph/2250477837/in/photostream/)</p>

<p>I don’t think the newspaper should have posted that picture. I want to be a doctor so it has nothing to do with the picture being too “graphic” or anything. But I don’t want to look at a picture of a boy who I used to be friends with only seconds before he was pronounced dead. (He wasn’t pronounced dead until he was put in the ambulance, so he wasn’t actually dead in the picture.) I can’t even imagine how hard it must be for his family to look at this picture.</p>

<p>But one of his older sisters wrote into the newspaper outraged that they printed the picture. [Email</a> Response to 020808 A1 of The Medina Gazette on Flickr - Photo Sharing!](<a href=“http://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/andrew_dolph/2250477589/in/photostream/]Email”>http://www.■■■■■■■■■■/photos/andrew_dolph/2250477589/in/photostream/)
The photographer attempts to respond with his opinion. He said that it helps show what can happen if you speed and don’t wear a seatbelt. But couldn’t they have accomplished this with only a picture of the car? Not a picture of a lifeless body?</p>

<p>I guess I can almost see the photographer’s point, but I can’t help but side with the family on this one, but I’m not sure if it is only because I know them.</p>

<p>Any of your opinions on this would be appreciated.</p>

2

<p>First, I’m truly sorry for the loss of your friend. The car shown in that photo doesn’t even look remotely like an automobile. What a horrific wreck.</p>

<p>Second, I understand your concerns and how hard it must be for you and his family to see that photo, but I have to agree with the photographer. That scene, with the rescue personnel actively trying to save his life, is news and I don’t think it was sensational or gratuitous to show the victim from the knees down in this context.</p>

3

<p>Im sorry to hear of another young person die.
I don’t know a lot about your area- but a smaller community that would be big news and it would be up to the editor what type of picture to print.
I agree that the actual body didn’t have to be shown- I do think that the feelings of the family should be considered- but it also wasn’t gratuitious or graphic.
In my urban area, the photos and film that make it onto the news are fairly graphic at times ( which is one reason why I don’t watch the news)-</p>

<p>I also know that papers often justify- and with good reason I think, their decision to run photos of accidents in hope that it will deter/warn against similar behavior- I think it does make a difference, even if not for very long.</p>

4

<p>I am definitely sorry that you lost a friend; and also for the family. But I have to say that our society has gotten too desensitized to war, graphics, etc… I believe that such shocking picture are needed to make the point of wearing seat belts, speeding, icy roads, etc… If it helps 1 person, then that person’s death wasn’t in vain.</p>

<p>My kids and I have argued many times about my “rules”, “protectiveness”, and other parenting measures that they don’t always agree with. When they tell me that they are angry with me or don’t agree with my methods, I am alright with that. My theory is; “In order for you to be ****ed off at me and disapproving of my methods, you MUST BE ALIVE”. I’ve never had an argument or disagreement with a dead person. I spent 21 years in the military. I have seen death. Not only in war, but like many others have. I.e. accidents, old age, illness, cancer, assaults, murder, etc… Each of us have seen or been exposed to many different forms of death.</p>

<p>Whether it’s a death, illness, accident, divorce, arrest, etc… it’s ONLY a waste or travesty if we can’t learn from it. I can appreciate when someone dies and the friends and family want to remember the “Good times” of that person’s life. But if you don’t learn from the speeding, drinking and driving, cigarette smoking, drug use, etc… then the same travesty will continue to happen to others. I’m sure as a reporter, they care more about “Sensationalism” and ratings. They can rationalize their motives, but honestly, they only care about “The Story”. But the good side of the accident is that someone may genuinely look at that picture and it may affect the way they perform the next time they get behind the wheel. That is the greatest donation the deceased person can give to others. If the surviving relatives and friends can’t appreciate that, then that is selfish but very understandable. It is their loved one and not someone else’s. I appreciate it when someone’s loved one dies of a preventable means and the surviving family advertise their death in the hope of helping someone else from dieing the same way.</p>

