This morning, here in New York, I overheard a group of (non-journalist) parents expressing surprise and some anger towards the New York Times for publishing (yearbook) photos of the two eighteen-year-old Rutgers freshmen charged with invasion of privacy after they reportedly broadcast live online another classmate’s “intimate encounter,” and that classmate, three days later, per the Times, jumped to his death off the George Washington Bridge.
Last night, the yearbook photos of the two students charged (along with an image of the classmate who reportedly committed suicide) were featured front and center on nytimes.com (which is, largely, what these parents seemed to be objecting to); today online, Tony Curtis’s obit bumped the images down on the Times home page (and, now, off the page entirely), and in the print edition, the photos of the students charged are inside, after the jump from A1.
It didn’t occur to me that the Times might have or should have thought twice about publishing these photos (featured or less so), but I can understand that point of view. Perhaps few journalists would think this was crossing a line, but maybe this is an example where what’s expected and rote and normal in press culture rubs some outsiders the wrong way? The Star-Ledger put the photos on A1 today (the Times actually credits the Ledger for the images); in fact, it’s hard to avoid them.
What say you: Is there any journalistic argument for not running (or not featuring) these photos?
Should we be worried about their privacy? In honor of the student their actions precipitated the death of, I shall now play a very tiny violin.
People don't get to make sex tapes of another student without his knowledge and then complain about their yearbook pictures getting published.
Don't want to make the news? Don't do horrible, newsworthy things.
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 06:42 PM
The only reason, journalistic or not, that I can think of, is the reduction of effectively ending the lives of those who are wrongfully accused. Granted, they do have Constitutional protections and such reporting is exceedingly rare, yet society remembers the image and the crime associated, rather than the facts of the case and the finding of the law.
On the other hand, plastering images of those accused of crimes does attract eyes and subscribers. Perhaps a comparatively boring but truthful journo is better than those getting the story out there as widely as possible, but certainly less successful.
#2 Posted by MM, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 07:24 PM
>> it’s hard to avoid them.
The phrase "Everybody else is doing it." is is a cliche-excuse that teenagers and tabloids like to use. I think if online journalism is going to survive it must sacrifice some site hit eyeballs. Of course, from a business perspective images generate page hits.
I don't see any journalistic value - none - in using the images when the story broke. They aren't on trial. Well, they *weren't*. But now in the mind of the public they sure are on trial.
The images are not of politicans but of people who were entirely unknown before the story. I think that should have been taken into account.
---
The first comment is an example of one of the problems of using images. The commenter fell into the trap that "I saw their images in an article about a crime so they are guilty."
#3 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 08:08 PM
>> it’s hard to avoid them.
The phrase "Everybody else is doing it." is is a cliche-excuse that teenagers and tabloids like to use. I think if online journalism is going to survive it must sacrifice some site hit eyeballs. Of course, from a business perspective images generate page hits.
I don't see any journalistic value - none - in using the images when the story broke. They aren't on trial. Well, they *weren't*. But now in the mind of the public they sure are on trial.
The images are not of politicans but of people who were entirely unknown before the story. I think that should have been taken into account.
---
The first comment is an example of one of the problems of using images. The commenter fell into the trap that "I saw their images in an article about a crime so they are guilty."
#4 Posted by F. Murray Rumpelstiltskin, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 08:11 PM
I was very surprised to see the pictures on NYT page one and don't think they should have been put there. What they (allegedly) did was despicable, but I am sure they feel shocked and devastated at the suicide. Doers anyone really think they would have expected that to happen?
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 30 Sep 2010 at 11:58 PM
I cannot think of a single legitimate reason to not run these photos I can't believe this is even an issue.
#6 Posted by Chris Preovolos, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 05:05 PM
I second Chris. To me this is a no-brainer.
If you accept the argument that the photos shouldn't have been published, then the same people can argue that their names shouldn't have beern published either.. Or even that the story shouldn't have been published.
What do these censorious people want? A brief item that "Joe Smith died yesterday. Funeral services will be held tomorrow."?
There is a serious crime here. If the perpetrators are embarassed, tough tiddelywinks. I hope they are prosecutecd to the full entent of the law and that their names and photos are published at every stage of the process, as any good journalist or editor would do.
By the way, I no\te that most of the critics don't give their own names. I don't think CJR should allow commentatora to hide behind pseudonyms. Does anyone remember the old newspaper rule that letters to the editor had to be signed?.
#7 Posted by barney kirchhoff, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 06:01 PM