The truth is, at times, ugly

So what do you do when your worth hinges on how it is depicted?

I’ve always been one for showcasing wholesale - telling it as it is - but I do acknowledge that there are occasions where (some degree of) censorship is necessary.

In this instance, almost all the photographers present at the crime scene have indicated in a knowingly manner that the explicit photos of the deceased can’t and won’t be published.
On what grounds though, it wasn’t elaborated.

Is it a matter of exercising good taste? And where do you draw the line?

That said, I do understand where the reader is coming from. He took issue more with the moral stance of the paper rather than clear-cut censorship guidelines governing decency and the like.

His criticism had me rethinking if that photo should’ve been left aside out of respect (that is, assuming the question of disrespect even came up when one is considering the photo) and if we could all have been a 'lil more sensitive.

For that, I felt rather guilty.

From: Teo
Sent: Sat 20/09/2008 6:18 PM
To: Ansley Ng Wee Lit; NEWS
Subject: Comment on WEEKEND TODAY’s Article on “Yishun tragedy”

hi Ansley,
This email is not directed against your article.
I am fine with your article.

hi Boon Keong,
This email is not directed against the photos taken.
To me, you are doing your job in recording what happened at the scene.

In essence, my comments are directed against the CHOICE of the photo being published alongside the article.

hi TODAY,
I refer to the article “Yishun Tragedy” on Page 8 of Sept 20-21’s edition of WEEKEND TODAY.

I want to express my utter shock and deep disappointment over the choice of the main photo that accompanied the article.

I must say that the publishing of the main photo (the one at the top) was a really really bad choice.
I even question if it is right to publish such a photo at all.

I also wonder if the choice of the photos have been carefully vetted by your editorial team.
If it was vetted, then what I want to ask is - wasn’t there a better choice other than the one being published?

I am sure there must have been other photos taken by the field crew.
So why was this particular one being chosen??
Wasn’t the photo on the lower right, showing the woman lying on the ground, sufficient to bring the point across?

Argument:

Even though the woman is dead, shouldn’t TODAY have shown her much more respect as a human being than to publish a photo of her in such a state?

Her lower body was exposed and even though she still had her panties on and it was mosaic’ed in the photo, there was no denying that her modesty was compromised.

If you (from here onwards, “you” = TODAY) publish a photo of a life woman in such a state, I dare say that it would be considered an obscene photo. And the woman involved would have the right to sue your paper for publishing such a photo of her.

So why is there a double standard here?
Just because the woman here is dead?
Does it mean your paper can publish whatever photo you want of a dead person?
There clearly is no respect being shown to the dead woman in this case by publishing the mentioned photo.

May I ask which part of the story was your paper trying to bring across when the decision was made to publish this particular photo?
Who made the decision?
On what grounds was the photo selected?

You may argue that it was exactly what happened at the “crime scene” and your paper was just recording and publishing the facts, as anyone at the scene would have seen her in such a state.

Yes, anyone at the scene could have seen her in the state as shown in the photo. But anyone NOT at the scene would not have seen it, until your paper decided to publish that photo.
Now that it was published, the whole country and even the whole world (if your paper decided to publish the print version online) could have seen it.

If you ask yourself, would you want others to see you in such a compromised state, even if you are dead?

Conclude:

I would argue that, by publishing this photo, your paper have gone beyond what was necessary (in a negative way) to bring the story across.

And as mentioned above, I question if it was even right to publish a photo of this nature.

I have always view TODAY as a serious and credible newspaper.

I acknowledge that responsible news reporting and publishing requires hard work from everyone involved in the chain, from the field to the office.

Nonetheless, the tight datelines and fast-paced nature of news publishing work should not be an excuse for compromising the standards of your articles, as your paper have worked hard in achieving high standards over these years.

I hope this was just a lapse in judgement on the editorial team.

I hope that your paper will not go down the path of “sensationalised” reporting just to woo readers, as some papers obviously do.

I personally feel that your paper owes an apology to the family members of the deceased woman.

Teo