grief invasion du jour

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:08 am

Kim Jong-kyu (right) and Shin Young-ja, parents of Kim Sun-Il, react after hearing of their son's killing on Wednesday.
Cho Jung-Ho / the Associated PressGood thing there was a photog on hand to capture this newsworthy moment.

tomciav · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:02 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by SeaRaven:

Kim Jong-kyu (right) and Shin Young-ja, parents of Kim Sun-Il, react after hearing of their son's killing on Wednesday.
Cho Jung-Ho / the Associated PressGood thing there was a photog on hand to capture this newsworthy moment.<hr></blockquote>From ADKbrown on 5/17, re: the Nicholas Berg family-grief shot:"I think the most important point made in this thread (by blanp) is that AP should move the photos and let the editors at each paper decide what to publish. ... Some paper may have wanted to run it. That's their decision."***Perhaps there's a backstory like the one Dapper Dan shared in the link above. ("The family pumped the reporter for information. At their request, he told them, verbatim, what was on the wire at the time [the video of Berg's beheading]. They collapsed to the lawn. The photographer took the pictures you saw.")Regardless, as Gatekeeper said (also in the link), "I submit that we go to our executive editors and publishers and demand that there be a uniform standard and *no* photos of such nature be run."It's been over a month. Of all the papers that ran the Berg grief photo on the front page, how many ran this one as well?***

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:02 am

My paper ran both.I'm of two minds regarding photos like these. On the one hand, there is some news value to such a photo, though really not a lot. Grief is part of the human condition, and it is our responsibility to chronicle the human condition.My other mind is that, as a parent, I am putting photographers on notice that were one ever to take a photo of me grieving the death of one of my children, they're going to the emergency room and I'm going to jail..

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:05 am

Some judgments are best left to photo editors, at AP and at individual papers.I agree with Bumf. I look at the photos and I wonder: What the hell is an AP photographer doing in that family's house, anyway?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:12 am

I think it would be hard to "beat" the play given to the picture by the nearby Daily Gazette. And Bumf's paper, as rough as we are on it at times, should be praised at least for not using it on Page One. (There wasn't room for it because of that great action shot of the state Legislature, coverage of which for decades has been overplayed in Albany because of a misunderstanding of local interest., as it now is in Schenectady, which used to plop such things on Page 2 or the Albany-State page. Also, I'm not NewsDesigner.f.com, but nice bumping heds at the top!)

[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 10:50 am

The New York Times lead photo was much worse. (Photo by Reuters)

[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:16 pm

Getting the Kleenex box in the shot was a nice touch.And JJ is right, too. What the hell was the photographer doing at the house? Why did the parents let them in?I mean, this is why we have weapons in our houses...to prevent intrusions like this.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 12:29 pm

The cutline on the NYT photo above reads: "Shin Young Ja, left, and Kim Jong Kyu, who briefly allowed photographers into their home in Pusan, South Korea, on hearing reports that their son, Kim Sun Il, had been killed by terrorists in Iraq."So did they briefly "allow" it before or after they got confirmation? Were they already sobbing and collapsing when they opened the door?[ June 23, 2004: Message edited by: Matthew Grieco ]

dgm · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 1:52 pm

Too much invasion of privacy . Of course the family will mourn their loved one -- why does it have to be visually pointed out, compelling art or not?
I've dealt with this sort of thing from both a page designer's and reporter/photographer's point of view. As I write this I just returned from photographing a bloody head-on crash. The driver of one car, an older Grand Am was seriously injured; the other driver, a teenager driving her parents' large SUV, was unhurt.
The SUV driver's mother walked up and said, "I don't want this in the paper. My husband's a doctor."
"Sorry, I know how you feel, but this is news," I replied. "I have to shoot it." Mama wasn't happy but walked away.
I also design Page 1 for my paper, a 7K daily. So I was thinking "front page art" while shooting. (A pretty good situation to be in: covering major stories and designing my
own pages around them).
I ended up with a shot of emergency workers cutting the victim out of his car, but he wasn't visible. Normally I try to keep the victim out of the photo if they're too messy or upset.
I've had many chances to photograph emotional families as well and didn't do so.
Maybe I'm too kind-hearted, but I don't see the need to intrude into such private matters, even if they're happening in a public place.
Same goes for the Korean family. At least newspapers don't have sound bites of them wailing -- an even worse invasion of privacy.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 4:59 pm

Having seen the television footage, the word orchestration is springing uncomfortably to mind. I hope I am wrong.

