In terms of the R. Budd Dwyer photographs, there are far too many "depends" scenarios that have been left unaddressed. Some of the questions I have before making a decision on what photo to run would be: is this a paper that is primarily distributed by mail subscriptions or one that is primarily sold on newsstands? Newspapers that have wide distribution by subscription have to be handled much more sensitively. Subscribers are placing even more trust in you as an editor in making appropriate decisions on the things that are coming into their homes every morning. Newspapers that have greater circulation through newsstands have much more leeway.

But since the page asks "what photos would I run in MY newspaper", I need to figure out what MY newspaper is. For all practical purposes, let's just say that my newspaper is The News-Gazette.

For the R. Budd Dwyer photos, I would be the most inclined to publish the 2nd picture, assuming that it is an immediate breaking news story about his death and a feature. Under absolutely NO circumstance would publishing the 4th, post-bullet picture be acceptable. That sort of thing is best saved for those disgusting shock websites that post videos of beheadings, torture, and all that other stuff, which by the way, apparently still have the video up of this incident if anyone is so inclined and disturbed enough to watch it. You have to remember that not everyone in this country has sound mental and emotional health. It's far too intrusive to publish something like that on a front page. I think you would atleast owe you readers a warning, and you can't do that on the front page. You have to remember that subscribers are inviting your paper into their homes every morning because they trust you, and to publish something like that on the front could be a violation of that trust, especially to families with impressionably young children in them. If a newspaper showed up on my front porch with that picture, you better believe I would throw it straight in the garbage because I would be extremely offended by it. I have to imagine that a lot of people would be too disgusted with that picture to even get past the first page, and get chucked in the garbage. Not good if you are the editor. I would not publish the third picture either because it also pushes the line. The second picture would be my choice. It pushes against the fine line, but doesn't go over it, while doing the story justice for the provocative story that it is.

Onwards to the other photos. There are only two of them that I might consider publishing. It's hard for me to see how a story about a kid whose dog has got run over by car would ever be newsworthy enough to publish, so I can't think of why it would ever be published. But, if there were newsworthy text that could be supported by this picture, I would consider publishing it. There's no doubt that it's a beautiful picture, but it seems more like an art photograph than a journalistic photograph.

The picture of the devastated family with their son in the body bag is another photo that I would consider publishing. The death of a child is always a newsworthy story. It's an excellent picture because the emotional quality captured is extremely intense and very difficult to ignore. If the people agreed that it would be ok to publish the photo, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Under no circumstance would I publish any of the other pictures. Like I said earlier, they would fit right in to any of those shock/gore websites online. I would want my newspaper to be a classy publication, and there is no class in any of those pictures. I would find better pictures to visually communicate any of those stories.