November 6, 2006 9:14 AM
Negative reaction to Saturday photo of Haggard and his wife and children
Director of Photography Janet Reeves and I have received a number of e-mails complaining about our front-page picture Saturday showing Ted Haggard responding to journalists' questions with his wife and children in the car.
Here are a few examples:
"Subject: Sat.Photo
Why did you feel it was appropriate to run the picture of Ted Haggard on the front page of the Sat.edition and include his children in the shot?
Even 9 news closed the video to just show Ted and his wife in the car interview. They will suffer enough from this without having to have their faces
Spread over the front page."
"Subject: Front Page Photo, RMN - 4 November 2006
Mr. Temple:
As a rule, I'm content to put up with what the media sees fit to publish or listen to what the talking heads have to say without making a fuss. This time, however the Rocky crossed the line.
I will not quarrel about the public's right to know, nor will I debate the (First) Amendment as related to the media's right to do their thing.
I will, however, violently object to the logic behind publishing a photo that shows two of the Haggard children. Those kids don't deserve to be a public part of the mess their father made of his life.
SHAME ON YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISION TO PRINT THAT PARTICULAR PHOTO, AS WELL AS THE ONE ON PAGE 2A OF THE SAME ISSUE.
Forty + years as a loyal subscriber notwithstanding, if the Denver News Agency didn't have such a monopoly on the printed media in the metro area, you can bet your ass I'd cancel my subscription right now."
Let me try to walk you through our thinking.
First, we don’t alter news photographs. I don't know what the reader saw 9News do. But it's critical that you can trust that news photographs are an accurate representation of what the photographer captured.
We understand why seeing the children is troubling. But that's the case in many news photographs. Innocent people do get swept into news events. It was Ted Haggard who stopped and rolled down the window and made news by admitting in front of his children and his wife that he had purchased drugs (and thrown them out) and that he had known his accuser, whom he said he had paid for massages. Haggard's remarks were national news because they marked the first time he had admitted knowing the escort and buying drugs. The context of his admission, in his car in front of his children, is newsworthy.It was not a context we selected. It was a context he selected. He just as easily could have walked out of his house to talk to reporters alone, without his wife and children, and that's what he should have done in my view to protect them. But that's not what he chose to do. We report the news. We don't make events happen the way we wish they would. And the fact that he chose to make these admissions in front of his children reveals something about his character.
This doesn't mean we didn't feel for Haggard's wife or children. We did. But the focus of our front-page photograph was clearly on the adults, not on the children. It’s very unlikely that people will remember what his children look like because the looks on their parents’ faces were so telling.
I hope this helps explain why we thought that picture needed to be published.
November 6, 2006
10:41 AM
Bruce Becker writes:
Because Haggard flet the need to submit to reporters hounding
him and his family is no excuse for not cropping the photo!! He is the accused and now guilty by admission, not his family.
November 6, 2006
10:42 AM
Bruce Becker writes:
Because Haggard flet the need to submit to reporters hounding
him and his family is no excuse for not cropping the photo!! He is the accused and now guilty by admission, not his family.
November 6, 2006
11:10 AM
Susan Lyons writes:
Once again, another cop out as to why you did not take the moral high road. And once again you hide behind that lame old mantra - we simply report the news, we don't make it. I expected a more sensitive response from you - why, I don't know.
November 6, 2006
11:20 AM
Barry Gutierrez writes:
As a witness to the events unfold I was in shock when Ted Haggard rolled down his window and told us he would answer our questions. My jaw dropped when he admitted to having a massage with Mike Jones in front of his wife and children. His wife turned to him at that moment and stared at him. It was brutally uncomfortable. I was on auto-pilot as a journalist. I worked through my shock and continued to document his admission. My heart was weeping for his children. However, I believe the truth will set you free. And in reading Haggards letter to the New Life Church congregation he is coming understand the power of those words. "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32 NIV)
I am not in judgment, I am telling his story.
