Tabloid sensationalism: Drowned father and daughter picture

[Rolando]

Do you think the NRA Legislators would have sat on their hands and offered Thoughts and prayers if pictures of the children now regularly slaughtered were published and publicized?

My daughter is going to an open campus school this fall, and the thought of gun violence/child mass murder is tearing me apart. The thought of something happening to her to satisfy the Ammosexual lobby truly takes me to a dark place...but I would plaster pictures of her everywhere, so those bastards can see what they have wrought.

[hal]

Lemon Drop wrote:
Interesting dynamic from the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, who issued a statement saying the photo was dehumanizing and exploitative. Lots of white folks explaining to them how they're wrong.

Their statement spells out exactly what they don't like about the dissemination of the picture. It's not the picture that is their problem - it's that AP released it without any context.

https://nahj.org/uncategorized/nahj-cond...he-border/

"Followers of the Associated Press Twitter account did not have a choice on whether or not they wanted to view the graphic photograph of a man, who apparently wanted a better life for he and his family. This potentially triggering image, was thrust into news feeds without discretion for the viewers or the migrant family the Associated Press exploited.

Ultimately, NAHJ’s objection is not about the photograph. Instead, our protest encompasses a bigger picture about the way visual journalism is utilized."

They are upset that there was no warning for the graphic nature of the content of the image and that the subjects were not identified - they were just two dead objects.

[edit] I suppose this image wouldn't pass that test either:

[Lemon Drop]

NAHJ CONDEMNS IRRESPONSIBLE USE OF IMAGE ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND EXPLOITATION OF DECEASED FAMILY AT THE BORDER

Washington, D.C. – The National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) joins others who are disturbed and concerned over a tweet by the Associated Press which includes an exploitative and dehumanizing photograph of a father and child, drowned in the Rio Grande.

Followers of the Associated Press Twitter account did not have a choice on whether or not they wanted to view the graphic photograph of a man, who apparently wanted a better life for he and his family. This potentially triggering image, was thrust into news feeds without discretion for the viewers or the migrant family the Associated Press exploited.

Men, women, and children cross the border daily often escaping terror with hopes of a better life, knowing the peril that awaits them as they attempt to make the long journey to America. The thoughtless use of this picture only seeks to take advantage of a sensational situation.

Ultimately, NAHJ’s objection is not about the photograph. Instead, our protest encompasses a bigger picture about the way visual journalism is utilized.

While pertinent to the struggles of migrant families crossing the border, the picture, as the “website card” is both insensitive and disrespectful. It dehumanizes the plight of a community that are risking their lives, and the lives of their families, out of desperation. Pushing people to look at a shocking image that isn’t in context, is not beneficial for the viewers, it is not beneficial for journalists, and it is absolutely detrimental to the immigrant community.

NAHJ is disturbed and concerned that journalists at the Associated Press did not treat their subjects with respect or integrity. As journalists, we have a duty to stand up for those that do not have a voice and to value human lives.

This lack of sense and sensibility is not indicative of the best standards and practices of journalism and will not be tolerated.

https://nahj.org/uncategorized/nahj-cond...he-border/

[Blankity Blank]

I hope with every fiber of my being I am wrong, but it appears very much that progressivism may be eating itself alive.

[deckeda]

The NAHJ statement reads like it was written by non-professionals.

—Twitter followers did not have a choice
Actually they do. Following is always optional, but followers might not have experience with serious content. That’s not the AP’s “problem.” I’ll wait here while anyone explains how the AP exploits people.

—without discretion for the migrant family
Perhaps the wife’s upset about the photo’s existence or its usage. I’ll take both assumptions, but they are assumptions. More importantly it also presumes she’d never agree it might somehow one day help change the situation, as so many other troubling images have done over many, many decades. So please, let’s temper our outrage on her behalf just yet.

— The thoughtless use of this picture only seeks to take advantage of a sensational situation.
Sorry, but that’s trite and truly doesn’t sound like something journalists would claim here and yes I’ve worked with a few. And what would that advantage be? To end the U.S. asinine policy towards migrants? How horrible of the AP. To make an incremental dollar on the image’s distribution? Yeah the AP just lives to exploit? C’mon.

— Ultimately, NAHJ’s objection is not about the photograph.
Really? Because the statement drones on about how some perfect presentation doesn’t exist.

— It dehumanizes the plight of a community that are risking their lives, and the lives of their families, out of desperation
Full stop. 100% backwards!

What would be ideal? All TV content ceased, a grave announcement is made from a Cronkite impersonator, a long pause to allow small kids to be shunned away, and then a story commenced highlighting the serious situation with the photo shown with sorrowful music?

Did we never have newspapers, magazines or TV that have shown more graphic tragedy?

For the record, the unofficial “standard” for photo editors is to not publish images with victims’ faces shown and/or gruesomeness. Anything else is yes, a message but no, not disrespectful and hasn’t been.

[$tevie]

Blankity Blank wrote:
I hope with every fiber of my being I am wrong, but it appears very much that progressivism may be eating itself alive.

You are not wrong.

[rjmacs]

rjmacs wrote:
There’s a world of difference between saying that the image has been misused by some outlets and saying that it never should have been published at all. Seems like your argument is: if the image might be misused, it should never be used, which is a kind of restriction we should reserve for the most dangerous things.

Lemon Drop, quoting the NAHJ wrote:

“Ultimately, NAHJ’s objection is not about the photograph. Instead, our protest encompasses a bigger picture about the way visual journalism is utilized.
...
NAHJ is disturbed and concerned that journalists at the Associated Press did not treat their subjects with respect or integrity.”

Yeah. So I guess the NAHJ and I are in agreement. You seem to have taken it a bit further in your zeal for purity.

[Lemon Drop]

I appreciate that many media outlets today, such as NY Times, my local NPR station, etc are thoughtfully and intelligently publishing opinions for and against the publication of the photo. I could argue either side and I see the merits of both, but on this one my heart lands on the side of respecting the dignity and privacy of the subjects and not publishing the photo.