<p>Again, sorry for your loss, but be the optimist. Think of the one person possibly who may be affected by seeing the consequences of their behavior. Imagine at least 1 person who may not drive that way like they use to.</p>

5

<p>Sometimes kids need the harsh truth. You really don’t see much but if it makes 10 kids wear their seatbelts next time it was worth it. They showed us much worse in DE classes.</p>

6

<p>How sad for your community. </p>

<p>IMHO, this photo was just barely on the acceptable side of a fine line. I recall that shortly after Sep. 11, Time magazine ran a huge fold-out picture with individuals in mid-air jumping from the towers. The photo itself was unquestionably newsworthy, but in that case, I felt strongly that the figures should have been pixellated or silhouetted so that family members would not recognize their loved ones. The image was sharp enough that you could have identified someone you knew well. Depicting this victim’s clothed feet doesn’t cross that line for me, although it is certainly something where reasonable minds can disagree.</p>

<p>I have to say, if my sister or my father had died in this accident, just seeing the photo of the destroyed car would be so horrific that I would probably be upset at the newspaper. I would only want them to print a head shot I gave them, or stick to text.</p>

7

<p>I am so sorry for the loss of this young man. However, I do not think the picture is objectionable. If I were the family, I would be saddened to see any part of the accident in print … but that does not mean that it is inappropriate to publish pictures of the accident. Many news items bring pain to families. As long as the picture is not sensational … and I do not view this particular picture as sensational at all … I think it is above the line. Actually, it tells a story. There is a completely mangled car, and the paramedics are doing all they can to take care of the victim. It’s not a shock-value picture.</p>

<p>Again, though, I do feel bad for all who feel the loss of this beloved young person.</p>

8

<p>How very sad. When reporting local news (e.g. not about a national figure or the mayor or anything),I think the papers should be mindful of the family of the deceased. </p>

<p>Years ago a guy I knew who was a newspaper columnist was killed in a car accident. Because the guy worked for the paper, his death was headlines for a couple of days. We were taking his 8th grade son to the mall to buy clothes for the funeral and stopped at a convenience store to buy a paper. Front page was a picture of the car on its side. The son said, “My dad is under there.”</p>

9

<p>All the outrage from friends and family of the victim is understandable; having lost the young man, they are understandably upset at being reminded of the loss by a photo.</p>

<p>However, that does not make the photo unacceptable. It is a very newsworthy incident, serves as a warning/lesson, and is in reality not that offensive a shot (not a closeup of the body, only shows the young man’s feet, etc.).</p>

<p>Despite all the outrage, I see no problem here.</p>

10

<p>I think most “classy” papers wouldn’t do that and editors know what sells. I find it difficult to believe there were primarily altruistic motives. I must admit I didn’t look at the pictures, but I can’t imagine how I world benefit from looking.</p>

11

<p>“I can’t imagine how I world benefit from looking.”</p>

<p>Well, if you looked, you would become able to make informed comments as to whether the photos are tasteful or sensational. I view that as a benefit if you’re going to talk about them in the thread.</p>

12

<p>Shrinkrap, I was a bit reluctant to look, because I thought it would be a sensational kind of picture. It is not. I can understand not wanting to look, but at the risk of sounding a bit … harsh … I don’t think commenting on it is a good idea without first knowing what you are commenting on.</p>

13

<p>Well I actually looked before it was too late to edit. I decided not to edit, but at least give me credit for being honest!</p>

<p>I still have trouble with why it’s there, even ifs its “tasteful”. FWIW, I can’t look at boxing, “funny” home videos, “most exciting tragedies”, dog and **** fights, either. No problem with CSI though!</p>

14

<p>To me, the most telling thing in this picture is the anguished look on the faces of the kneeling paramedics.</p>

<p>Generally, I would err on the side of not showing a body. But in this one you can only see shoes and the bottom of jeans. </p>

<p>I feel for you, and for the family, in your loss. I suspect that even a picture of the car would be hard for any of this young man’s loved ones to see. I don’t think the picture crosses the line, although it does come close.</p>

