Dear <<First Name>>
 

There are certain, inescapable images, forever part of our collective consciousness, that influence who we are, whether we are cognizant of it or not – Steve McCurry

There has been a debate in the media and online about whether or not it is time to make a regular practice to publish the grisly photos that show the true impact of gun violence. As has been widely reported, an AR 15, as used in Uvalde and many other mass shootings, can and usually does “vaporize” its victims’ bodies, erasing their humanity as it eviscerates their lives.
 
In newsrooms there’s been a longstanding rule not to show such grisly images, in the interest of protecting both the victims and the audience, who presumably would not be able to handle such things. Taste and decency are often used as the justification for not publishing these images.
 
On the other hand, some have been arguing that this is the time for gun violence to have its’  “Emmett Till moment,” referencing the 14-year-old Black boy who was tortured and murdered by white racists in Mississippi in 1955. His mother insisted on an open casket saying that she wanted the world to see what her son’s murderers had done. And the world did. The photograph of Till taken by Jet magazine was reproduced throughout the country and abroad and is cited as helping invigorate the civil rights movement.

The power of photographs helped change directions of the Viet Nam war when society faced the young Vietnamese girl running naked after being hit with napalm (who, 50 years later, wrote about the experience in The Times). Recently we have written here about the challenges and question of war photography or you can take a look at the recent Lynsey Addario’s devastating photos of the deaths of Ukrainian civilians for another perspective on this.  Videos have opened our eyes to misuse of force by police officers.

University of Oregon's Nicole Smith Dahmen wrote for Photo District News that “research has shown that when audiences feel emotionally connected with news events, they're more likely to change their views or take action," and “the power of images is limited." While shocking images can provoke "short bursts of activism," that power dissipates quickly.  Journalism professor Susie Linfield notes that  people, not photographs, create political change, which is slow, difficult and unpredictable. Don't ask images to think, or to act, for you.

You can read more here and here.
 
Ultimately, a family would have to decide, just as Mamie Till did, to show the images. So, as these debates swirl, the fact is this: first and foremost this is a matter for families and survivors. Sensitivity and respect for them is what matters because these kinds of decisions are not ours to make, nor are they our business. 

If they chose to show images, then the media outlets can wrestle with whether to publish them or not. And only after that, would you and I also have to wrestle with our own thoughts about looking at the pain of others. 

In our contemporary society, one so over-inundated with imagery, it is easy to overlook the power of a single frame to change the way we look at the world, or rally disparate hearts to a single cause. Yet, ours is a society shaped by this very phenomenon -- Steve McCurry