Children’s Rights and Animal Cruelty Are Cited by Times Readers

Two recent photographs and a video have raised questions from readers that are worth considering about The Times’s standards and practices for its visual journalism.

Felicia Nimue Ackerman, a Brown University philosophy professor, objected to the use of photographs of two autistic children who have a tumor-causing gene. The images were with the story, “Autism’s Unexpected Link,” in The Times on Tuesday.

She wrote:

The children are 9 and 10 - far too young to give informed consent to such exposure. It is unethical for their parents to consent by proxy. The article is online as well as in the print edition. Online is forever. When these children become adults, will they resent having their medical problems on public display? I would.

I talked with Michele McNally, The Times’s editor in charge of photography, about the use of the children’s photos and names. She said she saw this as a straightforward case in which the parents got to make the decision.

“The first consideration is whether the parents are totally supportive,” she said. “If they agree, it is their right.”

She noted that at least one of the sets of parents has a blog about the same subject and that “they want the research examined, and they want readers to know about it.”

To look for the consent of children, she said, is probably not possible. “Some of these children are severely disabled and may never be able to consent,” Ms. McNally said.

Is there an ethical consideration about the children’s rights, separate from the parents’ decision-making power?

“Not in this case,” Ms. McNally said. Quite simply, while she believes The Times must show sensitivity - and does - it is the parents’ call.

The issue of children in photographs came up in March in the case of Coy Mathis, a transgender child who was the subject of a Times article about her schooling in Colorado. At that time, I interviewed the author Andrew Solomon, whose acclaimed book, “Far From the Tree,” examines the complicated relationships between parents and children with special needs or abilities. His view - which considers the children’s rights, the possibility of a greater good coming from the use of named and photographed children in an article, and the overall attitude of the parents - is a nuanced one and worth revisiting here.

Separately, a Times video on a very different subject - the use of condors and bulls in a Peruvian ritual - brought a complaint from the animal rights organization, PETA.

The video, intended to explain an important cultural practice in Peru, amounts to depicting animal abuse, wrote Amanda Schinke, a PETA spokeswoman.

Although we appreciate that the story touched briefly on conservationists’ opposition to this practice, we were surprised that it did not address the cruelty inherent in strapping a wild bird to a terrified bull and instead presented this cruel practice as a venerable tradition. It creates the impression that The Times endorses cruelty or insensitivity to animals. Would you please add a disclaimer that the story - especially the photo and video elements - depicts graphic cruelty to animals?

The Times, which is rapidly increasing its production of videos, brings the same standards to those videos that it does to its other journalism.

Does this video meet those standards? And is a disclaimer necessary here?

I asked Richard L. Berke, a senior editor who is directing video development, to respond.

“We do want to be sensitive to taste and possible offensiveness,” he said, “and in this case we were careful to edit out anything graphic.”

He noted that The Times often does use a disclaimer to alert viewers to disturbing or graphic content. Images of war and disaster, as in this video, which does include a disclaimer, are the most common examples.

In this case, however, “the video didn’t merit a disclaimer,” Mr. Berke said.

I’ll offer my take on both situations: I found the photos of the autistic children acceptable, though I do appreciate the ethical issues here. I can imagine situations in which The Times might better choose not to make children’s images public - for example, in the case of parents whose motives seem exploitative or where real harm could come in later years.

On the video, I don’t see the necessity of a pre-roll warning here, and I didn’t find the footage graphic. But I would have liked to have seen more attention given within the video - something beyond a mention with no interview backing it up - to those who find the practice objectionable.