As photojournalists we run into this very delima on a weekly basis. Should we publish a minors photograph? A weeping mother? A dead body? Does the public need, deserve or even want to see this images? These can be very difficult questions. But, I am proud to be part of a newspaper that asks those questions everyday. We are part of this community. And we serve this community by documenting the good, the bad and the ugly. We do not create the news, we record it. We capture it for ever. Our archives hold many images from a hundred years ago. I hope that the public can understand that we are not in the business of hurting people. We are in the business of telling their stories. Barry Gutierrez, photojournailist for the Rocky Mountain News.
November 6, 2006
12:12 PM
Kathryn Johnson writes:
This is the weakest, lamest excuse I have ever heard! I'll bet those kids can't even show their faces at school after this - YOU might not remember what they look like, but their friends certainly do!
November 6, 2006
12:15 PM
Rick Reiter writes:
That was a helluv a column today. Everybody likes to be a fly-on-the-wall for stuff like this; you fed us well.
I generally despise most of these high-profile evangelicals, and there was a lot of "red-meat" inside the paper to feed the liberal wolves like myself.
Still, it was the outer-edges of the paper that put it all in perspective. It was poignant, and painful, to study the two photographs of Gayle Haggard during the "driveway" interview. Those, combined with your description of the news desk trying to caption the Friday headline, and in all fairness, the Post's editorial this morning (Saturday), speak loudly to the proverb "put yourself in the other person's shoes". I read and followed Haggard a little more than the others because he brings a nuance that appears a bit more reasoned, more compassionate, perhaps less dogmatic than the others, and I think both papers made it possible for readers to give him some benefit of the doubt today.
November 6, 2006
12:17 PM
Martin Brady writes:
I found Temple's corporate response to the front page photo predictable. The Gutierrez comments were more emotion based and believable. Even after reading Barry's comments of the event I still reach the same conclusion. Having the children in the photo was a bad choice. Tasteless.
November 6, 2006
12:23 PM
jj writes:
I wonder how Susan, BB and the rest of you Nazi's would have responded to a Liberal Law Maker being exposed as a hypocrite and a liar. The Rocky showed you an ugly side of an ugly story and because it's your faces you see - you don't like it.
November 6, 2006
12:36 PM
Steve Sinn writes:
I would have thought better of the Rocky if you would have just said something like, "yes, we made mistake".
November 6, 2006
2:00 PM
Linda Andrews writes:
After reading your escuses, I still say your journalisim (in printing two photos of the Haggard chidlren) is still dispicable!
November 6, 2006
2:23 PM
Mike Bennett writes:
Even if Ted Haggard did stop to talk with the media, that's just another slimy thing he did to his family. You say you just report the news. Well his family is not the news. I could bet everything I own, had YOU done something similar, and you had a chance to keep your family out of it, you certainly would, and you know it. The family was not the news, and the picture should never have trumped compassion, or the family,s feelings. Like I said before. How pathetic of you.
November 6, 2006
2:25 PM
Philip Stubbs writes:
This is the story of a man of influence in our society who has made astoundingly bad decisions in his life--including the decision to have his wife and children witness his devastating admissions of guilt to the media. The Rocky published a photo that speaks volumes about Mr. Haggard's lack of decency, integrity, and plain common sense. Yes, the photo makes us uncomfortable, but hopefully we're even more discomforted by the fact that thousands of Haggard's followers--our fellow citizens--were deceived by his white-washed family life.
November 6, 2006
3:52 PM
L. Mai writes:
I completely agree with Mr. Temple and Ms. Reeves decision to include the photo. The picture tells it all.
People need to realize that Ted Haggard has been a public figure for many years and has expressed his views on many controversial topics. With Mr. Haggard's leadership role in the community, his family is under the lime light as well. The Haggards should have been well aware of what "comes with the territory."
Readers need to realize that if the Rocky were to be more "sensitive" or crop the picture, the paper would havd been accused of being "bias" and/or not reporting the truth. As a Journalism major, I applaud the way The Rocky Mountain News has handled this story.
November 6, 2006
3:59 PM
Roger writes:
Where was your indepth coverage on the Denver DA on releasing 3 time loser drug dealers that are illegal? Where is the front page coverage on that? Your usual biased coverage again for one party vs. another. Another lame excuse. The photographer's answer is not believable to me, especially when your indepth coverage is so biased one way.
