War is hell, and wartime journalistic decisions can be hellishly complex.
Those decisions involve sending reporters and photographers into danger; distinguishing real news from propaganda; and being objective when it would be tempting to wave the flag.
Each decision is subject to intense public scrutiny as it should be. And no decision is going to meet with consensus.
A case in point is some upsetting footage aired on Iraqi state television last weekend. It showed nervous-looking U.S. soldiers being interrogated by their Iraqi captors, and it showed bodies alleged to be U.S. soldiers who had been killed.
Some networks aired the footage. Some aired only parts of it.
Some newspapers published still shots from the grisly parts of the footage. Some, like The Post and Courier, published only head shots of the prisoners being interrogated.
It was a matter of sensitivity. The Post and Courier rarely runs photos of dead bodies. Readers object to such photos unless there is a compelling reason to publish them. Photo Editor Tom Spain said the same standards apply to photos of Iraqi dead.
But it was more. It was a matter of integrity. Did those who aired/ published the pictures pass along propaganda generated by Iraqi television? The Pentagon objected stridently to Iraqi television airing the footage. It contended that airing the footage violates the Geneva Convention by holding the prisoners up for embarrassment. Also, it was unclear under what circumstances the photographs were taken, and the information provided with the tapes was not confirmed.
Did those who opted not to run the distressing photos shortchange their readers who deserve to see just how brutal the war is? Networks and newspapers have run photos of Iraqi soldiers surrendering.
Spain said he is comfortable with the way The Post and Courier handled the photos. The paper did not run photos of the captives in Monday’s paper because it was not clear that their families had all been notified. They used the photos in Tuesday’s paper when the notifications were confirmed.
The Washington Post held off running photos of the POWs for the same reason The Post and Courier did. Other major newspapers that held off were New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe and USA Today.
Among those who did use photos of the POWs Monday were The Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times.
Many European and Arab newspapers as well as some American newspapers used the more graphic photos of bodies as well as the POWs being interrogated.
Spain said there is a fine line between presenting news and being sensational.
To make things more complicated, that fine line moves depending on who is in the picture, what the circumstances were and whether using a photo serves a purpose.
Thursday’s paper contained a photograph of the charred remains of a car in Baghdad. Spain didn’t hesitate to use the photo.
But first he decided not to use photos of other cars that had bodies hanging out of them. This one conveyed the news without crossing the line to sensationalism.
Also, he decided to use the photos even if the photographers were likely shown the damage by Iraqi officials who might be trying to tailor news to serve their purposes.
“What is in the pictures is real,” he said. The caption explained that the circumstances of the alleged bombing by allied forces had not been confirmed.
Readers nationally have been divided. Some have said they don’t want a sanitized version of the war. If newspapers decide against using troubling photographs, what else might they be holding back? The treatment of POWs is a newsworthy issue.
Others have said they don’t need bloody photos to let them know the horrors of war. They know that each soldier who dies is not just a number. He or she is a person with a mother or father, spouse, child or neighbor.
Still others are on the fence. Running a picture of a neighborhood littered with dead civilians makes sense. It reveals a significant part of the war. Running a close-up picture of a soldier with a bullet hole in his forehead is another thing altogether.
While The Post and Courier opted not to use the debated photos, it did report details of the footage, including the following:
“Images of the dead, all men, some sprawling on the floor, showed the signs of battle, and perhaps more. One American soldier clearly had a bullet through his forehead, blood pooling in back on the floor. … Some were arranged in rows, others haphazardly, with one dead soldier’s boot on the face of another. At one point in the footage, a rubber-gloved hand with the sleeves of hospital-style scrubs covers up what looks like a wound; in another a smiling mustachioed man in street clothes drags a soldier’s body as if to rearrange it on the floor.”
That said it graphically enough for me. Of course, the next time might be different. It is right that we search for the right answer in each situation. After all, there is no single right answer.
