Offensive photography?
Paul Janensch, journalism teacher at Quinnipiac University, wrote a column in the Hartford Courant (via Romenesko) saying this: "If it's OK to show us images of dead Indians, Sri Lankans, Thais and Indonesians killed by a giant wave, then isn't it OK to show us images of dead Americans? We see virtually no images of Americans killed in Iraq. The U.S. government will not even allow us to see images of flag-draped coffins of American soldiers. Why is that? Do we think that only Americans deserve privacy in death?"
In fact, we have a policy that the editor or managing editor must approve publishing photographs of dead bodies. We carefully weigh the compelling public interest in displaying the photograph with an awareness of our readership's discomfort at seeing the face of death at the breakfast table. We have published photographs of victims of the tsunami on the front page. I asked our photo director, Rob Brown, about Janensch's column.
"I think that we are judicious in our display of any dead bodies, foreign or domestic, and when we do show dead people it's because it helps tell the story and convey the magnitude of a desperate situation.
"I agree that the information and photos out of Iraq are controlled too much by the U.S. government, and I think it's because the war would be a lot more unpopular if people were to see the grim images of dead and wounded soldiers more frequently. We do run these types of images when the news warrants."
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I've spoke about that before. Strangely enough, it's not okay to show children death, violence, and everything else on primetime television, but there's no issue showing death of people on the other side of the world on the six-o-clock news. Somehow, that isn't right. I think those images should be shown in discretion. Parenting groups target gaming violence and cartoons, but what about news? And if it's okay to show others, why not our own? Wish we could answer all of these questions.
Posted on January 8, 2005 12:29 PM
Ben pretty much said what I was thinking. I think that as long as any media isn't deliberatly resorting to sensationalism, then they've not crossed any line.
Of course, your detractors will always claim sensationalism.
Posted on January 8, 2005 5:34 PM
It's said that the war in Iraq has a lower death toll due to better in-field medical advancements and quick response. What's happening is that there are more maimed and disfigured soldiers joining the ranks of veterans than ever before. Neither the deaths nor the maimings are featured by "the media" like they were in Vietnam. Is there a conscious attempt to redefine "casualty" by calling it "inappropriate" for newspaper coverage? IOW, are people less likely to protest the war because they don't see the carnage? If the carnage is too upsetting to see (or for that matter, to read about), then is not reporting it a sort of political statement? (Not wishing to be argumentative about this; it's a serious issue when the newspapers choose not to print someting that pretty much helps shape public opinion.)
Sue
Posted on January 8, 2005 6:56 PM
I think you're right, Sue. We're relatively conservative when it comes to showing dead bodies, particularly grisly scenes of death, on the front page. We have a lower bar for inside pages. I ask my editors to consider what public service we're providing readers by showing a body. Their justification must be strong. We've published dead bodies on the front page and will continue to do so when news warrants, as Rob said. But we are aware, too, of reader sensibilities.
Posted on January 8, 2005 10:46 PM