November 6, 2006
4:06 PM
Rachelle writes:
It is sad that the public seems to feel so sorry for the Haggard Family when Ted Haggard brought all this upon not only himself but on his entire FAMILY and on the people in the church he served. It is shameful and just because he is a father and a church figure does not mean the news has any obligation to alter what they report. I am sorry some of you cannot handle the truth of the situation - that's what the news story was about. Maybe Ted Haggard should have thought about that before he lied to his congregation and family! Since he was so well known in the church community I am sure everyone already knew the kids so the photo isn't going to ruin their lives - their dad had already did that for them!
November 6, 2006
4:37 PM
Barry Gutierrez writes:
I reiterate, I am very sad for Ted Haggards family and all the people in his church that have put so much faith in him. However, He failed. The public and even the 14,000 members of the New Life Church want, need and should know what is going on. I was asked by a number of members what information I knew. The congregation was in shock and needed to know what was going on. The general public interest in the story mandated that we cover this story. Friday, when Haggard drove from his home there were four professional journalists waiting for a comment from Haggard. Essentially we were waiting to give him an opportunity to tell his side. There was no mob scene. There was no mad rush to his car. It was a 9News cameraman and reporter, a Gazette reporter and me (RMN photojournalist). We saw him and his family get into their truck and drive up the driveway. He stopped, rolled down the passenger-side window and waved us over to the truck. He says something like- I'll answer your questions-. The 9News reporter took over the interview and within two minutes he had released that he had been given a massage by Mike Jones and had bought Meth, but had thrown it away. These were enormous admissions by a trusted leader of a church. Why he allowed his children to be seen with him or encourage an interview with his wife and children present is a question that only he can answer. The question as to why we published the picture was answered very well by John Temple.
November 6, 2006
4:57 PM
alek writes:
Interesting information Barry. This further strengthens the Rocky's position that it was completely Haggard's choice to talk with his family present and it was NOT a Jon Benet Media Frenzy.
It would have been nice to leave the kids out of it, but unfortunately, the angle of the shot doesn't lend itself to a rectangular crop ... so you would have to blur the image in the back seat and now we are getting into alteration - I assume that 9News just pixelated the back-seat (?)
I think John could have explained that better rather than just say "we don't alter photographs" - yea we all agree with that, but things are cropped all the time.
An interesting question would be if you HAD taken a picture that showed Haggard and his wife's reaction such that you could remove the kids from via a crop; would you have done that? My guess is you just didn't have that picture ... but regardless, John does make a strong point that Haggard chose to make them part of the story.
It's a strong picture and we don't need watered down, politically correct media - yes, life is bad and ugly sometimes ... and in this case, very sad.
Your first-hand account was facinating - thank you for sharing Barry.
November 6, 2006
5:02 PM
bt writes:
When President Clinton his infamous Oval Office sexual exploitation of Monica exposed, he like Haggard denied it happened. On the Clinton sex scandal the media took great caution not to include his daughter's photo with him in the story lines, day after day. That was the right thing to do. That same protection and privileged approach should have been given the children Ted Haggard. They, like Chelsea are just innocent kids with a parent that has little or no moral values. Why take it out on them.
November 6, 2006
5:38 PM
Mike Bennett writes:
You are still trying to excuse yourself by saying you don't alter any pictures. Sorry, but that doesn't fly. I don't believe for one second that any photographer would only take one shot in a situation like that, or that the photographer would have only a wide angle lens on the camera. Therefore, you probably had several shots to choose from, and could easily have zoomed in and took shots of only Mr. Haggard. And for the few of you that agree with the News, try to imagine it happening to you and see if you would still feel the same. You can call it "news" all you want, but it would still have served the same purpose by showing only Mr. Haggards face. Maybe you are a journalist, but maybe you aren't a very good one. There are other jobs out there. Why not look for one?
