Photo of body bag causes stir

ERIC J. GREENE

Our photo (see below) on Sunday of police retrieving a body (now confirmed to be that of missing woman Courtney Cook) from Rice Creek near Marshall has caused some people to question our motive in running such a picture.

Without trying to rehash all the arguments for and against here, I'll simply describe our thinking in running the photo. First, it illustrated (as photos are supposed to do) the subject of the story which, in this case, was the retrieval of a body from a creek. We thought the photo furthered a reader's understanding of the situation. Second, it didn't fail what I might call the "gruesome test," meaning it wasn't a photo with overly graphic or bloody images. Third, we didn't feel the photo was unfairly insensitive to the family involved. Fourth, we didn't sensationalize the photo by running it big. It was on the front page, but we ran it small next to the story.

Since I was directly involved in the decision to run this photo, I can assure you that each of the aforementioned questions were addressed in my mind and in conversations with the photographer and page designer before we went to print.

I know opinions are mixed and sometimes very strong when it comes to a newspaper's choices in running photos of events where death is involved. We run them so people understand the news; we do not run them for shock value or to sell newspapers.

Comments

[Robin White]

With myself being a family member to Courtney, your post is quite an attention getter. Was it your intention to run 7 others with no photos, yet post the full body bag pic again? No where do I see that you meant no disrespect for whoever it might be, or your sympathy to the Cook family. By respect, tastefullness, class, good judgement, etc,etc.... have I seen any other news stations, etc, run the full photo. Your decision to run the full picture is not a memory of Courtney I care to have, or had it been anyone else for that matter. Maybe some good will come from you posting the full picture AGAIN, a lesson perhaps: Do unto others...There but for the grace of God...maybe you can fill in the dots. As to your feeling "unfairly insensitive to the family involved" you didn't know what family nor did you ask them first anyways. Your "didn't sensationalize the photo by running it big" that's cause you offer the zoom feature on your web page. You also seem to like offering these type of pictures for sale. Myself having worked for a newspaper: your "conversations with the photographer and page designer" they don't usually make the final decision on what's right or wrong to publish. Who's questioning your motive to run the full picture yet again? My thinking is your doing it to get attention, good or bad, it's just attention. "Shock value and sell newspapers" is standard issue cover comment. Never admit your wrong, and if you tell yourself that long enough maybe you'll believe it.

[Laura Adams]

I've certainly seen more gruesome pictures in the newspaper-I moved here from a large city. I'm sure none of them were run for shock value or to sell papers, either. Be that as it may, using that picture again in order to defend yourself against criticism is in bad taste and insensitive. As is posting a link to your defensive blog entry in a rather noticeable place on the main page of the website. All that is going to do is cause more backchat discussion and attract additional criticism from anonymous pundits. And you have already made it clear that you don't like that sort of thing.

[Darby Prater]

I'm the Enquirer reporter who arrived at the scene with the photographer. No other news organizations were at the scene at the time the body was being retrieved, and that is the only reason why the public has not seen them run photos of the event. Instead, they have video of a creek, taken the day after the body was retrieved.

[Kingpin]

Well, Mr. Prater...you scooped the "other news organizations". Congratulations.

My guess is that was what determined whether to run that picture or not. Not being seen as "unfairly insensitive to the family" could not have been the priority.

[Broken]

I don't care who was there first, Mr. Prater, you or yoda.

Mr. Greene, we could have done without seeing the photograph again. Whether your insensitivity by running this photograph on Sunday, you surely did today knowing that people were already quite upset about the issue. People don't need a photograph of this poor young woman in a body bag to understand the news, thank you very much.
And posting it as a blog entry WITH feed?
Pffffffffffffft.
Even the biggest high school age jerks I have ever met and had to deal with are more aware of the feelings of others.
SHAME ON YOU!

[ANN]

STOP YOUR BITCHING. PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON. YOU CAN NOT SEE THE BODY IN THE PICTURE. ITS JUST A BAG BARELY SHOWING ABOVE WATER. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE TOLD YOU CAN NOT DO OR SAY SOMETHING BECAUSE OTHERS MAY NOT LIKE IT. I THINK IT WOULD NOT GO OVER SO WELL WITH ANY OF YOU. BY SHOWING SUCH IMAGES IT MAY HELP ANOTHER FAMILY TO AVOID WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS POOR GIRL FROM HAPPENING TO THEIR LOVED ONE. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER BESIDES YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW.

[Scott Erskine]

People need to get over the fact that news actually happens and good media outlets will cover it the way the Enquirer handled this situation.
Do people complain when a body is shown on television? Hardly.
And why?
Because t.v. only shows about 15 seconds of a story, and unless people are recording the news, it basically disappears (unless it's something like 9/11, which was shown over and over again).
Folks, if you don't want real news, read the Shopper or Scene Magazine.
If you can't handle the truth, then it sucks to be you.