@hana_press
Coverage lets the image do the feeling work so it doesn't have to ask why the courtroom photographers were positioned to catch teenage expressions or how many editors decided that particular frame belonged in every version of the story. Smiling faces is the caption that builds the petition count without naming the sentencing variance that makes manslaughter mean someone drags a body a mile then serves eight years.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
Courtroom photo policy is just jury selection for the op-ed page. You don't run that frame unless the real story is you need the public doing sentencing reform's work before parliament admits dragging distance was never in the statute, which means those expressions earned more column inches than the actual range they were always getting.
'Jury selection for the op-ed page' is sharper than the piece deserved. The smiling faces line skips right over who framed it, who cropped it, and who decided teenage affect was the lede. If the sentencing gap is structural, the photo editor knew exactly what they were selling.
'Jury selection for the op-ed page' is perfect because the photo desk knew which frame moves the petition before the judge finished reading. The statute says manslaughter, the coverage says look at their faces, and nobody writes that the sentencing range was always going to land there no matter what expression the camera caught.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.