After 15 years as a police officer, 10 of which as a Forensics Technician (CSI), I have seen the most gruesome, awful, gross images you can imagine. Or maybe you can’t. I couldn’t before I saw them myself.
Some of these images were caused by another sub-human, some were caused by industrial accidents. Accidents. Such appears to be the case in the tragic death of Rodrigo Jaime Hernandez. He was killed when his partner backed their trash collection vehicle over him. Accidentally. Just a freak accident.
What should have been a 2 paragraph article about this horrific event, has made the front page of your paper. So now the families of these two men, and the witnesses who observed this horrific event get to look at it all over again. Your newspaper chose to publish a photograph of Mr. Hernandez, deceased, on the front page above the fold.
Two words: NO CLASS
Your justification is in the comments section is just a class-less (my emphasis and notes in red):
EDITOR’S NOTE: Here in the news room, we know the photo was upsetting. Seeing all of the images from this awful event disturbed us as well.
While we don’t expect all readers to agree with our decision, I think we owe you an explanation of our thinking:
As a group, we struggled with our responsibility to show people what happened vs. how much such an image would upset people. Sometimes we don’t like our job and this decision was particularly difficult.
More than likely you were trying to figure out what would sell more of your birdcage liner, and deciding which photograph would push the limit just far enough.
In the end we felt we must show something of the horrible accident that many, many people actually witnessed. There were far more graphic images that also told the part of the story, but we chose the image of giving last rights because it truly showed the tragic reality of the event.
Why would you need to show something that “many many people” already saw? A simple photograph of an ambulance with the truck in the background would have carried the magnatude of the event without subjecting everyone to the photograph you chose?
News decisions are fluid and change with the circumstances. We do not ever publish such a picture lightly and we will certainly think twice and perhaps 10 times before publishing such a picture again.
That’s comforting to know that you can be that indecisive about what is good photo journalism and what isn’t. In all my years as a forensics technician (and forensic photographer I might add), I have had many dealings with the media. NEVER has anyone at one of my scenes, ever published such a photograph. And they had plenty of opportunities to do so. But they chose the sensible route. The common sense route. Not the idiotic.
All of your thoughts on the matter will help us in our future decision-making.
Thank you.
No, thank you for taking a giant leap backwards for all of print media. In a time where newsprint is facing huge shortfalls in revenue (See this: http://scottsmb.com/2008/12/are-the-virginian-pilot-and-daily-press-next-to-end-home-delivery/); decreasing circulation and even readership (why read tomorrow morning what was written, discussed and dismissed the night before on the web?), you chose to sensationalize the death of a man. Made all the more tasteless by the fact that a priest was there giving him his last rights.
Well you know what? The News & Messenger has sunken below that of a super-market tabloid, and I am afraid I may be sullying my bird’s cage were I to use your paper.
As critical as I can be of the Virginian-Pilot, I am thankful for a newspaper that has editors and staff that actually think before they publish something.
You guys… FAIL
Editor’s Note: I have blurred out the News & Messenger’s advertisments and of course the photograph in question. If you want to see the full screen shot of the article CLICK HERE. But be warned. The image is just disturbing. Yes. Even to me.
H/T: Virginia Virtucon
