So is posting a photo of a dead person laying on the street on the MacResource forum is ok now? Can we, as an online community, give the man a little respect and show some human decency? Or is that too much to ask?

174 views with 18 comments and nobody feels this wrong?
[forums.macresource.com]

I thought it creepy aas well -- but has anyone confirmed its actually a deceased person?

---

Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.

Nah, to concerned about image size.
When I saw it. I was like OK. And didn’t comment. The person in the hazmat suit is like what are you doing taking a picture. Maybe they wanted to show for the shock valid

Thanks for the heads up - I will avoid that thread.

Not the first time. I'm not defending or promoting this.

[forums.macresource.com]

"So is posting a photo of a dead person laying on the street on the MacResource forum is ok now?"

Good question but I'm not so sure it's easily answered one way or another. This is a grey area of (photo) journalism.

Story (and photos) included in links:

Case in point #1:
[www.theguardian.com]

Young boy found lying face-down on a beach near Turkish resort of Bodrum was one of at least 12 Syrians who drowned attempting to reach Greece...three-year-old Alan Kurdi.

Case in point #2:
[www.npr.org]

Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez, 25, died as he tried to bring his 23-month-old daughter, Angie Valeria, to safety and a new life in the U.S. Images show the pair lying along the riverbank, with their feet in the water and their heads on the reeds of dry land.

Most likely you know these stories and have seen the pictures. Tragic and unsettling would be an understatement.

Some stories are so beyond our ability to comprehend that sometimes a photo is needed to bring about the sense of both scale and suffering. In particular I'm not so sure we are getting the full scope of the scale from the Chinese government. I'm led to believe that China is under reporting both size and number of deaths. Censorship from the government regarding the scale of this disease has also been reported. Worse still, both doctors and citizens can and will be jailed for speaking up. And saying it doesn't effect us (or the world) is short sighted. It will, it has and it will continue to do so for quite some time.

Regarding the photo of this elderly man dying from the virus or something else no one is certain. The Chinese government may tell us the truth or maybe not. But if it is true then people are literally dying in the streets. That's monumental and this photo brings it right in front of both our eyes and conscience.

So I can't really say if it was the 'right or wrong' thing to do by posting the photo. Right and wrong gets confusing in the complicated world we live in. At times a picture really is worth a 1000 words and in this case I certainly believe this is true.

D & C

Recently heard a discussion about expectations of privacy in public places with interesting arguments for and against. We are all adults here and there is some tough news happening in the world. Sometimes the images are not pleasant but relevant to discussion. The subject topic will typically indicate that the subject matter isn't going to be for everyone.

---

Ways to improve web conference image and sound quality. [forums.macresource.com]

I was unaware of the thread, and I don't find anything amiss after viewing it. My gosh, the internet is insensitive, who would have ever guessed?

---

“There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in."

There are times, issues, etc. where the message does outweigh issues of strict comportment or sensibilities. As for this particular photo, it would be hard to find a more tame, less explicit example of the kind.

Time for the old photo-editor to chime in.

This was always a contentious issue in the newsroom and I was in the conversation more times than I care to remember. It was never a decision taken lightly and the idea that if it bleeds, it leads was not ever used. First and foremost, did the photo contribute to the story in a way that words did not - was the image newsworthy. If an image did not pass that basic test then it was never used. Were there other images that told the story as well (or nearly so) without showing a body. If there were, then most likely the body shot would not be used. Was the deceased shown in a dignified manner? This one can be tricky to explain, but perhaps an example - if a person's genitals were visible then it would definitely give pause, but would not necessarily eliminate the image from use (think of concentration camp images). The goal was to inform not to exploit.

We always knew there would be objections to ever using an image showing the deceased regardless of the circumstances. We could not let those override news decisions. Americans are amongst the most squeamish people in the world. In many other places throughout the world, I could randomly select a day and would almost be guaranteed of finding a dead person in a newspaper or TV report.

A photo can sometimes bring home the message in ways words never can - images are extremely powerful and there must be used with care.

Images showing death are never going to be easy to look at, but that does not mean they shouldn't be viewed. Death is a part of life and sometimes it needs to be seen.

However, in this particular instance, I personally do not believe the image truly adds to the storyline. There are too many unanswered questions about the circumstances of the photo. This is not to say that a death photo could not raise to the level in the Coronavirus story, but this one did not.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

Thanks for that insight Ombligo, I found it valuable.

To say the image doesn't bother me wouldn't be accurate.

But it wasn't posted for amusement, and the pic itself isn't gore or gross.

I see it as a comment on tragedy, even without context of the five Ws.

To me, intent plays a big part in my reaction.

For my part, I've found the Darwin comments to be far more offensive then this pic.

I'll rephrase- I find the Darwin comments to be crude, thoughtless, and bereft of dignity and compassion. But hey, that's just me.

This pic is none of that.

---

I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

Quote
Ombligo
Time for the old photo-editor to chime in.

... However, in this particular instance, I personally do not believe the image truly adds to the storyline. There are too many unanswered questions about the circumstances of the photo. This is not to say that a death photo could not raise to the level in the Coronavirus story, but this one did not.

Are you saying the photo itself should be less ambiguous, or is it acceptable practice for the detailed context to be in the text of the story?

