data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/adfc4/adfc46ddaec6d30f05bc3d9e9506ab95416059ad" alt=""
There was some discussion in the newsroom about which photo to use in the story of the city cracking down on pandhandlers.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ddd74/ddd74ff361559fc2a23fd244c2ee02d4c0bff86a" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a3838/a38384b5c35b81fedaf03a56322c1831167992c6" alt=""
Most of the pandhandlers for the story were homeless people and the question came up whether to photograph their faces. Since they are standing in a public place and calling attention to themseleves any right to privacy argument doesn't apply. It became more of a sensitivity issue. I got shots of both their faces and just close ups of the signs they held.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cd978/cd9786877003729ae8829443b8daa09a7a60bfc5" alt=""
Either picture has their merits but maybe the one without a face shows the issue of them being a faceless member of the community. I was kind of torn, I thought either photo could work but I didn't think we should reject the photos that showed their faces just because we could tell who they were.
No comments:
Post a Comment