On the contrary, another story was published by the guardian and the first photo shown when you click on the link is of the officer holding the boy. Above the photo there is a warning, but by the time you read that you have already seen the photo. To coincide with the SPJ Ethics Codes, there is a debate here between the two articles. Did either of them really do anything wrong? Or are they just both following the first principle from the ethics codes; seek truth and report it. The other three principles, "minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent", are there to act as other questions that should arise when a story does. Each of these principles have their own part in figuring out what exactly the public needs to know about a story. Is not showing the photo of the little boy laying by the beach really minimizing harm? Would it be more useful to use so that you as a writer can report the full truth? All of these questions should arise for any writer of the press.