Comments about ‘Privacy invaded’

..going to understand that a newspaper or any other public forum does not have to make changes based upon any reader's perception. The public's right to know does not necessarily exclude another persons grief. Having said that, I will agree that discretion should prevail. My point, however, is that your opinion coupled with another of the same does not constitute all the D.N. readers, thank you. Your opinion is of value, no doubt, but does not represent more than just yourself.

What exactly was inappropriate about the photo? When people say goodbye there is often emotion involved. It's nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed about. In stories like this, the photographer and reporter are almost always invited into the situation by the family. It's a touching moment and educated readers understand that a child would be emotional saying goodbye. As a reader, I say thanks for sharing this moment with me.

I totally disagree with Colleen. The photo of the two hugging said more in one glance than could be described in any number of words. All the photos included brought the story to life and I for one am glad they all were included.

I would hope that even though this paper is owned by THE CHURCH, it is not responsible for what all is printed in it. If so, wo unto those responsible. :(

You are ignorant Collen. You don't decide what those of us who are normal human beings see and don't see in newspapers. We can process the grief, suffering and pain of others when it appears in the newspaper like normal people but you sick, twisted and mentally unhinged people hate seeing grief and the suffering of others because you want to live in a fantasy land where everything is perfect.

You also don't decide what I want others to see. If I want the news to take a picture of my grief than its between me and the news and the rest of you losers can get over it.

There is no constitutional right to privacy, and those who seek to fabricate this right impose on my freedom.

Freedom is not free.

You are clearly not very educated about the difference. Do you think that this photographer just happened upon this scene? Do you think that he somehow tricked the families into opening up, only to exploit their grief? Please read the story, watch the video he produced and you will see that this family opened up their lives and this experience for you, the reader to see the complexity of considering adoption. Please please please think about things before you go on a rant calling journalists sensationalists. Privacy is a non-issue here. This wasn't a situation where the photographer just happened upon a scene and pushed his way to the front of a hungry media mob. Read the story, think about what journalism is, then think about the sensitivity of the story and the photos and reconsider writing some awful condemnation of the ethics and sensitivity of obviously a committed journalist.