Very Bad Taste

Before everything, I would like to convey my condolences to the Saguisag family. They truly suffered a terrible and unimaginable loss.

I'll go straight to the point-- the Inquirer's front page today (9 November 2007) is in very bad taste. It's so bad that I think it crosses into the unethical.

Just yesterday, dr.sbdink and I were discussing another article on the accident posted at GMA News. He felt that the treatment of the story was voyeuristic; i.e., that details such as "dragged Saguisag's van by 20 to 30 meters" or "The van was crushed" were unnecessary. I took a different view-- details on the strength of impact were needed to give a complete picture. I thought those details were valid in an article reporting an accident, although I have reservations about the style of the writer (there's a reason why obituaries are separate from the news).

On the other hand, the Inquirer front page crossed the line by publishing the bodies of the dead and injured. What value does that serve in the article other than pure voyeurism? The accident picture showing the impact would have been enough-- why did they have to publish slumped bodies and shocked victims?

Publishing pictures of the dead, dying, or injured is an ethical tightrope. Even during wartime, when the horrors and evils of war are the story, it isn't an easy decision whether or not to publish these kinds of images. Editors have to ask themselves whether publishing those images is necessary, and weigh two sometimes opposing forces-- what the public needs to know vs. the dignity of the dead, dying, or injured. In war, sometimes the public does need to see in stark red how horrifying the situation is, but in an accident? Does the public really need to see that? And did the Inquirer editors even consider for a moment how the Saguisags would feel to see their slumped mother published on the front page of a national broadsheet?

Now compare this treatment to another tragic accident-- the death of Princess Dianna in 1997. Photos of a dying Princess Diana were taken and offered to various papers, but no tabloid dared publish them even ten years after the fact (they were eventually shown only in court). Dianna deserves more respect than that, and her family doesn't need to see her dying image in the corner newsstand.

Even for the British tabloid press, known for its crass sensationalism and voyeruism, some ethical lines should not be crossed.