November 6, 2006
5:41 PM
bt writes:
When President Clinton's infamous Oval Office sexual exploitation of Monica was exposed, he like Haggard denied it ever happened. On the Clinton sex scandal the media took great caution not to include his daughter's photo with him in the story lines, day after day. That was the right thing to do. That same protection and privileged approach should have been given to the children of Ted Haggard. They, like Chelsea, are just innocent kids with a parent that has little or no moral values. Why take it out on them.
November 6, 2006
6:38 PM
John Kayser writes:
I still don't buy your thinking. You could have shot the photo at such an angle so that only Pastor Haggard and his wife were in view--as Channel 9 did.
I agree that the fact that Haggard chose to give his "confessions" to the media in front ot his family is newsworthy, but this could have been mentioned in the story or even the caption, without showing the children's faces.
Running that photo was a bad and insensitive decision.
November 6, 2006
9:04 PM
Anonymous writes:
You still have no vaild excuse that I can see for running this photo - it was a cheap shot and you should admit it. You blew it!
November 6, 2006
10:59 PM
Rick Cendo writes:
We do you all think Ted set it up so that they would have to interview him in front of his family? So that everyone would be upset with the media! You all are just playing into his game.
November 7, 2006
11:27 AM
Brent writes:
So, Barry, how many photos did you shoot? Were the kids in ALL of them? NONE of them would have allowed you to crop the kids out? Was this photo run BECAUSE the kids were in it, or because it was the best shot of the parents and RMN didn't care that the kids were in it?
November 7, 2006
2:23 PM
Tim James writes:
I know it wasn't Barry's choice to run the photo... just to take it... but how about a little cropping next time? Put yourself in those kids' shoes... dad's a cheat with a male prostitute, liar and drug user... and your whole world's crashing in around you. Then you're on the front page of a paper that goes out to every News and Post subscriber on a Saturday edition, where readership is most likely higher! A little tact and respect would've been nice.
Though Philip Stubbs (on November 6, 2006 02:25 PM) makes a good point... Haggard has made multiple poor decisions, and this media encounter is just another one heaped onto his now soiled resume.
As a publisher and editor, I urge you to use better judgment and have restraint on a photo that "needed to be published" showing innocent minors amidst a scandal. Good work, Barry... but your editors dropped the ball.
November 7, 2006
4:02 PM
Pat Hayes writes:
There is no excuse!. You could have used any file photo of him. It certainly did not have to be almost half a page big. "We report the news" will not do. You chose to hulmiliate the family and that's what you did.
November 7, 2006
4:19 PM
P. Reitsema writes:
I feel your choice of that photo on the front page was apalling. I feel that behind the pages and pages on this story is a thrill that the liberal media gets out of exposing this story right now, with the elections coming. Evangelicals were blamed for the republican wins in the last election, because the media (print and television) couldn't understand why the masses didn't follow their direction. It is not surprising that you all jumped on this story with total abandon.
It is also interesting that channel 9 sat on this story for months, supposedly looking for proof. Obviously, they were waiting for the "right time".
Haggard deserves shame, but his wife and kids don't!
I am going to get my news elsewhere.
November 7, 2006
7:57 PM
Marian Hall writes:
Your just like politicians.
Can't say "I was wrong".
I still say, shame on you.
November 8, 2006
9:54 AM
Ted Lovell writes:
Haggard is wrong and it just goes to show you we as the people have little to believe in as far as people in power are concerned to do the right thing whether there being watched or not. Why do people in power think they'll never be caught are they that nieve and arrogant. Don't you respect your family enough not to put them in a comprising situation that they can't get ouf of. As far as the picture is concerned spare the children the embarrasement and hulimation. They are bing kids and we can't hold them responsible for there parents actions especially when they themselves don't think of the damage that there doing. Haggard is not different then Jimmy Swagger or Jim Baker.
November 11, 2006
8:10 AM
Ace King writes:
The Haggard scandal is merely a diversion from the fact that The Rocky Mountain News is in the business of selling a product, not disseminating news. If it were otherwise, we would not see Bronco players (or their ex-wives) on the front page. The people of Denver clearly want their blood and circus entertainment and the Rocky is willing to provide it.
