Let's step past the debate over whether a woman has a right to parent her child as she sees fit and talk about the decision Time editors made to run its cover photo.
The latest issue depicts a woman standing beside her her 3-year-old son, who is standing on a stool and apparently breast-feeding.
I say apparently, because in reality he is mugging for the camera, and that to me makes the entire photo staged for shock value only, a ploy that has worked judged on the discussion the issue is generating.
So the question arises: Is there purpose in today's society for shock journalism.
Time could have run a more accurate photo depicting a woman's decision to continue breast-feeding her 3-year-old. The editors chose not to.
Once in the journalism world, staging photos not only was frowned upon but banned by serious news agencies. Magazines have been a different beast, however, but still the rules would apply.
Now, there is a belief by some in the journalism halls that staged photos — and the more shocking the better — will sell content.
Would you be interested in this story without the photo?
The argument could be made that it has produced the desired attention. In fact, I would wager anyone who hasn't seen it (and I would be surprised in this day and age if there are any) will go Google it now.
It is an argument that does not stand up, no matter how much attention it brings to an issue, whether that attention is warranted or not.
Using the excuse that this photo was needed for attention purposes really is an insult to the American people: It's like saying you are not smart enough to realize the attention this story deserves, so we have to shock you into paying attention.
If that is the case, it shouldn't take a staged photo to do it. That is not responsible journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment