Would you print these Photos?

FIRST
If these four pictures of the late Pennsylvania treasurer R. Budd Dwyer ran together in a news story, I think they would gain the most attention. But, a newspaper should never run pictures for the sole purpose of sensationalism, and I think editors need to be sensitive of the situation and of the readers who will eventually pick up the paper and read / see the gruesome details. I would choose picture 2a. (which is the one of Dwyer holding the gun in front of him) because it captures the moment, without going overboard. Picture 1a. is somewhat confusing; if I saw that picture and didn't read the news article that accompanied it, I would think that Dwyer was defending himself. Pictures 3a. and 4a. are too much for a newspaper; readers can get the full effect of the story without having to see a picture of a gun in his mouth or the back of his head being blown up.

SECOND:
The biggest factor that I considered while looking at all of these pictures is the news-worthiness of each one. Are these photos the best ones to use to tell a story, or would other ones suffice that would give readers the same insight into an event? I also used gauged my first-impression on each picture; if I felt uneasy looking at it, I assumed that other readers would feel the same way.

I think picture 1 would be an appropriate photo to run in a newspaper, as long as a relevant story ran with it. This picture is both sad and riveting at the same time; you can feel the boy's grief over his dead dog. At the same time, the picture has taste; the dog is not mangled, the boy is not covered in its blood, etc. I believe this photo would enhance the article that accompanied it.

I was a little hesitant with my decision to run pictures 3 and 5, but my deciding factor was still the news-worthiness of each photo. Picture 3 reflects the aftermath of the gunman's shooting spree; without this photo, I don't think readers would fully understand the tragedy of this situation. The effect is different if someone were to read that a newspaper employee murdered seven, killed 13 and killed himself compared to if they saw a picture of one of the victim's. Granted, if you were able to fully identify who the victim was in the photo, I would not run it in respect to the victim and the victim's family.

I was disgusted with picture 5 – not because of the photo itself, but of the actions and context behind that photo. Because her identity is unknown and her face is obscured, I think this picture should be run in a paper. It spotlights how dangerous celebrations of that sort can be, and will give readers a better idea of what could happen. Instead of just reading about an unidentified woman who had her clothes torn off on Fat Tuesday, seeing this photo gives readers a better understanding of what happened and will hopefully make them think twice about their actions or attending an event like this in the future.

I would not run pictures 2 and 4 simply because I was slightly revolted when I looked at them. I feel that picture 2 is too intrusive; the photographer is capturing a family at a most vulnerable time. The family's wishes must be considered before running this photo; the parents might not want this picture made public, especially since their dead son's body can easily be seen at the bottom of the picture. I think this moment is too private and would cause too much grief for the family if they were to see it in the papers.
Thankfully, the boy was okay, but I was barely able to stomach looking at picture 4. I wouldn't appreciate waking up in the morning and seeing this picture splashed across the front page of my local newspaper, and although it is news-worthy, I believe the news article would be enough to inform readers about the incident. If this picture ran in a paper, I would view it as a result of poor taste and judgment.