The story behind the photos

A picture is worth a thousand comments.

And even more comments when people don't like it.

Every day at the Times News we make decisions about one of the most important components of our news report: photos.

What would a newspaper be without photos? Black, white and dull all over.

Sure, some are no-brainers. The photo of the quarterback throwing a pass, or the volleyball player who is grimacing as she serves are sure winners.

We know people will love those photos as much as we do.

With news photos, though, it's anyone's guess.

A couple months ago we had a photo of a car that crashed after an encounter with a deer on the turnpike.

The deer broke through the windshield and ended up on the hood of the smashed car, and in the photo. That rarely happens.

The driver was struck by flying glass and treated at the scene by Lehighton paramedics.

We try to avoid dead deer photos except on the hunting page, and even then we are careful about what we publish. A lot of people just don't like to see them.

When that photo crossed my desk, I knew it wasn't a decision I could make myself. I polled the room.

In the end, we decided to publish the photo. It was a news photo and it showed the scene. The subject was one with which many of us could identify.

We chose to run it in black and white because color was more than we wanted to show.

We braced ourselves for calls. None came.

Fast forward to the eagle that was shot this spring in Andreas.

When our beloved national bird was intentionally killed, it broke my heart right along with the readers.

One Facebook commenter posted, "This sick individual just committed a federal felony. This adult bald eagle most likely was raising eaglets at this time of year."

Another said, "I loved watching this majestic beauty fly by our farm every day."

The act spurred state Sen. Lisa M. Boscola to introduce a bill that would increase the state fine as penalty for killing a bald or golden eagle.

We received the photo of the dead bird from the Pennsylvania Game Commission and we chose to publish it.

To me it emphasized the horror and the magnitude of the crime. It spurred people's emotions.

Too many emotions.

Our readers didn't like it. Didn't want to see it.

I learned a long time ago that I can't always gauge what will upset readers.

My former newspaper published a story and photos about nude paintings. We were certain that readers would object. They did not.

Maybe because it was artwork?

Not sure, but we sure did get calls about the feature photo of the boy riding his bike through the cemetery without a helmet.

Yes, people objected because he was in the cemetery, but especially because he wasn't wearing a helmet. What kind of example is that, they asked?

We just thought he was a cute kid.

Early this week we published a photo gallery of one of the high school marching bands. We thought it was a wonderful way to show off our local students' talent.

One of our Facebook posters disagreed.

We couldn't possibly get every member of the band in the photos, and she accused us of leaving students out deliberately.

None of us saw that coming.

And no one saw the gunman who shot a TV reporter and cameraman on live television last month in Virginia.

Shot by their former colleague, a journalist who also recorded himself carrying out the killings and then posted the video on social media.

When Vester Lee Flanagan II killed Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, photos and videos started showing up everywhere in social media.

Video and stills showed an outstretched arm holding the handgun.

The scene resembled one of those crime TV shows I love to watch.

Except it was very real.

The Associated Press moved the photos. We found the video.

They were powerful. They were disturbing.

This was an easy decision.

They were better left unpublished.

Contact Marta Gouger at mgouger@tnonline.com