By Anna Ramia
Overview
On October 2, 2013, a church bus traveling near Knoxville, Tenn. collided with an SUV and a tractor-trailer, killing eight people and injuring 14. The bus’s front-left tire blew out, sending the bus across the median, clipping a car before T-boning the semi-truck. The bus flipped over, and the semi caught on fire. The Knoxville News Sentinel reported that “it looked like a war zone.” When the Knox News heard about the accident over police scanners, they quickly rented a helicopter and sent photographers and reporters to the scene.
The scene was macabre, and the photos depicted it fully. Bodies lay strewn across the interstate, mostly covered in blue tarps, standing out in the mostly grey and white photos. The Knox News decided to run the photos of the accident on the front page and online.
What’s your problem?
Whenever photos arise containing dead bodies or a grisly accident, there is an ethical question of whether to publish the photos or pick less-revealing options. These photos of the accident did not show bodies up close, but it was clear where and how many people died, due to the bright blue tarps covering them. In some aerial photographs, some body parts were clearly visible. The Knox News had to decide whether to value the distribution of information over stepping on toes. The Knoxville community is a relatively small place, though the crash impacted multiple places, as many of the deceased were from North Carolina.
Different photographs of varying degrees of severity were taken, so the issue is whether or not to publish the most affecting of the group. There are pros and cons to any situation like this, so the decision of which photograph to run is a hard one.
Why not follow the rules?
The Knox News’ code of ethics does not mention gruesome photographs, but it does say, “when in doubt, don’t.” The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says to seek truth and report it, while also to minimize harm. The truth aspect of the code would say to post the photos in the spirit of free information and the public’s right to know of the accident down the road. In order to minimize harm, ideally no family or friends would be offended or hurt by the display of photographs. The code states: Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
According to Poynter, the Knox News previously posted a photo of a man receiving life support after a shooting, effectively setting a precedent for that type of photograph.3 This situation is a different animal, however, as a large group of people were affected and it was a “greater” tragedy in that sense. The rules never cater to specific incidents, so it is at the discretion of the editors whether or not to post the photographs.
Who wins, who loses?
In any situation, the journalist is in the list of the affected. Stemming from that, stakeholders may include the news organization, the photographer, families of the deceased, survivors of the accident and the community as a whole. The winners, if published, would be the journalist, photographer, news organization and any activists lobbying for stricter vehicle inspection codes. The losers may be the families of the dead, if the photograph offends. The photograph might strike any children walking by the newsstands or looking through the morning paper, making any unsuspecting children the losers as well.
What’s it worth?
The choice is not a right-versus-wrong situation; it’s a dilemma between conflicting values and loyalties. Personal and professional values come into play, as does the value of truth. This story is, according to the Knox News, the most tragic accident to befall this community in a long time, so the correct depiction of the news is crucial to honor the community and the affected families. Professionally, the decision to run or not run the photograph is an important one, as it either furthers a precedent or changes its course. Personally, the editor’s moral conscious comes into play. Socially, the community may lash back at the news station in the wake of the tragedy, saying that the photos are disrespectful or otherwise inappropriate.
Who’s whispering in your ear?
Personally guided by act utilitarianism, I want the greatest amount of good to come from the situation. Having seen the photographs, I agree with the decision of running the photographs. They were not too graphic, and as bad as this sounds, enough people were hurt to make the bodies under the tarps virtually indistinguishable. The wreck was a horrific accident, and the community deserves to know what happened and to what extent. I feel that running the photos did more good than it did harm.
How’s it going to look?
My decision would be to run the aerial photographs and the close-ups with discretion. I looked through the front-page photo and the online slideshow, and I did not see anything too gruesome. In the Poynter interview with the visuals editor, he said that there was little backlash from the photos, affirming my decision. The decision to run the accident scene rather than the emotional effects would be a tough one, but I liked how they ran the accident scene dominantly, with a smaller emotional photo. The accident scene shows the devastation caused by the crash, something that can only be truly understood with a photo. This “seeks truth and reports it,” and the lack of distinguishable bodies “minimizes harm.”
by 
