The reactions to the Fallujah photos are rolling in. Romenesko, naturally, rounds up all the links for us.

The ACES list also has some reaction, including this from John McIntyre at the Baltimore Sun:

The Sun's Page One carried the photo of the bodies suspended from the bridge.

We received something like 60 complaints by letter, telephone call and e-mail, castigating us for (a) offenses against common decency, (b) insensitivity to the families of the victims, (c)willingness to scar children's delicate sensibilities, and (d) pursuit of a political agenda to discourage support of the president's war effort.

There were no responses supportive of the decision to publish the photos. On the other hand, 60 complaints out of a readership of around half a million do not constitute an overwhelming response. To put the matter in perspective: a few years ago, The Sun dropped the London Times crossword puzzle, and the reader respresentative received something like 2,000 complaints.

The E&P article also says: "Arguably, the most graphic front-page images were shown by The Washington Post and USA Today. Both displayed Iraqis taking turns beating the burned corpses with shoes."

That would be this:

Interestingly, The Globe and Mail says just about the opposite: "But in general, newspapers played it safe. USA Today, like The Guardian in Britain, used a picture of an Iraqi boy using a shoe to beat the grey dust of what was once a corpse. Both papers, however, rendered the ashes more indistinct than they were in the original pictures."

Here's the original photo by Ali Jasim of Reuters:

And the WaPo's crop:

I would agree that USAT's crop, and to a much less extent, the Post's, makes the body's form a bit less distinct. But I wouldn't characterize that as "playing it safe."

>Philly Inquirer gets 185 complaints re charred bodies photo [Romenesko]
>7 of Top 20 Papers Published Front-Page Fallujah Body Photos [E&P]
>In pictures [A Capital Idea]
>Packaging news when the picture is not pretty [The Globe and Mail]