The South Florida Sun-Sentinel today published a graphic today (above, click for larger view) produced in collaboration with Tribune sister paper the Orlando Sentinel that shows a 1996 Terri Schiavo brain scan the Sentinel obtained from court documents in 2003. Interestingly, after the graphic was produced, Sentinel editors decided that the CT scan was "ghoulish" and opted to kill that portion of the graphic while the Sun-Sentinel ran the entire graphic.

Here's David Wersinger, Orlando Sentinel graphics editor, on how it played out:

On Tuesday, we thought it might be interesting to do a medical graphic on Terri's condition. I dug up the ct scans, but the reporter who initially received them was covering the story in Pinellas Park. No experts in Central Florida were willing to comment on the scans, so we turned to the Sun-Sentinel.

Len De Groot, the Sun-Sentinel's Assistant Graphics Director, was able to track down the chairman of the University of Miami's neurology department, who was VERY interested in looking at the scans. We made huge jpegs of the scans and sent them to Len, who in turned showed them to the UM doctor. We decided the graphic would contain the scan showing damage to Terri's brain, plus information on brain waves and how the brain functions.

I mentioned the graphic at our 4 p.m. news meeting and our editor, Charlotte Hall and Managing Editor, Mark Russell, immediately raised concerns.

- what new ground we're we breaking showing the scans?
- were the scans open to interpretation?
- were the scans in good taste? Would they pass the breakfast test? (Our editor called the scan 'ghoulish.')
- were the scans too old?

My argument for the graphic was that it got to the heart of the Schiavo case without taking either side: No emotion, just hard fact for the reader to see.

Our top editors thought it was a terrific graphic, but their biggest concern was one of taste. Whether it was too gruesome to show the inside of a woman's brain as she lay dying. It was pitched in the morning meeting, when the concerns first were raised. What I loved most about David's determination was that he didn't just say "OK" and give up. He built the graphic anyway, and edited it to be as clinical and non-emotional as possible, knowing all the while it was going to be a tough sell. We took the completed graphic to the afternoon meeting, and explained how we had addressed the taste issue by sticking to the scientific facts. We also added a normal brain scan for context and desaturated the color to make it less sensational.
 
We finally played our last card, the "well, the Sun-Sentinel is going to run it card," which prompted a call from our managing editor to theirs. My understanding is that she said she understood our taste issues, but didn't share them.
 
I wish we could have prevailed because I was very proud of the power of its graphic storytelling, and it was our exclusive. Seeing Terri Schiavo's brain damage is a such a different experience than simply reading about it. But, I understand why the call was made, and it was an interesting discussion - especially with editors who encourage us to pursue bold, daring approaches.

*Update: From Len De Groot, here's the Sun-Sentinel end of the story:

The idea for the graphic arose when a photographer suggested that medical scans of Schiavo’s brain might be available in the court record. Based on this, we contacted Orlando Sentinel Graphics Editor Dave Wersinger, who tracked down the CT scans — which the Sentinel had acquired in 2003 — and shipped them to us.

We got the scans on Tuesday, and asked health reporter Bob LaMendola to arrange for an expert to comment. He found Dr. Walter Bradley, chairman of the neurology department at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine. We sent Bradley a copy of the scans and LaMendola and Senior Graphics Reporter Dan Niblock interviewed him in a conference call. We alerted senior editors that we were working on a graphic, but told them we were going to get it into shape before presenting it.

On Wednesday, the graphic was introduced at the 11 a.m. news meeting. The response was favorable, but editors were concerned that it was the opinion of a single doctor, and that we would try to present it as the “final word” on the issue. We addressed these issues with heavy attribution to Dr. Bradley in all areas of the graphic, and LaMendola sent the images to two other neurologists, both of whom agreed with with Bradley’s assessment. To give our editors even more confidence, and because of the heavy attribution to Dr. Bradley, we also took the unusual step of having him proof the graphic to ensure that we had properly documented his comments.

The updated graphic was presented at the 4 p.m. meeting as a candidate for 1A. At this point we ran into two key issues:

1. Governor Bush came forth saying that a state neurologist had examined the same scans we were using, and had said additional tests should be done.
2. The story the graphic was to accompany was not yet done, and editors felt that they could not make a decision without seeing the text first.

Based on these issues, we decided to reconvene at 6 p.m. to consider the graphic and the story as a whole, and to see how daily developments would affect the story.

At the 6 p.m. meeting, editors were split as to whether the graphic should be on 1A. One group felt that the graphic illustrated much of the discussion on Schiavo’s physiological state and deserved to be on the front page. Others felt that there was dissenting medical opinion (Bush’s expert) that wasn’t reflected in the graphic, and some felt that this could even lead to confusion among our readers. Some in this group felt it might be best to hold the graphic a day. Still others felt that it simply didn’t pass the breakfast test.

We had a healthy and lively debate, and in the end it was decided that the graphic by all means deserved to be in the newspaper, but would not appear on the front page. Both the graphic and the story ran on 14A, a full page we set aside for expanded coverage of the issue.

The graphic actually changed little during this process. The key issues that were addressed including making sure it was very clear that we were simply presenting an independent doctor’s analysis, and making sure that we stuck to the science. Any conclusions that might be made were left to the reader.