15

<p>I just wanted to add that it’s not so much the images in newspapers, and home viseos that disturbs me, it’s the fact that “we” are attracted to them.</p>

16

<p>I don’t know the ethics of this, however news magazines like Time show far worse carnage in foreign places all the time. Such photos even win the Pulitzer.</p>

<p>Dad remembers a photo on the front page from the 1970s that showed a photo of a boy on a bicycle who had been crushed under a car at an intersection not far from the elementary school. More graphic than yours, it was a close up showing only his tennis shoe clad foot sticking out from underneath the car. After seeing that photo he would think of it often while bicycling to school and became very careful and safety conscious. As a driver he would always think of that photo through all these decades as he went through that same intersection. So that single image, published only once, probably had an impact on many lives and made many more children and drivers safer. Sometimes we need to shock people to make them think.</p>

17

<p>mrego, very good post.</p>

<p>Who can forget the picture of Kim Phuc running down the road naked after a napalm attack during the Vietnam War (Conflict)? I was so disturbed that I cried. I thought about that girl often, and it still colors my views of war. Yes, it is tragic picture … but it made a very powerful impact. While it is important to make sure that loved ones are not unduly hurt by a photograph, and to refrain from showing unnecessarily sensational pictures … a strong photo can sometimes convey what words cannot.</p>

18

<p>I think there’s a different impact between showing photos in a local paper where the family and loved ones are very likely to see it vs. running a photo of violence in some far-off country where no one is likely to personally know the victims. </p>

<p>I think the issue is, what is the paper’s mission statement? If it includes some element of altruism, or hoping to make a positive impact on a community, then I don’t think this picture was over the top. Honestly, had it been on the front page of a newspaper I don’t regularly read, and I had just glanced at the photo, I might not have noticed the shoes. I was looking at the car and the face of the EMT. I believe there are small community, local papers that do see altruism as part of their mission, especially if they’re family run and have been around for a long time.</p>

19

<p>I agree with you - they should not have printed the photo of the young man. They need to stop and realize how upsetting this will be to the family. If this were the reporter’s or editor’s son do you think they would have printed it? There could be some beneficial impact if it truly sways others to drive more carefully and use their seatbelt but I doubt that it would have - let them use ‘Red Asphalt’ or something for that - not someone recently lost. Actually, a yearbook photo might have had more impact anyway. The problem is that there’s a good chance that the real reason the paper showed it was simple sensationalism.</p>

<p>I’m sorry for your loss though and I do hope this incident (not the picture) makes his friends and acquaintances drive a bit more carefully and wear their seatbelts.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Every couple of years or so, we have at least one death at our high school due to wreckless driving, and usually drugs/alcohol involved. And the kids are not wearing seatbelts. The last event was two years ago, when two juniors were killed; the driver was under the influence, and trying to get airborn on a tiny hill. He has been under suicide watch, in jail for breaking probation, etc. Kids still talk about how much they miss these two kids, and I know that a few of them have changed their driving habits permanently, while many others changed them temporarily. This is the trend with every wreck that kills someone from our high school. Heck, I know kids who have been in a wreck themselves, not really injured, but it changed their driving habits. I’ve found that typically what also works well is pictures of students at the wreck site, where some temporary memorial has been erected. That’s where the students see how many people are impacted by the death of one of their classmates. Perhaps that kind of picture would have been appropriate.</p>

<p>Four years ago, a very popular cheerleader at our high school was killed, while her boyfriend was driving her dad’s car, drunk. There were two other passengers who were also drunk and injured, but the boyfriend drove because he was the least inebriated of them all. He didn’t make a curve in a dark, residential area with narrow roads, and hit a tree. For many, many months (perhaps over a year), kids would drive by that spot and create make-shift memorials at the tree. One of their neighbors told me the owners eventually had the tree cut down because they couldn’t face the constant reminder everytime they were in their front yard or pulled up into their driveway. Everytime they’d take a memorial down, the kids would start another one. I think these incidents do impact kids, some longer than others.</p>