The Times, page 4, Thursday, Jan 5

[Tock389]

The paper today printed the story of a successful lawyer who committed suicide yesterday. She jumped from the upper part of a London hotel. By chance, a passing photographer took shots of her on the ledge, in mid-air, and the impact. The Times published pix of the ledge and in mid-air but thankfully not the impact.

Do people think this was very tasteless, or is it in the public interest? What would her family say?

[derekblue]

I saw this and thought of how the family must have felt,but this is the press that never seems to have any feeling toward the public in general.Unless theres an uproar as such as the Frank bruno case.It was mad frank until the public reaction and then it was poor frank again.Not the same i know but you see my point.To cap it all i used to think i could trust the Times,but its all buissness in the end.A bad decision to show the pictures i think.

[Drusilla]

I saw the pictures in yesterday's Evening Standard and have to admit I experienced the same sense of intrusion into a personal tragedy.
I'm sure the papers will present a public interest argument and there may well be a legitimate argument to show pictures of violent death in warfare, if only to make us all aware of the consequences of such political decisions.
However, in this case, I believe the pictures are the story. Would any national paper have bothered with this poor woman's tragedy if there were no pictures of her death? I think not and I find that somewhat ghoulish.
My sympathies go to her family and friends.

[jake-the-peg]

There is a difference between what is in the public interest and what interests the public!

The newspapers know this but they still use this spurious arguement to justify this sort of journalism

The real reason I guess is it sells newspapers - the Times must be getting desperate

[gary baldy]

You know what i would like to see?
Pictures of a close relative to the editor of The Times falling to their death - preferably landing on a close relative of the photographer who took the shots.

[Peter Pedant]

They dont do that G B

Murdoch and Maxwell had an unspoken agreement that they wouldnt lampoon each others little foibles.

I pointed out Auberon Waugh never seemd to lampoon the childless marriage of Lord Black and Barbara Amiel, who owned the paper he used to write in. But AW did lay into sick little children and so on.....they didnt print the letter.

[OBonio]

I would like to see the photographer take the same life decision as Kevin Carter. That would seem fair I think.

[andy-hughes]

I'd have to agree with the answers thus far - I love jake-the-peg's analysis - absolutely spot on.

There is no valid reason for showing pictures of this poor woman's last moments on earth - what possible purpose does it serve? Anyone with a brain can imagine what jumpiong off a ledge looks like, it's a broadsheet newspaper, not a kiddies' reading primer!

I haven't seen the pictures, and will certainly try to avoid doing so - i have the mental image, and that's more than enough for me.

[Drisgirl]

I think it is abhorrent and in no way in the publics interest.I also feel the same way when papers print mangled wrecks of cars in which people have died.I am not talking joyriders here where the photos might act as a deterrent.

I have been personally so incensed as to contact the papers concerned.They are so hard nosed that they couldnt care less as it is daily life for them.They can barely disguise the complacency in their voices.Well as they say 'What goes round ...' God forbid.

[campbellking]

I was a spectator at the Burghley horse trials in 2004 and witnessed the death of the rider Caroline Pratt. It was appalling and horrifying to witness (and I work in a hospital and am used to seeing dying people). My brother and I walked away from the fence when we saw they were performing CPR as they pulled her from the water. However, other people then flocked to the fence and stayed until she was taken away in the ambulance. The Daily Mail (and possibly other newspapers) published pictures of her accident two days later. I can only assume that people have some kind of morbid curiosity about these incidents, and that is why they continue to publish these images.

[rojash]

I agree that this kind of reporting is appalling. However, it's much worse here in Greece, where we are regularly subjected to the most intimate details of tragedies on the TV news.

One station really went over the top when they showed video of a man falling to his death accompanied by the theme to Superman.

[surfer mike]

Tasteless in the extreme, but thats the modern media for you. anything goes, you can't tell the difference between the tabloids or the broadsheets these days, with ITN resembling the daily mail as a outrage organ.

[joko]

I agree generally with all the above, and am certainly no fan of the media, but just a thought - do you think that these images and the uproar surrounding them may make some other suicidal person considering doing the same thing, think twice? And perhaps seek help rather than throwing their life away? or would they just try a different way?

[WendyS]

Whatever happened to public decency and good manners? I still believe that these should apply in the public domain as well as in private and hate the manner in which the media (both press and TV) intrude into other peoples' grief. A good reporter ought to be able to portray information such as this in words without graphic pictures of individuals which only causes additional suffering to their families. Most of us are naturally curious by nature and like to know what's happening around us but there are limits in decency and it's time the press and TV started to learn where those boundaries are.

[jno]

joko I'd worry that photos like this might actually other people to do the same in hopes of posthumous fame. But it coarsens public sensitivities and must be hell for the family of the dead person. The editor of the Times - a mild-mannered Australian, not the surfer type, I've met him - should be ashamed and maybe is.

[jno]

- sorry, meant to write 'encourage' in that first sentence -