Who Is Exploiting Whom?

In a story today explaining the immediate emotional reaction of residents living at the apartments in Ferguson, MO where Michael Brown was shot down two weeks ago, the New York Times uses a photo of his bloody and uncovered body laying in the street.

They report what exactly happened after the shooting, which occurred right after noon CST:

Around 12:10, a paramedic who happened to be nearby on another call approached Mr. Brown’s body, checked for a pulse, and observed the blood and “injuries incompatible with life,” said his supervisor, Chris Cebollero, the chief of emergency medical services at Christian Hospital. He estimated that it had been around 12:15 when a sheet was retrieved from an ambulance and used to cover Mr. Brown.

Clearly, a gunshot wound through the top of the head would be indicative of  “injuries incompatible with life.”  Time to start processing the scene, not to rush the body off in an ambulance to try and revive the victim.

The local police obvious erred also, in not partitioning off the scene until the body could be photographed and removed.  It was just dumb luck that the shooting occured in front of so many apartment windows, where those on the upper levels would presumably be able to see over any patrol cars or screened barricades to shield the body from photographs.

But I don't understand the editorial decision to accompany today's story with one of the photos taken during the 10 or 15 minutes that Michael Brown's dead body lay uncovered.

Is that undignified, or not?
If it is, why would you reprint it?  The words and facts contained in the story alone -- the growing sense of emotionalism at the scene -- help explain how a story could quickly grow that the young man was fleeing the officer, and was shot in the back with his hands extended in surrender.

That story was needed.
The photo was not.