A leading newspaper, one that I am addicted to, has front page news on December 25 of terrorists humiliating guests at Taj Hotel Mumbai before killing them. Well, while bringing this gruesome act to light is important, isn't preventing further humiliation of those who unfortunately lost their lives for no reason much more crucial?
The front page of the newspaper has a 'blurred' photograph of two unfortunately humiliated Taj hotel guests. The report ends with the newspaper saying that they have refrained from printing most of such pictures.
I just want to understand this:
I understand that the forensic team must have needed the photographs for investigation, but allowing the media to publish these photographs for the entire world to see is beyond my understanding. The headline is strong enough for everyone to understand (and visualize, if I must say) what must have happened. Supporting it with the photograph - uncalled for.
If the terrorists humiliated the guests on that day, aren't we humiliating them further by displaying their 'blurred' photographs? Was it absolutely necessary? Now they would say "In such cases we want to show people how bad it was...". C'mon, words speak enough when gruesome things like this happen. I was very very very hurt to know that this horrible inhuman act happened, that the terrorists did much worse than killing people, but that our own newspaper displayed this photograph was equally disturbing.
I request all media to refrain from printing such photographs when the headline is strong enough to convey what happened. Please.