Jackie · **Posted:** Wed Jun 23, 2004 8:44 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
TheNew York Times lead photo was much worse. (Photo by Reuters)
<hr></blockquote>Holy shit....

vtuss · **Posted:** Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:42 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer:
And JJ is right, too. What the hell was the photographer doing at the house? Why did the parents let them in?<hr></blockquote>Am I the only apostate to say we take as much as people let us? I mean, sure, if I were writing a book of etiquette, I would say let grieving families alone. But they opened the door.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Jun 24, 2004 12:56 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Vince Tuss:
Am I the only apostate to say we take as much as people let us? I mean, sure, if I were writing a book of etiquette, I would say let grieving families alone. But they opened the door.<hr></blockquote>Take, maybe, but not necessarily use. Such pictures are in terribly bad taste.

newsdesigner · **Posted:** Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:00 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Vince Tuss:
Am I the only apostate to say we take as much as people let us? I mean, sure, if I were writing a book of etiquette, I would say let grieving families alone. But they opened the door.<hr></blockquote>Also, for what it's worth, it's clear from the wires that there were at least three photographers in that room.

vtuss · **Posted:** Thu Jun 24, 2004 1:31 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
Take, maybe, but not necessarily use. Such pictures are in terribly bad taste.<hr></blockquote>Probably. I'm not sure what mourning in the homeland illustrates to go with the death in an entirely different country.Still, I probably cringed more at the pictures of Paul Johnson with a cowboy hat.

Ray Coniglio · **Posted:** Thu Jun 24, 2004 9:24 am

I can't imagine an American family â€” say, the parents of a U.S. serviceman killed in Iraq â€” inviting photographers to witness their grief. But maybe such a public display of mourning has special meaning for Koreans?A cultural difference might explain why the family let photogs into their home. That doesn't necessarily justify publication, though.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Thu Jun 24, 2004 6:45 pm

Ray,Sorry, but your response is nonsense. American families do the same sort of thing all the time.

palepink · **Posted:** Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:32 am

I agree with Matthew Grieco that it matters whether the family let the shooters in before or after they Knew ... and I can't imagine anybody letting strangers into their home while in the first throes of passionate grief -- if you want the world to see your mourning, you go outside -- but I can well imagine showing hospitality to polite, respectably dressed people who might have information at a moment when the armed forces of multiple nations are trying to rescue your son from the verge of death.Personally, I couldn't look at our front page yesterday (The Oregonian played it on A1, a million columns wide), and I'm not squeamish. And no, there was no news value in the photo. People are sad when their children die.

Jackie · **Posted:** Sun Jun 27, 2004 11:35 pm

From AP: Throughout Sunday, Hassounâ€™s West Jordan relatives radiated an intense sense of privacy and refused comment. After reporters began gathering around their home, they called West Jordan police to deflect inquiries. (This is about the Marine taken hostage in Iraq)"Radiated an intense sense of privacy" must be code for "wants to be left the hell alone."

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 28, 2004 6:50 am

Good to know, palepink, that if the media ever want to invade your home to chronicle your profound grief there's a dress code.

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:36 pm

And sometimes we're actually wanted.

Paul Morgan · **Posted:** Sat Jul 03, 2004 10:31 pm

I am certainly not a great arbiter of taste, but I have no problem with any of these photos. I also urged editors to run the photo of the burned bodies hanged from a bridge in Fallujah. But hey, my take on all of this is we cannot get close to the "truth" if we sanitize. The image is is a powerful expression of grief, a condition we'll all encounter in our lives. These are the consequences of war. Deal with it.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 12:14 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Perilous:
The image is is a powerful expression of grief, a condition we'll all encounter in our lives. <hr></blockquote>The point here, or at least my point, is that because we do encounter it all our lives, personal expressions of grief are not news. I'm all for invading privacy if the result is something genuinely newsworthy.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 12:19 am

Exactly, Phil.

Paul Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:59 pm

How is this event not newsworthy? This is a result of the war in Iraq. I don't think we show enough of this kind of thing. We sanitize the news of war too much. Instead of shedding light on the realities, we wave the flag and claim we're "protecting" our readers.

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:10 pm

It's kinda like this: When we're running a story about the city council debating the establishment of a leash law, we really don't need to show a close-up picture of a dog taking a crap on somebody's lawn.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:21 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Perilous:
How is this event not newsworthy? <hr></blockquote>A picture of the battle that resulted in the casualty would be newsworthy.

