Why not run these other controversial photos?

Steve O'Brien · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:48 pm

April 25, 2004 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Abortion-rights supporters marched in huge numbers Sunday [. . .] .
Both sides yelled at each other as the vanguard of the march reached the counter-demonstration.
"Look at the pictures, look at the pictures," shouted abortion opponents, holding up big posters showing a fetus at eight weeks.
"Lies, lies," marchers shouted back.There's a brouhaha about running pictures of flag-draped military coffins. Here's an analogous editorial issue. Why not run the photos displayed by the anti-abortion protesters? Why shouldn't readers decide for themselves whether these photos are "lies"?

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:48 pm

No reason not to, if you're running art of the protests anyway. But everyone's seen these posters before.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2004 9:59 pm

Everyone's seen flag-draped coffins and pictures of them, too.

JonScribe · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:05 am

OK. Is it that tough to see that a photo of flag-draped coffins is less objectionable than one of an aborted fetus?Somebody holding up a protest sign isn't necessarily news. A lurid photo on the sign doesn't make it more newsworthy.

young_one · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:18 am

someone shoot me. please. Those fetus photos are used by the extreme right-wing zealots. I dare you to make the same accusation about their counterparts using the coffin shots. And then tell me how you look at yourself in the mirror.

Steve O'Brien · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:05 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by JonScribe:
Is it that tough to see that a photo of flag-draped coffins is less objectionable than one of an aborted fetus?<hr></blockquote>The AP report doesn't mention photos of aborted fetuses. The anti-abortion movement often displays pictures of intact fetuses.Still, I don't recall any media objections to the printing and broadcasting of the upsetting photos in James Allen's exhibit entitled "Without Sanctuary: Photographs and Postcards of Lynching in America." Americans who are willing to confront all aspects of our nation's past should view these photos:http://www.journale.com/withoutsanctuary

Christine · **Joined:** Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:01 am **Posts:** 1

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by young_one:
someone shoot me. please. Those fetus photos are used by the extreme right-wing zealots. I dare you to make the same accusation about their counterparts using the coffin shots. And then tell me how you look at yourself in the mirror.<hr></blockquote>The newsworthiness of a photo or a photo of a photo is not determined by whether we feel someone is a zealot belonging to any wing. If a protest march is covered and there is a counter protest of significant size, it may be newsworthy. It's never been adequately explained why fetus photos should be censored any more than other potentially upsetting material.[ April 26, 2004: Message edited by: Christine ]

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:57 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Christine:
It's never been adequately explained why fetus photos should be censored any more than other potentially upsetting material.
<hr></blockquote>
"They aren't news" isn't adequate?Three people die in a spectacular vehicle accident. Small-town papers might run art of a mangled car, but no one needs to see a body to understand what "dead" means. And most people don't want to.OTOH, if good art happened to have a poster with a photo of a fetus, I wouldn't kill the art for that reason alone.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:07 pm

Years ago I went to a journalism seminar run by a guy who was a photographer. We debated the "news value" of showing a close-up photograph of a nude woman as she emerged from a hostage situation. As you might guess, the discussion split along gender lines with the women saying news or not it shouldn't have been shown and the guys all saying it was news and should be "out there." Later on, the guy talked about a photo opportunity he didn't take. This photo would have been a nude guy, with only his boots and hat on, in a traumatic ER situation. I asked him why he didn't run that photo and he said oh, that would have been invasion of privacy. I rested my case for the defense. It's all in who's doing the seeing.

Jackie · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:22 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by JonScribe:
OK. Is it that tough to see that a photo of flag-draped coffins is less objectionable than one of an aborted fetus?<hr></blockquote>And therein lies the bottom line: Does it pass the breakfast test?Flag-draped coffins will make fewer readers throw up and scramble to hide the paper from the children than will photos of an aborted fetus.Sometimes it really is that simple.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:37 pm

I'd like to know from the reporter how many marchers shouted ''lies'' .

Rio · **Posted:** Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:27 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by young_one:
Those fetus photos are used by the extreme right-wing zealots.<hr></blockquote>Hey, it's their "choice." Since when is "choice" a problem with pro-abortionists?

Testy Copy Editors

Why not run these other controversial photos?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links