Monday, November 22, 2010

Update on Lady, the badly burned pit bull

The good news is, Lady is doing well.
I'm posting some pictures from the Michigan Humane Society — it's an update to what they'd previously sent when she first reached their offices.
You can follow her progress online at the Michigan Humane Society's website, and don't forget, there's a $10,000 reward being offered for information leading to her arrest.

What is too graphic?
I'd love to have a discussion in this space about what is too graphic to post (a big thanks to Lynn to answering my question in my previous post!).
Here's my position — I have a hard time determining what is graphic anymore. I watch too much Animal Cops, I've seen too many horrible things, both in the animal world and beyond. Nothing seems to surprise me anymore.
Part of me thinks that it takes some graphic images to really stir people. That same part of me wonders if I could've accurately conveyed how horrible Lady's burning was without using the photos.
From the newspaper's standpoint, it's a little different. Our print newspaper can be lying on the counter top, kitchen table or a coffee table in anyone's household, totally accessible to anyone of any age in that household. That means that when our editors discuss what should and shouldn't be used in the paper, they're thinking about the children running around in the households of our readers and trying to prevent an innocent child from picking up the paper and seeing an offensive image.
But what about this blog?
Sure, the reading material may not geared toward little kids. Thinking back to when I was 10- or 11-years-old, though, I might've been a bit mature for my age, but I certainly could've seen myself reading a blog similar to the one I'm writing now.
On the other hand, there's much more offensive stuff out there online.

So, what is too graphic for this space? When it comes right down to it, I want to know what you, my readers, think.

Were the photos I posted of Lady in my original post about her too graphic? Should I take them down? Is it a moot point to take them down now?

And, is there some sort of rule of thumb I can make for myself going forward?

I'm not just asking for your input, I'm begging for it.
Thank you!!


  1. On a blog, I think you can post anything you want, though you may want to put a note in the headline warning readers, GRAPHIC PHOTOS, just as you would with profanity in a video/audio clip.

    But what's the point of describing something if you have a picture and don't show it.

    However, if readership takes a sudden dip or if you lose a number of followers, you may want to tone down. Too many graphic photos or nothing but TOO MUCH may drive away readers. Responding to single complaints, though, that's up to you. Newspapers have tended to respond to the one or two calls out of tens of thousands of readers, and I'm not sure how smart that is.

    On another note, I hate the 'innocent child' argument for censoring. I look at it as breakfast table taste, and a paper shouldn't make someone nauseous.

  2. I hate to see pictures of animals that are harmed but don't think of them as to graphic. We need to be exposed to the horror today as much as the good side to give us balance. Goodie Two Shoes needs to know how bad things really are and don't hide their lil heads under the covers.

  3. The definition of graphic is something along the lines of 'description in vivid detail'. Might graphic images be upsetting to someone? Yes. Is it "too graphic"? That is obviously a matter of opinion - whether one is a "Goodie Two Shoes" or not.

    Karen, as the blog's author, writes about many subjects relating to dogs. Some of the topics are upsetting (you know, like some creep shooting his dog and dumping it, still alive). To accompany these upsetting stories with pictures is up to Karen to determine if the pictures help make the point more vivid or "too vivid".