Images of war are everywhere. You see them on television; you see them when you pick up The San Diego Union-Tribune. There have been photographs of Iraqi and American prisoners of war and, in some cases, images of the Iraqi dead.
Because journalists are with the troops and because of technology that makes almost immediate transmission of images possible, the American public has had unprecedented timely access to photographs from the battle front.
Published photos have led some readers to question why it is permissible for the Union-Tribune to use images of Iraqi POWs and Iraqi casualties in view of sharp criticism aimed at Iraqi state television and Al-Jazeera news for showing film of American POWS and the dead.
On Thursday, the Union-Tribune ran a photo of a dead Iraqi soldier on the battlefield, prompting complaints from some readers. That was the same day The New York Times ran a similar photo on its front page.
The readers who complained gave me pause. While I sympathize with people who do not want to see death as they sip their morning lattes, body bags for both sides are inevitable in a war. I don’t think it’s the newspaper’s job to sanitize the war for readers who need to know the reality of what is happening in Iraq, to the fighting men and women on both sides, and to civilians. It doesn’t matter whether you’re pro-war or anti-war. As an American you need to know what is going on.
The reason photographs of prisoners are permissible in the Union-Tribune and other newspapers and suspect when supplied by the Iraqis has to do with who is behind the camera and the intent behind the photo. Government-run Iraqi television represents the government holding the prisoners. Photographing them being questioned can be interpreted by some as an attempt by the Iraqi government to ridicule them and hold them up to public curiosity, in violation of the code for the treatment of prisoners of war as established by the 1949 Geneva Convention.
The photos of the Iraqi prisoners and the dead published in the Union-Tribune and other newspapers have been taken by independent photojournalists, not the government, and are an attempt to show the events of the war, not to ridicule them. There’s a huge difference.
Even so, it’s understandable why questions are being asked.
One of the most compelling images of the war was published in the Union-Tribune March 21 on the front page of most editions. The Associated Press photograph showed an unidentified Iraqi POW at gunpoint while being given a drink of water by a Camp Pendleton Marine. As one caller put it, the photo told it all.
Yet, three days later, when five Americans were taken as POWs, only the photograph of one appeared in the Union-Tribune. In fact, Army Spc. Joseph Hudson was seen in a photograph showing his mother holding a picture of him taken before the war. The newspaper photo also showed the soldier’s brother after the family learned of his capture through a video broadcast on Filipino television.
The photos of the four other captured unidentified U.S. soldiers, although aired by the Al-Jazeera news channel, were not used by the Union-Tribune because the Defense Department asked for time to make sure their families had been notified. Robert York, senior editor for visuals, called it a “credible request” that led to a discussion about the prudence of showing photos that were taken by state television rather than impartial media, especially if the intent was to create insults and public curiosity of the prisoner. He said the discussion was prompted by a story on the Geneva Convention code for prisoners of war.
That code is aimed at the governments holding prisoners of war. It does not apply to independent journalists who take photos of prisoners to tell the story of war.
On the day the photo of Spc. Hudson and his family appeared, the Union-Tribune ran on the same page a photograph of a blindfolded Iraqi soldier taken after his surrender near An Nasiriyah.
Although the Union-Tribune did not use the pictures of the unidentified American POWs last Monday, the following day, photos appeared on the front page of two crewmen who were listed missing in action after their helicopter was downed and they were shown on Iraqi state television. The difference between those photos and the ones the day before was that the men were identified.
These are subtleties that may escape some readers, and it’s understandable why they would.
York said not publishing the photo of the prisoner being given water was never an issue for the Union-Tribune. “The significant informative value of the image was far greater than any risk of resulting insults and public curiosity. Further, the photo was shot to be explanatory, not malicious. There was no governmental agenda in any thread of that image.”
l l l
