In 2009 the Associated Press took a chance after much deliberation to publish a Julie Jacobson photo of a United States Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, after he had been injured; the soldier later succumb to his injuries and perished. The family of the deceit asked that the photo not be published but the A.P. went on with the publication despite criticism, and I believe publishing was the right choice. This decision of mine did not come instantly, when doing my research on the topic my initial thought was that they were wrong in publishing something if the family did not condone it, but after further thought I think it served a greater purpose; showing the American People the true gruesomeness behind the war in a tasteful manner. One
…show more content…
After conducting my due research about scholarly opinions, and how they warped in with my opinions I found it necessary to contact one of the pillars of American journalism, and that is the Poynter institute. I was able to find how the Poynter institute felt about this piece and they, as soon as AP went forward with the photo, defended them calling the photo ethical and important. The author of the article had strong enough words to bring up the duty one takes when becoming a journalist, elaborating saying “Journalism's obligation is to inform the public about significant issues in our society. That includes telling stories -- with images, words and sound -- that meaningfully describe both the horror and the heroism of the battlefield.”3 So therefore, it was Jacobson’s obligation to publish this piece, it may not have been the piece of heroism the fallen Marine’s father wanted, but it showed the true horror. But in a way, they did respect the family’s wishes, although they released the photo individually when they published it, they initially released the photo with “a substantive, sensitive AP story that recounts the battle in which Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard was wounded. That story also tells us a good deal about Bernard, including comments from his father and fellow Marines in his squad. Together, the story and the …show more content…
One point of a journalist is to minimize harm and they were adding extra harm to this family. But as I have said earlier this photo was more beneficial to the general public to show the truth behind war than beneficial to the family not to see it, I don’t want to sound like a monster because I am empathetic for them… but it’s the truth just like its truthful that people die how their son did everyday but isn’t well documented. Something I’ve grown up hearing with regard to that would be that; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. One also could argue that there are God-given rights to privacy and the ability to shield certain emotions, like pain, from the public. But as our textbook states, “By its very nature, photojournalism is intrusive and revealing.” Thus giving Jacobson all the right to take the picture and the AP all the right, nay; need to publish the
After conducting my due research about scholarly opinions, and how they warped in with my opinions I found it necessary to contact one of the pillars of American journalism, and that is the Poynter institute. I was able to find how the Poynter institute felt about this piece and they, as soon as AP went forward with the photo, defended them calling the photo ethical and important. The author of the article had strong enough words to bring up the duty one takes when becoming a journalist, elaborating saying “Journalism's obligation is to inform the public about significant issues in our society. That includes telling stories -- with images, words and sound -- that meaningfully describe both the horror and the heroism of the battlefield.”3 So therefore, it was Jacobson’s obligation to publish this piece, it may not have been the piece of heroism the fallen Marine’s father wanted, but it showed the true horror. But in a way, they did respect the family’s wishes, although they released the photo individually when they published it, they initially released the photo with “a substantive, sensitive AP story that recounts the battle in which Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard was wounded. That story also tells us a good deal about Bernard, including comments from his father and fellow Marines in his squad. Together, the story and the …show more content…
One point of a journalist is to minimize harm and they were adding extra harm to this family. But as I have said earlier this photo was more beneficial to the general public to show the truth behind war than beneficial to the family not to see it, I don’t want to sound like a monster because I am empathetic for them… but it’s the truth just like its truthful that people die how their son did everyday but isn’t well documented. Something I’ve grown up hearing with regard to that would be that; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. One also could argue that there are God-given rights to privacy and the ability to shield certain emotions, like pain, from the public. But as our textbook states, “By its very nature, photojournalism is intrusive and revealing.” Thus giving Jacobson all the right to take the picture and the AP all the right, nay; need to publish the