Watching over ourselves

I was looking at the New York Times's front page, and I was surprised to see two graphics showing whether people think McCain and Obama spend more time explaining what they would do in office versus attacking their rival. According to the poll, 61 percent of all registered voters think McCain spends more time attacking his opponent than explaining his plans, while only 27 percent of voters think Obama uses more of his time attacking his opponent. I thought this was an intersting approach to the election, especially because campaigns have turned negative.

As the election draws to a close, this is the most important time for candidates to be sharing their views on issues, and I think it is the journalists job to get the candidates to answer the those questions. We are the watchdogs of the goverment and it is our job to ask the tough questions. If we don't do it, who will? How can the public make an informed decision if they don't know what the candidates plan to do once they get into office?

While I think this is a newsworthy graphic for the public, I also think this graphic and even the story that is packaged with it, Poll says McCain is hurting his bid by using attacks, should be a wake up call to journalists that we need to do more to inform the public about the candidates' stance on the issues.

Checking up on hockey

On Wednesday, I taught the class some things about hockey and how to refer to certain terms in the sport. Hockey is made up of three periods. It has its own league called the National Hockey League, which can be referred to as NHL on all references, and the league has its own subdivisions. When referencing a specific subdivision, the division must be capitalized, such as the Central Division of the Western Conference. If you are just writing division, simply write, the division without capitalizing the word. I also mentioned that one accomplishment in hockey is the hat trick, which is when a player has scored three goals in one game.

But when I talked to the class, one of the terms I focused on was face off and faceoff. Face off is an interesting verb because it can be used in reference to hockey and other things, such as politicians. The example I found was in a headline that said "Israeli party rivals face off in power bid." When the word faceoff is used as a verb, it is always two separate words.

However, if faceoff is used as a noun or adjective, it is one word. According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, the noun faceoff means "a method of beginning play (as in hockey or lacrosse) in which two opponents face each other and attempt to gain control of a puck or ball dropped or placed between them." In essence, the noun faceoff can only be referred to in hockey of lacrosse (remember this for the quiz). So, if I were to use faceoff in a sentence, I would say, "The faceoff is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m."

To print or not to print

For all of these photos, I think more context needs to be explained. The following statements are the decisions I came up with based on the photo alone. I think much of photo ethics comes from the context of the story and how everything is presented.

1. A boy grieves for his dog after it was killed by a car
This picture is interesting because it isn't gory by any means, but it does evoke strong emotion. My decision to run the photo would depend on what the story is about. If the story is simply the fact that the boy's dog died, I don't think I would run it. In that case, running the photo would be similar to showing a picture of a victim who was hit by a car. This is a picture of a boy being affected by grief and should be treated with care, even though he is grieving over a dog. However, if the story is about an increase in the number of pets being killed by dogs, I think I would run the photo,, even on A1. This kind of story is more news worthy, and the photo can help evoke the kind of emotion that would make people want to take action and help. If this story was local, I think it would make me even more cautious in running the photo because people who know the little boy or dog will see it. The picture will stir up even stronger emotion if it was a local story.

2. A rescue worker tries to console the family of a boy who just drowned in a lake.
I personally would not run this photo. My main reasons for this are outlined in the SPJ code. The SPJ Code states that journalists should "show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage," and "be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief." These two statements make me decide not to run the photo because this photo is showing a family who is grieving for the son they just lost. This photo evokes extremely strong emotions because many of the readers can project themselves into the photo. I would especially not run this photo if it was local. I don't know if there is any way I would run the photo because even if you crop out the dead boy, the family's reaction is too strong and personal. I would simply run the story with a headline and a mug of the boy.

3. Bud Dwyer, state treasurer of Pennsylvania, kills himself at a press conference.
What's interesting about this photo, is my ethics professor, professor Amy Gajda, had to make this exact call for broadcast when the tragedy occurred. When we talked about it in ethics, I completely agreed with her call, and I think it's the decision I would make. I would run one of the other photos in the series. I think one of the other photos was of Dwyer holding the gun up in the air. I think another one was of him with the gun in his mouth. But under zero circumstances would I run this photo. The man is dying; his brains are literally flying back into the flag behind him. Although it is a little unclear in this picture because it is in black and white, it is still a very personal and scarring photo. There is no way this photo should run. If I ran the other photos, I would not put the entire series on A1. The main reason for this is you don't know who is seeing the paper. Little kids could happen to see the big A1 photo, but not a lot of them are going to open the paper and look at the rest. Because this is a huge story throughout Pennsylvania and needs to be printed, I would run the photo of Dwyer holding the gun in the air on A1. It's the least traumatizing, but it still draws the reader's attention to the story. I may run a few of the other photos in the series on the inside, but that depends what they show. The more local the story is, the more inclined I would be to run the photos (not this one).

4. A printing plant employee lies dead after a former employee of the plant shot him.
I think my first reaction to the photo kind of confirms my decision. I would not run this photo. It is not that it is very bloody or gruesome, but it looks like the employee is cut in half. When I first looked at this photo, that is what I thought, and I wouldn't want to mislead the readers. I would probably say no to running this photo on A1. I may run it on an inside page, depending if the splattering on the ground is the employee's blood or ink. In general, I think the newspaper can find a better photo that tells the story. How about people reacting to the shooting or one of the 13 injured getting helped? I think this is an important story, especially if it is local, but I think a photographers can find a better photo to use than the example.

5. Fifteen year old climbing a fence when he fell.
I had the hardest time deciding whether to run this photo or not. Because the reader can easily see the spike coming through his mouth, it makes it a hard photo to look at, but because the boy survives, that makes me want to run the photo. The more I looked at the photo, the more it grew on me to run it. In the end, I think I would run it because it is a very captivating photo that tells the story. The fact that the boy survived is a strong reason I'm willing to run the photo. If he didn't, I wouldn't print it because it would cause harm to the boy's family and friends. If this was a local story, I would be more inclined to run it than if it happened somewhere in Canada or Maine because it has more relevance. I would more than likely run the photo on A1 because it shows the reader how he was able to fall and survive.

6. Mardi Gras riot
This was another difficult decision, although not as difficult as the last one. Just based on looking at the photo, I don't think I would run it, especially if it was local, for the same reason people usually don't print the name of a sexual assault victim. I think it would be extremely traumatizing for the woman in the photo and she should be protected. One of the responsibilities of a journalist is to minimize harm, and printing this photo would not do that. It might actually inflict more harm on the victim. The only reason I would want to run this photo is because it could educate other women or promote awareness of sexual harassment. I might reconsider my decision if the woman was OK with the picture being printed, but as it stands, I would not run the picture. Even if I did decide to run it, I think I would block the woman's face. It is a very graphic picture, too. I would feel horrible if children accidentally saw this photo because they wouldn't know what to make of it. Regardless of if the story is local or not, I would not print the picture. I would actually be less inclined to run the photo if it is a local story because people may recognize the victim.