November 11, 2006
8:42 PM
Ursline Chappelle writes:
I still want to know what "Vanilla Sex" is is !
November 11, 2006
8:43 PM
Cindy Brick writes:
Sorry - after reading your comments (which really seemed far more self-serving than any interest in Ted Haggard's wife's and children's viewpoint), I still don't agree. I do not think Haggard himself thought that he gave you automatic permission to expose his wife's and children's emotions, just by doing the gracious thing, rather than blowing the media off. This is NOT RIGHT and you need to think about your actions in the future. Would you be so quick to dismiss this if the family in the car was yours?
November 13, 2006
12:05 PM
John Nielson writes:
Basically what Mr Gutierrez & Ms. Reeves response said was "Blah, blah, blah," our story is more important than the Haggard children's right to decent treatment.
Yes, I understand Mr. Haggard chose a strangely unsuitable moment to admit his sins while in his driveway, but that still doesn't explain why you couldn't crop his family out of the photo.
Don't get me wrong Mr. Haggard is a despicable liar and hypocrite, but don't punish his family.
Hey, you guys are a monopoly, you don't need cheesy supermarket tabloid tactics to sell papers.
The ethics things is really pretty simple, something any kindergartner can understand. Do unto others. If you had commited a grievous sin or broke the law, would you want your wife and children's photos printed on the front page?
Shame on your failure to grasp the basics of human compassion.
Sincerely,
John Nielson
303-233-2972
19 Skyline Drive
Wheat Ridge, Co 80215
jnielson@denverderm.com
November 16, 2006
6:29 AM
Tim writes:
It's always hardest on the family.
All this goes to prove that no one is above sin, no one is perfect, and imaging yourself to be in a position to have to act perfect does more damage to the cause than if you had freely admited your sin and sought help. Pride comes before the fall.....
December 2, 2006
2:21 PM
james writes:
When you inflame others, and USE and target NORMAL productive segments of of society as sinners to rev up your base - then no holds are barred when it comes to your family.
This isn't your city councilperson stealing from the coffers, this is a lying rubbery faced fool who's entire life is predicated on a lie. And rather than dealing with HIMSELF, he continues that through church "therapy" and "restoration".
If he REALLY wanted to help HIS kids, and all other kids - he'd teach them that genetic designs and makeup are NOT fundamental flaws, and that to progress a society you need to leave behind the ancient scrolls and deal with reality.
My BIGGEST problem with the Ted Haggards of the world is the propagation of another generation of fundie parents who will TOTALLY screw up their kid's lives. Fundamentalist parents send their kids to ex-gay camps, or "therapists" who work out of the church. The ones than accept that "not pure in Christ" Dr Dobson BS end up 20 years later married and having unprotected sex with truckers (or whores) every week. Sorry mother-in-law: I've been screwing guys AND your daughter for 20 years. Like our hero Ted must say.
Just as worse: The kids that DO leave home and head to NY, SF, LA, end up TOTALLY unprepared for dealing with the lifestyle they find. An 18 year old being dropped into West Hollywood hoping for a table full of happy friends accepting friends will often be used, screwed, and abused by pathetic self destructive gay people that prey upon "fresh meat". The gay community isn't all rainbows and sunshine, and an asshole parent that says "whatever" to their kid and sends them packing messes them up almost as much as the ex-gay fuckwads do.
So note to right wing fundie parents: While you're kicking your gay kids out of the house because YOU can't deal, at least read a PFLAG flyer and give them some appropriate resources, unless you truly DO wish them a very crummy life.
I speak from experience having done social work with homeless youth, and helping them establish a productive life void of their parents.
james :: www.futuregringo.com
April 17, 2007
10:06 AM
J W writes:
You know you were in the wrong by showing that photo.
And as many of the readers have commented: your newspaper is just as biased as the rest of the rags in our country. There isn't a newspaper in the USA today that tells the truth all of the time or that doesn't slant one way or another.
How about reporting the news in a fair minded, balanced non persecuting manner, and it really wasn't necessary to show the children in the photo.
And please, save that story about newspapers not doctoring up photos.
I am as old as you are and I know better, just as you do.