Reading the Guardian’s story I found the second aspect present; and I would have no argument that the photo on its own is sorely lacking in the storytelling component.

Thinking back, I’m not even sure if the photo was taken by a professional or a bystander (The term ‘citizen journalist’ makes me want to throat punch the speaker ).

Ideally, a photo should not be ambiguous - it also should stand on its own as a storytelling element. The word and the photos should work together to explain the story, not to explain each other. Each element should be able to stand independently of the other. But together they should exceed the storytelling of each alone.

That is not always possible but in the strongest visuals, it generally is.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

The source has something to do with the decision as well, In a previous life I edited and ended up publisher of a local newspaper. It was a serious broadsheet that ended up a tabloid, although never stooping to what are regarded as tab standards.

I mentioned that because when I first saw that photo I thought two things.
First: does this tell a story in a way no headline can and that the Chinese government won't and
Second: Do I trust the source, in this case The Guardian, to have vetted both photo and story.

I posted the thread so that answers the first and as to the second, I've been reading The Guardian for years and find it to be a reliable trustworthy news site.

This isn't kindergarten, if the photo offended some sensibilities - well life or in this case death often does that. AFAIK this isn't an escapist forum but one that deals with issues that range from profane to sublime to mundane.

Most of my posts would probably be filed under the last category.

....you are dead....on......

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Didn't bother me.

---

....this is a grave.....accusation.....

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Ideally, a photo should not be ambiguous - it also should stand on its own as a storytelling element. The word and the photos should work together to explain the story, not to explain each other. Each element should be able to stand independently of the other. But together they should exceed the storytelling of each alone.

A terrific, concise explanation.


I first saw that photo I thought two things.
First: does this tell a story in a way no headline can and that the Chinese government won't and
Second: Do I trust the source, in this case The Guardian, to have vetted both photo and story.

Another on point, salient comment.

---

I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

"Americans are amongst the most squeamish people in the world"



This forum is just a sampling of many American people (yes, I know there are other nationalities here but, I expect the majority of forum members are Americans).

Americans, more than most any other people, have been "sanitized" in much (most?) of their lives. Far too many Americans think food just comes on styrofoam trays found in every supermarket and, they wouldn't know what to do with real food as it's found in its' natural form. Expecting them to give rational thought to the dead / dying, especially in a remote corner of the world, is WAY beyond their capabilities.

As for posting pictures of the dead / dying on this forum; perhaps there could be a setting / check box members could check to "Opt In" to reality or, "Opt Out" and request they NOT be subjected to reality. To encourage such "Opt Outs", perhaps the could be offered a free unicorn or, their own personal rainbow.

....more than that.....Squeam 2.......Squeam 3.....etc......very Squeamish......

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

I think a warning in the subject line about sensitive material would be courteous and sufficient.

.......so pics of dead roaches are forbidden......?

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Quote
Lew Zealand
Thanks for that insight Ombligo, I found it valuable.

yes, thank you. definitely informative. in the past few days i listened to an episode of The Daily where a news editor revisited the NYT coverage of the 2016 election coverage. it was really enlightening to hear the amount of care that was behind editing decisions. i hadn't appreciated how thoughtful the process was.

---

"Success isn't about how much money you make. It is about the difference you make in people's lives."--Michelle Obama

"Americans are amongst the most squeamish people in the world"


Got to love dumbass proclamations offered without a fsckin' bit of substantiation.

As represented by forum members, squeamishness is not the issue with most who questioned the posting of the pic.

It doesn't bother me that somebody might be unsettled by it.

The bigger about the people who're blasé about something like this.

---

I am that Masked Man.

Your boos mean nothing to me, I've seen what you cheer for.

Insisting on your rights without acknowledging your responsibilities isn’t freedom, it’s adolescence.

I've been to the edge of the map, and there be monsters.

We are a government of laws, not men.

Everybody counts or nobody counts.

When a good man is hurt,
all who would be called good
must suffer with him.

You and I have memories longer than the road that stretches out ahead.

There is no safety for honest men except
by believing all possible evil of evil men.

We don’t do focus groups. They just ensure that you don’t offend anyone, and produce bland inoffensive products. —Sir Jonathan Ive

An armed society is a polite society.
And hope is a lousy defense.

You make me pull, I'll put you down.

I *love* SIGs. It's Glocks I hate.

Quote
RAMd®d
"Americans are amongst the most squeamish people in the world"


Got to love dumbass proclamations offered without a fsckin' bit of substantiation.

cripes - I'm writing for an internet forum, not a scholarly publication. I'm not going to start citing sources for something that is pretty well established through experience. Are there exceptions - of course, there are, it was a generalization. When you are putting out a program or publication for widespread distribution, you have to generalize in your decision. If you tried to make everyone happy, you would put out nothing (and then people would still complain).

Still, after thirty years in the business of selecting material for publication, I think I am qualified to speak to the subject as an expert witness. Images we had long discussions about publishing would have been used without hesitation in many parts of the world (as close as Mexico, where images of the dead are used every day). Nudity is a huge issue here, not so in many parts of Europe. The list goes on. We guard against our children being exposed to anything and then wonder why they are not worldly.

Do I think this is a stupid way to live? Frankly yes, but it is the American way. Further, I like that we have some of those discussions as it means that when a controversial image is used it has added impact.

---

“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias