By Al Tompkins, Poynter Institute

An old friend of mine sent me an email Friday night, "I can't believe the news is showing that boy boy dying in the Olympics," she said.  "Why do journalists do that?"

It is a good question that is answerable.  The worst answer, the unacceptable answer is "Hey, it the February ratings book and this is great video that people will talk about."  It is also true that the video was the singular newsworthy event that occurred on Friday prior to the opening of the Games.  AP reported the American evening network newscasts all included the video, some more sensitively than others.

As reported by the Associated Press: "We owe folks a warning here," NBC News anchor Brian Williams said at the beginning of his network's coverage of the opening ceremony Friday. "These pictures are very tough  for some people to watch."

Similar warnings were offered by Diane Sawyer and Maggie Rodriguez on the ABC and CBS newscasts. On the CBS Evening News,  the video was shown three times —the  last in slow motion. Although NBC muffled the sound of the accident, elsewhere the thudding clank of Kumaritashvili hitting the steel beam was audible.

Interestingly, the local newspaper for the Games, The Vancouver Sun, did not run the graphic stills of the crash and did not post the video on its website.

So why run it?

Reason #1- It is news. The Olympic Games are a world event. Sometimes the Games produce heartwarming stories that unite us, and sometimes we suffer through stories of bombings and terrorism.   Injuries, sometimes horrible injuries are part of the Olympic story.  Divers slam their heads on high dive boards, skaters slam into walls and skiers careen down hillsides. The danger is part of the story.  We don't just cover the warm and fuzzy side of sports and sporting events.

Reason #2- Accountability.  The International Olympic Committee answers to nobody.  Covering the Olympics is often an act of frustration.  Even NBC affiliates have narrow access to Olympic video and even when they can show some video they may be limited by how much or how long they can show it.  Athletes are often out of the public eye during the Games. 

So, when an athlete dies, the best evidence of what happened is on that video and in those still frames.  It is not likely to come in a free-flowing IOC news conference.  This is not a high school or college event. This is a worldwide stage, the biggest.  The athlete's countrymen have a stake in this, so does the host country, organizers and so do the other athletes who may be putting their lives at risk if the track is unsafe.  You know by now some other luge runners warned that the track may be dangerously fast.

The video of this crash is more than just graphic video, it is important for anybody who wants to understand what might have caused or prevented the crash.

Using the video and other tools, The BC Coroners Service, the RCMP and the International Luge Federation (FIL) ruled that the track was not at fault, the athlete was.  Saturday, The President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvil said "One thing I know for sure is that no sports mistake is supposed to lead to a death. No sports mistake is supposed to be fatal." 

Reason #3 -  It is interesting. I know how crass this sounds. But news is partly what people are talking about. 

Reason #4 -  it is about as close to the truth as we are likely to get.   The video tells a story, it is not the whole story of what happened, but it is not hard to see how things went wrong.  The video tells the story more clearly than words could.

Reasons not to run it:

Reason 1- the video is not clear enough to show what happened.

Reason 2- the event is not really newsworthy, the video is just graphic but not important.

Reason 3- the competition is running it and we feel like we have to.

Reason 4- it will generate great web traffic.

How to do it Better

- Explain why you are using the video.

- Watch the tone and degree of your coverage. If it is defensible and journalistically necessary to show it once, is it still important to show it twice? Three times? Does it belong in the show open or teases? Promos? 

- If you offer the video online, prepare the audience for what they are about to experience.

- Offer a feedback section to people to give you their thoughts on your coverage. Don't make the airing the end of the story, but the beginning of the discussion.

It is useful to consider how U.S. and Canadian television networks would have treated the video if the athlete had been local, rather than from Georgia.  While the story would have been even more significant, I suspect the coverage would have been less graphic out of concern over public backlash.

In 2004, the RTDNA Ethics Committee issued these guidelines for how to handle graphic video:

Periodically electronic journalists must make difficult decisions involving graphic video and sound. Television news managers understand that the visual images always overpower the spoken word. Powerful pictures can help explain stories better or they can distort the truth by blurring the important context of the report.

RTDNA has established guidelines to help with discussion when critical issues involving dramatic content arise. RTDNA's Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct states in part that professional electronic journalists should treat all subjects of news coverage with respect and dignity, showing particular compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. The code does not distinguish between a subject that is alive or dead.

When considering whether to air graphic content the following questions may provide insight into whether or not the news organization is serving the public interest and promoting truth-telling:

What is the journalistic purpose behind broadcasting the graphic content? Does the display of such material clarify and help the audience understand the story better? Is there an issue of great public importance involved such as public policy, community benefit or social significance?

Is the use of graphic material the only way to tell the story? What are your alternatives?

If asked to defend the decision to your audience or the stakeholders in the story, such as a family member, how will you justify your decision? Are you prepared to broadcast your rationale to your audience? If not, why?

When is the story important enough to justify replaying graphic material? How will that material be used as file later? Will there be a time limit after which the material is no longer aired?

Should you have guidelines or discussions about how to use the graphic material in promos and teases?

When is a notice to the audience warranted that they are about to see or hear is graphic? How much detail should the warning provide?

Is your news organization prepared to show uncovered bodies of accident or crime victims? If so, under what circumstances? Does showing a covered body meet the concerns of the RTDNA code outlined above? Is it necessary to show blood on a sidewalk from a crime scene? Is it disrespectful to the victim or the family? Does it help tell the story? Can it add to a perception that an area is violent or unsafe?

Before making a decision, can you have a discussion of the pros and cons with a diverse group in your organization? Would you be willing to include non-journalists in that discussion since they are more likely to be representative of your audience? Should you also call others who may be able to give you an outsiders point of view perhaps a media ethics expert who can help with discussion points?

When covering live events that could turn graphic quickly, have you taken sufficient precautions to prevent inappropriate pictures and sound from airing? Is there someone else available to help collaborate on the decision? Have you considered instructing field crews to stay wide on live camera shots?

Incidentally, it was not just the luge video that riled the public.  Google's custom Olympics' graphic include a luge logo, which was yanked after readers started complaining.