Posted by Phil Andrews
A Guelph reader shared a concern about the manner that a photo of an injured dog was used online on the GuelphMercury.com Friday.
The image appeared with a story about dog attacks in the Whitelaw Road area and it was briefly the lead photo on the website.
Here is the feedback:
I am writing concerning the article found on the online version of the Mercury at: http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/6224231-off-leash-dog-attacks-noted-in-guelph-s-whitelaw-road-area/
I question whether the story needed to be accompanied by graphic photos of a dog covered in blood from what was described as a vicious attack.
If this is the case, I strongly feel that they should not have been displayed on the paper's main page, but should have been enclosed in the article body after a warning that the article contained upsetting and violent images.
***
The photo was also published by the Mercury on its Twitter and Facebook accounts.
The commentator declined an invitation for his feedback to form the basis of a letter to the editor for the newspaper's print edition.
As they say in marketing, "if it bleeds it leads". It is a rather desperate attempt to be noticed . .
Posted by: Roy Smith | January 08, 2016 at 10:58 PM
Unsavoury? Doubtless. So is the story. So is life and the truth. That's what the story is all about, reporting the facts.
Perhaps Reader's Digest is more to the liking of this overly-sensitive reader?
The Merc got this exactly right. (write?)
Posted by: stephen s | January 09, 2016 at 07:25 PM