Media goes too far? What do you think?

[Pixilated]

From the Boston Marathon bombings

Time magazine is getting a lot of criticism for using this photo. What do you think? (Yes, I do have an opinion; I'll post it later )

[Nekojin]

It's a tempest in a teapot, IMO. I don't see what the controversy in that picture is. Presumably some variant on, "OMG think of the children!"

[crashhelmet]

I don't have any problem with the picture they took. They could've gone far worse and used a picture of a dead body or detached body parts. This picture was probably chosen to draw more sympathy and attention, but it's not tasteless.

[Greenday]

Meh, they could have used a lot worse considering there are pictures of people with legs blown off.

[smileyeagle1021]

It seems like a crass attempt to sensationalize the incident even more than it already has been... that said, I don't see anything objectionable in it.

[JPD]

What I want am wondering is if they got permission from the child's parents or guardians to use the image, and how were they able to track that information down. Also, while this may not have been the best picture to use, I would rather see this then one of the extremely gory pictures that are floating around.

[lordlundar]

If this is an example of Time taking it too far, then that line was crossed LONG ago.

The choice of photo was to convey and invoke powerful emotional response. It is no different than a lot of the new photos presented over the decades.

[jackfaire]

The detractors seem to more have issue with how horrific the incident itself was.

Every comment seems to me a veiled "white wash it make it seem like it wasn't a big deal"

Personally I think not using the photo would have been insulting and disrespectful.

Honestly it is hard to actually conceptualize the pain of what other people are going through. We can hear about something horrific happening but it isn't the words that get us going, "Oh shit" it's the images.

"There is flooding in New Orleans"

"Oh well that kind of sucks"

"Here are pictures"

"Holy shit we have to help those people"

[TheHuckster]

It's certainly a shocking photo. One that invokes emotion and more importantly depicts just what the scene was like for people who witnessed the explosion and its aftermath first hand.

It's definitely not over the top, nor is it tasteless or tactless. I agree that if it were photos of mutilated bodies or extreme gore, it would have been too much, but to me this photo perfectly skirts the line between being "too careful" and being "too careless." This photo represents a very good job by the photojournalist and the publisher to choose an image which depicts the innocence that was disturbed by the attack.

Photos like this are supposed to invoke emotion, even if it's shock or negative emotion. We are shown one of many children who were greatly affected by this tragedy and they are going to live with the scene they saw for the rest of their lives. While it should not unfocus our attention from the maimed and killed people, we should remember that there are going to be hundreds of emotional scars that result from this which will last the rest of their lives just as many of the injured.

[Kelmon]

I don't see how this is different from showing pictures from the countless bombings in the middle east...

[anakhouri]

I think the entire idea of photojournalism is to make distant events personal to readers with pictures of people they can relate to and feel for. A photo of a crying, frightened, possibly injured child will make anyone feel something for that child and thus understand the human experience of the bombing.

I don't believe you need parental permission to publish a photo of a child that was taken in a public place- I think it's prudent to get said permission, but not legally necessary.

[Ginger Tea]

If the image was of a destroyed building or a burnt out car, you could as time goes by, dismiss the event on that image alone as being no big deal.

[Pixilated]

Okay, belatedly, my opinion is it's a striking and moving photo but not out of line by a long shot. As others have said, shots like these are supposed to bring the true impact of events home to people who are physically very far away from them. If the event is not pleasant, the photos are not going to make viewers feel all warm and fuzzy. That's the point.

And (again, my knowledge is only relevant to my area) photographing anybody of any age in public does not require anybody's permission.

[fireheart17]

And (again, my knowledge is only relevant to my area) photographing anybody of any age in public does not require anybody's permission.

Well if you're taking lots of photos of children, the general public might think differently....

[Ginger Tea]

True, but I doubt many on that day were taking pics of toddlers and children to fill a niche in the trauma porn market, which I'm sure is a real thing.