Putting together the paper each day is a series of questions. Some of them, such as which stories we place on the front page and which will go inside the Local&State section, have obvious answers. When the questions revolve around matters of taste or values, things aren’t quite as simple. The past two nights, the appropriateness of two photographs fell into that realm.
The first photo ran on Page 1B on Wednesday. It accompanied a story about a mural created by Nick Salazar, a senior at Metro-Boulevard Alternative High School. To answer a question in his social studies class – If Jesus Christ, Mohammed and Buddha were to reappear on Earth tomorrow, would they be capitalist, socialist or communist? – Salazar created an illustration on an old chalkboard in his classroom. The mural, which included drawings of Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha, was a prominent part of the photo we ran.
Here was the issue: Many Muslims find artistic depictions of Mohammed blasphemous. With that in mind, do we run the photo, not run it or, since the drawing of Mohammed was on the far right side of the photo, crop that portion off?
After talking to several people I decided we should run it as is. There were a couple of reasons for that decision. First, the photo was germane. The story was beautifully written and didn’t go the easy “look at the cool thing this student did” route. The story was deeper than that and the photo enhanced it by showing readers exactly what was created. Second, I’m sure there are many things we report on that some people don’t think we should cover or don’t like to see or read about. My opinion, however, is that decisions based on fear or second-guessing usually will result in a wrong choice.
The second photo that led to discussions ran on Page 8A on Thursday with the tornadoes story. It showed a man and his daughter looking at ruins of his other daughter’s home in Shirley, Ark. The second daughter was among those killed when a tornado went through the town. Her body was found lying next to that of her 14-year-old Labrador retriever. In the foreground of the photo was the body of the dog.
The photo made me pause. Was this something readers really needed to see? To be honest, I have tremendous affection for dogs and the photo disturbed me deeply. That reaction, though, is appropriate. Dozens of people died in the storms and we should be bothered by the death and destruction. Ultimately, I decided that running the photo, including the dog’s body, created a stronger emotional impact than just a shot of the family looking at the ruins.
So, would you have made the same decision or gone another way? Click on the comments link on the left and tell me what you would have done.
10 Comments
As a regular reader of the Eagle (I live in Winfield Ks), it is encouraging to know that pictures are SELECTED and thoughtfully considered and not just somewhat randomly placed in the rush of a daily newspaper production.
The mural choice is appropriate. It really is not understandable otherwise, and Muslims are going to have to learn to tolerate scrutiny just as Christianity has and is still learning to accept.
I think you did the right thing, in the face of these difficult decisions. Thanks for reporting on these two pieces.
Wow. There is lot more decision making in producing the paper than one would think. We need photos and headlines to help us get interested enough in the story to gain the information.
These seem like catch-22 decisions. The mural photo was what got me to read the story.
I wish there was a link to both of these stories - as I missed them and they sound like they had far-reaching effects.
I wonder why we are concerned about how Muslims feel about the depiction of Mohammed but the media doesn’t mind ridiculling God or Jesus? Are we afraid of a jihad if Mohammed is seen in print? Maybe the Christians of the world need to stand up and stop allowing the media to make fun of our Deity.
Yes, your thoughtful consideration to run the photo of the sadly deceased dog was the right thing to do. The carnage was real, the girl must have loved her dog. The photo drove home the horror of tornados and the lives that are torn apart.
Family pets are often considered part of the family. By running the photo, you actually showed the impact of a family death.
I am completely supportive of your decision.
I agree with the other comments made here. I think you made the right decision in both cases.
These were easy pictures. How do you make a decision on which democrat to run and where it goes? Does your political beliefs have ANY bearing on that outcome? I have been around papers for almost 40 years now and I have yet to see an editor that was not politically biased.
And the other comment about the pet? Man it is a DOG. There were real human death there. That thinking scares me actually.
How often do you NOT run a picture that could be considered controversial?
The moment you “pause” to second-guess putting something in the newspaper is the same moment that censorship defeats freedom of the press. Stay true to your roots and don’t hesitate to publish something because it *might* offend someone somewhere. Good call on publishing both photos - it shouldn’t have even been a question.