Readers say some photos not fit to print

Some months back, The Telegraph published a photo of an accident scene in which a teen was killed. The photo showed sheriff and other emergency personnel on the scene. The car was upside down near the pole it had hit.

Initially I didn’t notice the teen’s body on the ground covered by a sheet, nor did a number of others who saw the photo.

But the teen’s mother noticed. And she was furious. To her, the picture was disrespectful. She was in great distress, and publication of the photo added to the tragedy, she said.

The Telegraph also caught heat when it photographed a picture of a boy who had just walked upon a scene of a murder-suicide involving his parents. That picture didn't show the boy’s face, but there was no mistaking his grief. More recently, family members complained we were insensitive when we published a photo taken at the scene of a fatal accident at a local workplace. Again, the photo showed a covered body.

Over the years, we’ve had to make tough calls regarding publication of photos. We sometimes decide to publish recognizing our decision might bring complaints. Often, though, the photos that create the most furor are ones we least expect.

Photo chief Woody Marshall, after hearing me pontificate about being sensitive to readers and families, pulled out a number of pictures we have published, none of which brought a complaint: workers removing a body from a lake, a bag of human bones from an overgrown field.

These are news photos, he argues, adding that we second-guess ourselves only when someone, usually a family member, complains. Second-guessing is a poor substitute for setting guidelines and standards.

So what are our guidelines about publishing pictures of bodies or other potentially controversial content? We first consider the news value. Does the picture tell the story or help make what happened clearer to readers? It the photo powerful? Even if we believe a picture has high news value, that doesn’t mean we automatically will publish. Many newspapers, maybe most, declined to publish photos of people jumping from the World Trade Center towers. We didn’t publish pictures of a baby’s body being recovered after hours in a hot car.

But we don’t try to shield readers from everything that might make them uncomfortable.

There is no science to what we do, and we don’t always make the right call. But we don’t operate blindly. We try to ask good questions, solicit other views, and consider the consequences and impact.