Paul Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:29 pm

So it's OK to show the dead body but not the family's grief over the death? Did you get squeemish about the photos of Nancy Reagan grieving over Ronnie's death. Many papers ran not one but two pictures during the week of her kissing the coffin. Where is the line, and why should we be drawing it? It's our job to give the community (be it local or global) as close to a version of the truth as we can. When we hold back over "taste" we find ourselves hiding from the very thing we should be championing.

SeaRaven · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:47 pm

1. The images of Nancy Reagan were newsworthy.
2. Her grief was deliberately expressed in public.

DominEditrix · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:04 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Perilous:
So it's OK to show the dead body but not the family's grief over the death?<hr></blockquote>The dead bodies may be newsworthy; as Blanp has said, the resultant grief is not. In my not particularly humble opinion, intrusive coverage of personal anguish doesn't provide anything enlightening. It is this tabloid-TV-"reality"-show-slavering era's pornography, meant to titillate, not educate. <blockquote>quote:<hr>
Did you get squeemish about the photos of Nancy Reagan grieving over Ronnie's death. Many papers ran not one but two pictures during the week of her kissing the coffin. <hr></blockquote>Which she did in public, well aware that the media would record her actions. I didn't notice any shots of her besieged at her home, with a microphone shoved into her face and a photographer lurking in the bushes. <blockquote>quote:<hr>Where is the line, and why should we be drawing it? It's our job to give the community (be it local or global) as close to a version of the truth as we can. When we hold back over "taste" we find ourselves hiding from the very thing we should be championing.<hr></blockquote>Crap. It is possible to be truthful without exploiting grief, it is possible to take and run pictures that are eloquent without flaying a family already in pain. And it damned well should be possible to write truth without recourse to the graphic novel approach. Even before the advent of Photoshop, a picture was never really worth a thousand words.D.

Paul Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:44 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by DominEditrix:
Even before the advent of Photoshop, a picture was never really worth a thousand words.D.<hr></blockquote>Here is disagree. This is a common arguement in our business and one I have with word editors on a regular basis. Many times a photo is worth much more than a thousand words. The burned bodies at Fallujah. The amassing of militia in Al Sadr. Many other images of war that we choose not to show. These bring home the reality of the situation in Iraq with painful clarity and much more immediacy than 35" of copy.And - correct me if I'm wrong - didn't the SKorean family invite photographers into their house. This wasn't ambush journalism or paparazzi with telephoto lenses.If we shouldn't run images like this, should photogs take them? Where do we draw the line? Nobody has answered that question for me. Severed limbs? Dead babies? Burned bodies? Seems to me these images are some of the more tame ones we could have run.What about the image in the Seattle Times of the dead soldiers coming home? Should they have broken the government's imposed embargo/censorship?This is what happened. Our job is to show what happened.

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 6:16 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Perilous:
This is what happened. Our job is to show what happened.<hr></blockquote>
Some things we show, some things we don't, Sea Raven's example of a dog defecating on a lawn being a case in point. We filter the world through our own news values and I for one don't have any shame in acknowledging that.

Paul Morgan · **Posted:** Sun Jul 04, 2004 11:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Paul Wiggins:

Some things we show, some things we don't, Sea Raven's example of a dog defecating on a lawn being a case in point. We filter the world through our own news values and I for one don't have any shame in acknowledging that.<hr></blockquote>I don't have any shame in acknowledging that either. Bias can never be eliminated, but fairness must always prevail. However, we're not talking about news judgement here, only taste. You find the images we're discussing disrespectful. I find them to be a raw, heartbreaking depiction of the cost of war. They are newsworthy because they are showing the pain of a family caught in the crossfire of decisions made by their leaders. If it causes readers to think about the decisions of their leaders (instead of blindly waving the flag), then we've done them a service. They might still come to the same flag-waving conclusions, and that's OK. But at least we've told them the unvarnished truth and let them decide.It's interesting to compare this discussion with the one about political contributions. How do we supress our natural biases as thinking humans in favor of fairness? Must one be bias (and thus free thinking) eliminated to protect the other? I find the images personally distasteful and invasive, but they have news value. We have to step out of our personal biases when covering such an emotional event. Otherwise our desire for "taste" might lead us to miss important news. Can anybody say Abu Gahraib?Well, OK. Bush can't.

Testy Copy Editors

grief invasion du jour

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links