9/11 victim Keating Crown [Photo from Library of Congress]
As I opened up the front page section of this past Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, my attention was immediately drawn to the picture that appears to the right.
With the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks a week away, the Tribune‘s main front page story, titled “Time and Healing,” was about those who survived the attacks. Accompanying the story was a large, above-the-fold picture of a 9/11 widow and her two daughters, which contrasted rather dramatically with a below-the-fold picture showing the bleeding and bandaged Keating Crown, who had escaped the World Trade Center’s south tower after it was struck by United Flight 175.
I would be curious to know if there was any controversy among the Tribune‘s editorial board as to whether this particular picture (or another similarly unpleasant-to-behold picture of a victim of the September 11th attacks) should appear on the front page or not. Was there a unanimous consensus that the picture should be used, or was there some vocal dissent on the grounds that such a disturbing picture might cause emotional harm to some readers?
With September 11th just four days away, surely similar discussions are taking place at newspapers and TV networks all across the country. I suspect, though, that most news outlets will elect to include in their 9/11 anniversary coverage at least some graphic images of the victims if for no other reason than that their journalistic common sense dictates that they should.
But then we have to wonder: If it’s acceptable to show graphic images depicting victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks, why do 99% of media outlets steadfastly refuse to ever show graphic images depicting victims of abortion?