is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
This is a fascinating analysis of how a photo of a child, both legs broken by Mugabe thugs, not only came to be--but how it came to not be on the internet. Question: should the New York Times, and Poynter Institute, have with-held internet publication of a photo published in a NYT print version?
The photograph was a stunner. Displayed across four columns at the top of Page One of Thursday’s New York Times, the image showed a baby boy with casts on both legs, the apparent victim of the violence marking the presidential election in Zimbabwe.
In these times of mass video delivery and saturation of visual messages, this still image offered cause to pause. It demanded attention, insisting that readers and viewers not look away.
Because of the risks to both journalists and the subjects of their coverage in Zimbabwe, The Times did not identify either the photographer or the child and decided not to publish the photo on its Web site. (Poynter Online also decided not to publish the photo, and instead links to the image of Thursday's front page published on nytimes.com. See July 1 update below.)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (5)
at 05:10 on July 2nd, 2008
The link did not work for me PEP. I got this: I guess this is a true story; its not on the web.
请尝试以下操作:
找不到服务器或 DNS 错误Internet Explorer
at 06:12 on July 2nd, 2008
Hmm..when I clicked on the link for poynter org, I got this, just fine.
at 06:15 on July 2nd, 2008
And the embedded link for the NYT front page works just fine, too. So I don't know what to say, DJ.
at 06:23 on July 2nd, 2008
Here it is...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article4232386.ece
at 06:26 on July 2nd, 2008
PEP, I like this story. It's good stuff.