The aftermath of an accident

The horrific April 24 accident on Highway 1 in east Kamloops that claimed the life of 39-year-old cyclist Michael Dunn offers a textbook example of how covering a public tragedy can elicit varying responses from readers and viewers of our newspaper and website.
Dunn, an experienced cyclist and avid outdoorsman, was doing everything right that day, riding on the shoulder with the traffic. The driver of a dump truck approaching Dunn was also doing everything right, even pulling out a bit as he was about to pass by Dunn.
Unfortunately and tragically, it is believed a tire on Dunn's tire blew, forcing his bike into the path of the truck.
In our newsroom, I heard the call on the scanner — fragmented information about a cyclist and truck and the approximate location.
Our photographer and reporter were out of the newsroom on separate assignment, but both were contacted and made their way to the accident scene.
Our photographer, Dave Eagles, arrived first and did what he knows best — he started taking photos and shooting video for our website.
Our reporter, Tim Petruk, was there to gather information and quotes.
When looking at Eagles' photos later in the day, we examined dozens and decided on three that we felt told the story with the least amount of graphic shock. Many photos were simply too raw and disturbing to publish in the paper or on the website.
Granted, all the photos contained an element of the carnage that occurred, but the three photos we decided to publish were, I felt, as tasteful as possible while still conveying the seriousness of the accident.
None of the photos contained a clear image of Dunn's body, thought one did include police officers holding a sheet around the accident scene, and the sheet had a few spots of blood on it.
The video included a bit more graphic material, and even a few images that, on retrospect, were likely too much for friends and family of Dunn.
However, while compiling all this on April 24, near deadline and with a lot of work to do, it did not dawn on me that the story, photos and video would cause as much anguish as they did among the friends and family of Dunn.
One reader took issue with a line in our story. The line referred to "a bloody mess." I considered the reader's argument and read the story without the line included. It did not alter the story at all and I decided to remove it from the website story. The remainder of the piece was left intact.
Dunn's brother e-mailed and actually thanked us for posting the video as it gave family members an opportunity to grasp visually what had happened to Michael. He was, however, extremely upset with a portion of the video that showed a group of people — I believe they were victims services volunteers, though I am not certain.
That portion of the video, comprising a few seconds, showed three or four people drinking coffee and talking, with one or two smiling or laughing.
Obviously, they were not laughing in connection with the tragedy nearby. I have been at more than enough similar scenes to know stress can take varying effects on people. Sometimes you will find yourself shaking at what you have seen. And you might shake your head and smile as you discuss it with another person, though you have no idea you are doing so.
I have also seen officials chatting as they wait to be called over to help. They are at a terrible accident scene. They are waiting. They have each other to speak with an nobody else. At times like this, small talk can ensue, if only to take the mind off the horrible scene in which you find yourself.
Nevertheless, including that short portion in the video was poor editing on our part, and Michael's brother has a valid point.
It was for that reason I decided to take the video off our website.
The video as a whole, as Michael's father said, was not the problem; it was that particular portion.
Perhaps if we find time this week to edit the video, we can post it again; however, even images of Michael's bike under the dump truck and emergency officials investigating the crash proved traumatizing to some of Michael's friends, who e-mailed me their thoughts.
It is very difficult when approaching such a story. The public has the right to know what happened, and to see what happened. But how far does that right extend? Is it enough to grab a photo of a police officer, with no image whatsoever of the accident? Should I base part of my decision to alter images and words on the website on feelings expressed by family and friends of the victim?
This is not the first time we have been confronted with such a situation, nor will it be the last.
There have been times in the past when I have acted in a similar manner; there have been times when I did not change anything. It really is a case-specific decision to be made.
As I was pondering the half-dozen or so calls and e-mails I had received on the matter, my phone rang today (April 27) at about 2 p.m. It was a truck driver who used to be an accident-scene investigator. He wanted to tell me he thought our paper's coverage was as good as it could be under the circumstances. He felt the photos told the take without being gratuitous and he felt the story (in particular the "bloody mess" line) described the accident without being too graphic.
I suppose it all depends on how close one is to the story.