Ambassador Stevens' Photo on Front Page of 'Los Angeles Times'

I've been reading the hard-copy version of the New York Times of late, because I want to bring the paper to class to have examples for the students' writing assignments. I bring both the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times with me. I normally raise current events issues at the beginning of classes, but this last week we spent more time discussing things than usual. On Thursday I was a little surprised that the Times ran the picture of Ambassador Stevens being carried through the streets of Benghazi, or his body being dragged through the streets, depending on your perspective. I posted on that here: "Body of Ambassador Chris Stevens Dragged Through Streets of Benghazi."

So then it was pretty interesting to read the reader backlash at the Times as well, at the letters to the editor over the weekend. See, "Stevens' photo on the front page":

Reader reaction was strong to Thursday's front-page photo of a mortally wounded J. Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Stevens was killed Tuesday along with three other Americans in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As the article that accompanied the photo noted, he was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1988.

Some readers called the photo graphic, unwarranted, inappropriate, disgraceful, gratuitous and insensitive.

"It was very distasteful and disrespectful to post the picture of Stevens, in death in such graphic detail, on the front page," Donna Shontell of Sherman Oaks said. "This plays into the hands of those responsible for these types of horrendous acts. I respect The Times for excellence in journalism, not for tabloid exploitation."

"Stevens was a dedicated, brave, and honorable man who died serving his country. He deserves our respect and gratitude," Betsy K. Emerick of Monrovia wrote. "Instead, by printing that photo, you have taken away his dignity and turned his sacrifice into an opportunity for exploitation and sensationalism."

"It seems to me a picture of the burning embassy in Benghazi would have been quite graphic enough," Virginia G. Berg of Culver City wrote. "The ambassador's family will never be able to forget the horrible pain and suffering he went through, and in my opinion they did not need to see this very graphic photograph to make it even worse."

"Your front-page photo of a dying Stevens was unwarranted and inappropriate," wrote Tim Sunderland of Rancho Cucamonga. "With freedom of the press comes a responsibility to honor the most sensitive of moments. This was one of them, and The Times failed."

David Latt of Pacific Palisades asked: "What was gained by this photograph? Was it newsworthy? We know the ambassador was attacked by a mob. We know he died. Can you imagine the added grief his family and friends felt when they viewed that photograph? And what about your readers? What was gained by attacking your readers' sensibilities?"

Editors discussed the photo at length on Wednesday. Managing Editor Marc Duvoisin explained the thinking...

More at the link.

EXTRA: "Blood Stains: Pictures From Benghazi Consulate Indicate Horror of Final Moments Before Death (PHOTOS)."