Disturbing images from Iraq create dilemma for editors
|
The Seattle Times front page on Wednesday reported the story with a banner headline and a three-column photo of Nick Berg sitting in front of five masked captors seconds before one of them cut off his head. That was too much for some readers, not nearly enough for others.
A Kirkland reader wrote, "I think it is sick journalism that would put this picture on the front page of the paper. I feel so sorry for the friends and family of this man. What is journalism coming to that they would try to profit from this terrible event?"
A Seattleite wrote, "The Times braved criticism to publish a photo of flag-draped coffins, showing only the sad cost of the war, but not any of the good deeds of our fallen soldiers or why they were needed in Iraq. The Times also published many photos depicting prison abuse, revealing the awful misdeeds of a small minority of our soldiers.
"But now we have a video that shows an innocent American being butchered as if he were a goat, while his murderers joyfully cry 'Allahu Akbar' ('God is great') again and again and then display his severed head like a trophy. I have never seen a more horrific and sickening yet indispensable depiction of the inhuman depravity of our enemy in this terrible war, and therefore the primary reason why we must endure and prevail. But the Seattle Times chose not to share these most essential images with its readers. Your editorial judgment leaves me stunned."
His e-mail included an attachment of "the image that should have been on your front page this morning." The photo showed one of the captors holding aloft Berg's severed head.
But another Seattle resident said she was disgusted by what we did publish.
"How does one protect their 10-year-old from such large images on the front page, primarily above the fold? How is one to stomach even glancing at these photos when walking by newsstands, or when the paper is lying about the office, knowing what occurred just seconds after the image displayed? Are we expected to be satisfied that thus far, you haven't sunk to showing the decapitation itself in full color?"
From Issaquah a reader wrote, "Most journalists are Democrats, but until today I never believed their political bias would incite them to favor America's enemies. Coverage of the Nick Berg beheading compared to the Iraqi detainee story has changed my mind, though. ... A full-page, prime-time photo of the murderers holding Berg's severed head aloft, with their comments, or at least broadcasting his screams might help convince me I'm wrong. Otherwise, I must believe journalists' political partisanship has overcome their news judgment and patriotism."
A Shoreline resident wrote, "I can no longer tolerate your biased reporting and double standards. You have had daily front-page coverage and photos of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal since the story broke, yet scarcely mention the savagery perpetrated on Mr. Berg. If and when you print photos of his bloody head and the barbarians who sawed it off on the front page, and start balanced coverage of news stories instead of creating them for your political agenda, I will consider renewing my subscription."
In the case of the Iraqi prisoners, we ran a total of three photos of prisoner abuse, probably underplaying the story in the days after the photos were first shown by CBS on "60 Minutes II" on April 28.
We first used one of the pictures four days later — the first day they became available to the print press — on page A 5, with a New York Times story. That was the picture of a hooded prisoner standing on a box, wires attached to his fingers.
Two days later we used a photo on the front page, with a package of stories about reaction here and abroad to what was clearly becoming a significant scandal. That photo showed two American military personnel, one flashing a thumbs-up sign, standing behind a pyramid of naked Iraqi prisoners.
Although some readers complained the image was pornographic and inappropriate, it was more suggestive than revealing. And, it was far less graphic than other photos showing naked prisoners in sexually suggestive poses, which we didn't publish.
That same day, we also used a photo on page A 3 of clothed prisoners, hands bound, lying on a concrete floor.
The power of the images of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison is undeniable, but our use of them has been restrained. We have covered the controversy thoroughly, but haven't seen a compelling need to publish additional photos.
As more photos become available, which they almost certainly will, we'll weigh carefully whether they add anything to the readers' understanding of what happened. We believe that's what most readers expect from us, although we recognize that not everyone will agree with the choices we make.
Cole Porter, Times director of photography, recognizes "these pictures become immediately political. Some readers assume we are motivated by politics and they want us to validate their own political or moral perspective."
Our philosophy about graphic images is to be "careful, thoughtful and respectful to readers," Porter says. The respectful part is particularly hard when reader sensibilities range as widely as they have over Berg's murder and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
We don't want you to wonder, "What am I going to see that is terrible today?" when you reach for your newspaper. But it would be wrong to think we can serve you by not showing some images that are disturbing.
If you have a comment on news coverage, write to Michael R. Fancher, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111, call 206-464-3310 or send e-mail to mfancher@seattletimes.com. More columns at www.seattletimes.com/columnists