Article one may 19th

I believe that graphic images should be printed because of the story they can tell. Many graphic images have been published in papers and they have made an impact on the world around us. In the Everyday Ethics article the author says, “Journalists have a duty to tell stories with words and visual images that connect communities…” I think if more journalists used disturbing but powerful images, more people would care about topics such as child hunger. The media also needs to be carefully about how they use images. If you were to use an image of flag draped coffins it must be used ethical and with the approval of the soldiers family.

I think people can face reality in our society, but I think they are reluctant too do so. Seeing a wounded American solder being transported by his comrades can outrage many Americans. Buy why are they outraged? People should know what war really looks like and be able to decide if they want their country to go to war. Outrage is also compression. If people have some though about an image they can obviously understand what the image is conveying.

I believe news organizations should limit censorship of images to include pornographic material and the faces of dead people. No one wants to see a naked person on the front page. Well some people may, but it is immoral to show a close up of a victim, a soldier, or a childs face. If you had died, would you really want your face all over the news? In the tsunami victims photograph, I think showing the dead children’s faces is too much. If the faces were slightly blurred or if a wider angle had been used the photo would be more appropriate for print. The only issues with a wider angle in this photograph, is that you would lose some of the mothers emotion. I believe that you would not need a large amount of emotion. If you were to try to convince someone to help you for your cause, you would want to use more a more emotional image.