Pictures

The whole debate of which photos to run and why is really a struggle.  In the first scenario, I thin I would run either number 1 or 2.  I know I wouldn't run 3 because it is a bit too graphic and my audience might be offended or disturbed.  I also would not pick number 3 out of respect for his family.  To me, number 4 is confusing and unless you have seen the previous pictures you don't really know what is going on first two pictures get the idea across to the point where the reader knows what is going to happen without actually seeing it. Either photo 1 or 2 including the words "seconds before Dwyer committed suicide" or something like that would explain and show the audience what happened in a tasteful and respectful manner in my opinion. 

I cant really decide about the first picture.  I think I would run it because it conveys to the audience just how MUCH the boy is grieving for his dog and how much he cares.  I also feel it is a different situation because an animal died versus a human.  However, if the event happened locally, which I am sure it did, I don't know if I would want to run it since the boy probably lives there and it young.

The next photo of the family mourning after their boy has drowned I think I would also run, much for the same reason as above.  However, if the boys face was more visible I think i would decide against running it.  The last two are too graphic to be printed in a publication I think, although they are great photos, especially the one of the boy and the fence.  It is hard to make decisions though because I personally feel like you don't always get the full effect of a certain even without a good photo.  For example,  the boy and the fence:  It is one thing to read that a boy fell on a spike fence and to actually SEE it.  It helps show the severity of the event and just how serious and newsworthy it was.

The photo of the man in the newsroom I would definitely show run.  I think it is tasteful and it just doesn't really do much for me.  I know thats not really a good reason, but it's the truth.  The photo is not needed to understand the event and I think it would be unnecessary to run the photo.

I think the picture that I struggled with most was the last one that depicted the Fat Tuesday celebration in Seattle.  I agree that the face should definitely have been obscured to protect the woman's identity.  I almost feel that I would show it because I would want the audience to see firsthand what happened and the disrespect shown to this woman and her body.  However, I struggled with all of the photos.  It is hard to decide what is crossing the "line" and what is appropriate.  It is much easier to decide when the photo has been altered to not run it, but when it is the actual photo it is a lot tougher for me to decide what to do.