Morals

[beano500]

I wonder.

Just what is acceptable.

Do you think journalists are wrong to publish a picture of a person taken while alive but who subsequently died later?

I haven't seen the photo - don't necessarily want to see it. But is it "responsible"? But the simple statement from the editor seems to encapsulate it for me.

British Bubbly Cuddly said:

Princes William and Harry have said they are "deeply saddened" at the publication in Italy of a photograph of Princess Diana as she lay dying.

.....

Chi editor Umberto Brindani said he had published the picture for the "very simple reason" that it has never been seen before.

"In my opinion it is not a picture which is offensive to the memory of Princess Diana," he added.

"She is not dead in the picture but looks as if she is a sleeping princess."

Full story at Princes' 'sadness' at Diana photo

[imperialism2024]

beano500 said:

I wonder.

Just what is acceptable.

Do you think journalists are wrong to publish a picture of a person taken while alive but who subsequently died later?

I haven't seen the photo - don't necessarily want to see it. But is it "responsible"? But the simple statement from the editor seems to encapsulate it for me.

British Bubbly Cuddly said:

Princes William and Harry have said they are "deeply saddened" at the publication in Italy of a photograph of Princess Diana as she lay dying.

.....

Chi editor Umberto Brindani said he had published the picture for the "very simple reason" that it has never been seen before.

"In my opinion it is not a picture which is offensive to the memory of Princess Diana," he added.

"She is not dead in the picture but looks as if she is a sleeping princess."

Full story at Princes' 'sadness' at Diana photo

Acceptable to publish the photo? It depends on the context. In a magazine or newspaper constantly on the hunt for circulation, no. In a history book? Of course.

And while I think the question was whether publishing it was acceptable... as for the actual taking of the photo, I always say that you can never re-take a picture you didn't take the first time. You're better off taking it and just choosing not to release it.

[mv6_stormer]

I guess one also has to consider that the reason the car crashed (allegedly) was that it was being chased by paparazzi, and who would have been on the scene to take the picture? The very people chasing probably. Also, has this picture been released for the good of the public? I doubt it, moreover for money. A large amount in all probability. Which is possibly a tad Immoral. Just my thoughts.

[Gemm]

I don't think it was immoral to take those photos. That's what photo journalists do. War photographers do this kind of things everyday. However the difference is that this happens to be a person we all knew. From the photographer's point of view, this would potentially be THE MOST sort-after image in the world. I think he just did his job. Obviously the paramedics were already at the scene, so it's not as if the photographer didn't attempt to rescue her. But was it immoral to publish the image? Yes, I think so. (BTW, I haven't seen those photos and I don't think I want to.) They should always obtain permission when publishing this type of images.

Edited by Gemm on Friday 14th July 22:57

[CarMac]

Personally, I think it was completely unnecessary to publish it. It serves no useful purpose after all this time than to line someone's pocket. I suppose it boils down to whether you consider other people's feelings over your own gain. Not surprised the family are upset. I think most families would be whether that person was a personality or joe bloggs. The same must apply to war photos or people dying. That must be really upsetting for the families.

[deadslow]

CarMac said:

It serves no useful purpose after all this time than to line someone's pocket. I think most families would be whether that person was a personality or joe bloggs.

totally right