Differing views on difficult photos

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/10/2010 (5582 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Journalists can be a jaded bunch. Sometimes, because we’ve seen it all before far too often, we make decisions that are at odds with what many of our readers want from their daily newspaper. So we thought we’d ask for some fresh, unspoiled viewpoints. We asked our future subscribers — and writers — to defend one of these statements:

1. The photo of Col. Russell Williams dressed in stolen women’s lingerie had to be on the front page.

2. The photo should never have run on the front page.

Here’s what we got. All three writers are in the Red River College Creative Communications program.

 

Photos of Williams Should Be Kept in Perspective

 

On Tuesday, Oct. 19, the Winnipeg Free Press published self-portraits of disgraced former colonel Russell Williams in skimpy stolen lingerie on its front page. Shortly after the paper was delivered, letters to the editor and complaints started pouring in, centering on anything from the disrespect shown toward the victims to the photos’ offensive nature at the breakfast table. Though these concerns may be valid, the decision to publish the photos is perhaps not what is offensive; it’s the disturbing, chilling self-portrait of a sex killer that is offensive.

The photos add a chilling, realistic element to the sensational story of military man on the rise-turned murderer and rapist. The public needs to know what Williams did regardless of its morning digestibility. The public also needs to learn, as much as prosecutors and professionals, why Williams did what he did. The first clue into a killer’s psyche is the pattern of behaviour exhibited in the crimes, because these patterns can help reveal and prevent actions by similar offenders. Unfortunately for those whose children were confused by the pictures, Williams’ crimes included hundreds of these repulsive self-portraits. The story has been traumatizing for Williams’ victims and it should not go unreported because some people feel uncomfortable looking at a decorated military man in one photo and a decorated fetishist in another. Our discomfort is microscopic compared to his victims’ and their families’. These photos are just blips on a killer’s timeline, but illustrate the lifelong trauma Williams’ sickening crimes have caused.

The pictures are the news, because they are a key element in Williams’ prosecution. They demonstrate the heinous nature of the man and his crimes. Williams took them of his own free will — the same will that raped, tortured, and brutally murdered two people. There is no doubt the pictures will continue to reiterate Williams’ status as a sadistic killer in the public conscience. In turn, some people who criticized their publication believe they will continue to reiterate his victims’ statuses as victims. The fact is, Jessica Lloyd and Cpl. Marie-France Comeau entered the public conscience as the innocent victims, just as Williams entered the public conscience as an atrocious monster. His crimes against them are so horrific that it is unlikely the public will forget Lloyd and Comeau were the victims regardless of what type of photo of Williams is published.

If a glimpse into the mind of a man who can film rape, torture and murder is not important to the public for its own safety, then the Free Press should not have published the photos. The world is not a comfortable place and sometimes it takes a shocking photo in the comfort of our own homes to understand that. Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power, and the public is entitled to that knowledge.

— Emily Wessel

 

Freedom of Sight

Former colonel Russell Williams is not a sexy man.

Winnipeg Free Press readers were appalled to see an image, on the Oct. 19 front page, of the disgraced former CFB Trenton commander in women’s lingerie. Especially that of women he victimized.

The case, in which Williams was convicted of two first-degree murders, two sexual assaults, and 82 break-ins, has been covered by local and national media outlets. Radio, television, and online news sources are laden with commentary from the Belleville, Ont., courtroom. Social media, such as live tweeting with Twitter, was used inside the courtroom, allowing followers to instantly receive updates as the gruesome evidence was being presented. In an age of mobile information, easily Googled news stories, and posted public evidence, contemporary newspapers must cater to a visually dependent society.

One of the main reasons Williams was so easily convicted is the images he took masturbating in female underwear — often that of juveniles. Those pictures are in the public domain.

He was cocky during the initial police interrogation, causing those in court to gasp at his calm and cool demeanour. Some 24-hour news stations replayed the police videos of a smiling Williams for hours.

Photos of bras and panties Williams had hoarded from his fetish break-ins filled screens and newspaper pages.

Some newspapers put in official courtroom drawings. The one of Williams’ face covered by juvenile underwear was incredibly disturbing due to its context. Also, in the corner of the drawing, is Williams’ upturned face, sneaking a view of his perverse photo gallery.

These were the standard images; the ones overtly instilling disgust in the viewer. The Free Press chose to represent the story with a portrait of the man Williams had become. It displayed his character to the public in a way words could not describe, a way in which the public could be left to form its own judgment of the disgraced Canadian Forces commander.

It was, rather simply, a man in woman’s underwear staring out of the frame. And no, it is not supposed to be a comfortable view.

But there were no genitalia, no exploitation, no one underage — the adult man did this to himself. He hurt many people and while some news outlets focused on haunting images of his beautiful murdered victims, Jessica Lloyd and Marie-France Comeau, the Free Press used the murderer’s own photography to encapsulate a national news story. It was how he wanted to be seen, in private — a right the court in Belleville dismissed with a life sentence of 25 years without the possibility of parole.

— Daniella Ponticelli

What happened to professionalism?

No. The photographs should not have been displayed on the front page. They were practically pornographic. When I saw them (first) on the cover of the Winnipeg Sun, my immediate thought was, “This is why the Sun has the reputation they do.” By displaying a photograph so risqué and controversial, it only causes the paper to lose credibility, in my opinion. It shows a lack of integrity and a disregard for censorship. That kind of imagery is what would be published on a less professional outlet, like a blog (ie: Perez Hilton). What has happened to discretion and professionalism? By putting these images on the cover, the reputable news source instantly turned into a tabloid. It seemed like an attention-grabber for an audience. I’m going to choose to believe that this was not the intention. So with that said, I can empathize with the editors’ debate over the placement of such a photographbut I, personally, would not have put it on the cover.

— Allison Marinelli