“A photo that had to be used”
Anatomy of a newspaper's decision
A photograph captures an event as no words can. But should the photo be used if it will cause pain to the already grieving family of the picture’s subject?
By Robin Hughes, editor
[Online editor's note: After a shooting spree at Standard Gravure by one of the printing company's former employees, The Courier-Journal published a front-page photograph of one of the victims. The photograph showed the dead victim lying on his back at the bottom of the stairs, his arms spread out and his body partially resting on a track used to move large rolls of paper. The photograph prompted more than 500 complaints and a lawsuit - won by The Courier-Journal - that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Although the photo was republished in the original FineLine case, The Courier-Journal has denied permission to republish the photo here. A copy of the photograph can be seen in FineLine, October 1989, p. 3.]
When Louisville Courier-Journal photo and graphics editor C. Thomas Hardin saw the photograph of the shooting victim lying dead on the floor of Standard Gravure, he knew that it was a "photo that had to be used."
To Hardin, the picture captured the horror of September 14 when a disgruntled former employee of the printing company walked into the plant with an AK-47 military assault rifle and turned it into a killing ground. In a half-hour shooting spree, the gunman wounded 13 and killed 7 before turning a pistol on himself. (Another victim later died.)
"In 25 years, I don’t remember a situation in our coverage area where an event was so tragic or public, " Hardin said. "Coupled with the national debate on automatic weapons, the use of the photo was validated. "
Readers quickly let the newspaper know that they disagreed and did not appreciate the vivid reminder of the previous day’s events on the front page of their morning paper.
How would you feel if it was your relative’s body, asked many callers to The Courier-Journal. Showing a body is in taste bad and insensitive to the victim’s family and friends, others said.
The victim’s family has since filed suit, alleging that the newspaper intentionally and recklessly inflicted mental distress on the family and that publication of the photo was an invasion of their privacy.
Don Frazier, president of the Graphics Communications International Union of which the photo’s subject was a member, calls the picture "obscene." He said he "was shocked to see it."
"This man was my friend and I know what it [the photo] did to me. I kept thinking what’s this going to do to his family? Why did they have to show his face? They could at least put a shirt or a sheet over him. . .We’ve got over 100 members at Standard and I haven’t heard one of them say anything good about that picture."
In the week following the shootings, the newspaper was inundated with 580 calls and letters, the overwhelming majority opposed to the picture.
"Some people said they thought we ran the photo just to sell newspapers," said Editor David Hawpe.
Hawpe emphasized the decision was made after careful consideration and discussion with other editors, some of whom voiced the same concerns about insensitivity that he’d later hear from readers.
"We did think about the impact such a picture might have on the family and friends of the victim," Hawpe said. "And we also thought about the need to confront readers in our community with the full consequences of gun violence."
This larger public purpose took precedence, Hawpe decided. "I talked with the [victim's] family to explain why …His widow rejected my reasons…I deeply regretted any pain the photo caused them."
Hawpe said, "We thought that after the first edition we could always change our minds if we felt we made a mistake."
But no change was made.
"The photo did what I wanted it to do by showing the reality of what assault weapons are capable of," Hawpe said. "A less graphic photograph would not have been as effective."
Photo editor Hardin agrees. "We don’t make a habit of blood and gore, or showing pictures of accidents, it goes against our tradition. But this photograph was tasteful and dramatic. . . in the same vein as some of the Vietnam photos which brought home the horrors of that war."
After articles were published explaining Hawpe’s reasons for using the photograph, more positive calls and letters trickled in. The wife of another man killed by the gunman made a trip to the newspaper to deliver a letter stating her support. Sarah Wible, widow of James Wible, wrote: "I would want people to remember that my husband died violently – senselessly – and I don’t want anyone to forget it."
Union president Frazier concedes that "maybe the picture did raise the consciousness of some about gun violence like he [Hawpe] said he meant to do. "
Frazier adds, "We [Standard Gravure employees] don’t need our consciousness raised, we were there ."
Considering the reaction of the public and the photo subject’s family, would The Courier-Journal publish the photograph again?
"Yes, I’d do the same thing again," Hawpe said. "I am comfortable with our decision. No, that’s not the right word. We made a defensible decision."
Source: FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 1, no. 7 (October 1989), p. 3.
This case was produced for FineLine, a publication of Billy Goat Strut Publishing, 600 East Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. Reprinted with the permission of Billy Goat Strut Publishing. This case may be reproduced for classroom and research purposes. Publication of this case in electronic or printed form requires written permission from the publisher and Indiana University. An exception is granted for use in readers designed for specific academic courses.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
My father was shot in this incident.
The picture that was on the front of the courier-journal was terrible. Can you imagine seeing your family member or friend spread out on the front page of the local paper like that? It was a terrible time for everyone and to be smacked in the face by it the next day was even more terrifying.
December 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I believe that you made the right decision. Yes, it is gruesome, and probably horrifying, but it gets the point across. People need to see what these weapons can do, and you showed them.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:09 am
I can see both sides here. I think there would be a certain amount of resistance from the family toward publishing this kind of picture… But I think over time their emotional reaction would subdue, and they would start to base their feelings on reason. And reason would start to tell them to spread the word of the tragedy and make sure no-one else has to go through that in the future. One of the ways to achieve that is through educating the public, and this kind of picture drives the message clearly.
March 25th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I do not think it is right to put a picture like that on there. People understand it was a gruesome shooting, but i don’t think the families of the people that were shot want to see that, because it would just be like someone throwing it back in their face. I don’t think they want to be reminded of what happened, so I think the picture was very unnessescery.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
We think that the photo that was taken should have been approved by the family before being published in the newspaper. Posting it without the family’s approval is insensitive.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I believe that printing the picture was the wrong choice. As a journalist one of your priorities is to minimize harm. This includes considering the stakeholders that could be affected by your decision. Raising awareness about automatic weapons is a bogus excuse. A semi-automatic weapon still has the capacity to create horror as well. If you want to raise awareness about that topic then the newspaper can print an entire article on the subject. Insensitive pictures like that are not necessary to make your point. If you insist on having pictures to promote your point make them ones that aren’t so emotionally tied to your OWN community.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:50 am
God bless all the victims of this horrible tragedy. It makes me sick that this picture was in the paper and my heart goes out to that family as well as the other victims. I still believe that it was the most horrible and insensitive invasion of privacy. My mother was there that day and I thank God for keeping her safe. But I always remember those who suffered a worse fate. Those families are in my thoughts and prayers always.