The photo at the top of Tuesday’s front page, with an “Urban warfare” caption that also said “U.S. Marines attack an Iraqi brigade Monday in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya,” suggested that the photographer’s life also was at risk. It brought home in stark terms some of the reality of what is happening in Iraq.
Some readers strongly criticized a much larger picture below that. It showed jubilant Iraqis on and around a downed Apache helicopter in a field south of Baghdad. The caption said the Pentagon had identified two crewmen and reported them as captured.
For the sake of comparison, USA Today ran larger on its front page the Marines in Nasiriya, while putting a smaller version of the helicopter picture among others inside. The New York Times carried a smaller version of the downed chopper atop its front page, and below the fold was a photo of Marines on the outskirts of Nasiriya.
Such variations notwithstanding, this is what newspapers should do: report the news. A critical reader who gave his name as Tom, however, said he was surprised that he was only the second caller from whom I had heard. He had interpreted the chopper photo as a slap at U.S. troops, despite the top picture showing Marines’ lives at risk.
With a slightly different take, Penny Bridges, whose call followed Tom’s, said: “With the war going on, you should put something there that does not show a loss to us. I’d rather see something on the front page that is in our favor. I know you’re showing both sides, but I do not want to see something where we were defeated.
“I know it happened,” added Ms. Bridges, of Delray Beach. “I don’t want to bury my head in the sand. But I’d rather see one of our troops on the front page with a smile on his face, not this as the news of the day. That photo can be in the paper, but I didn’t think it should be the top story.”
“A disgusting photo” was the sentiment of my first caller, who said her name was Theresa. She also made it clear that part of her problem with the photo was generated by her problem with the paper’s front-page “Bush chooses war” headline of March 18. The headline had failed the test of not being construed as commentary, as Managing Editor John Bartosek acknowledged in a Listening Post column Sunday (” ‘War’ headline draws readers’ reasonable ire”). Yet one of two readers I subsequently heard from, both of whom said they agreed with the headline, e-mailed, “We’re in it now, though, and it is Bush’s choice.”
Among readers who might come down on opposite sides regarding the headline, however, I suspect most would agree that the helicopter photo was newsworthy and appropriate to use on the front page. Still, Mr. Bartosek said he received about a dozen calls and an equal number of e-mail messages criticizing editors for running the picture there.
The invasion of Iraq is raising lots of questions regarding how “patriotic” American news reporting is and should be, as indicated in Wednesday’s article by staff writer Shelley Emling (“Foreign media give viewers different picture of the war”). In recent days, for example, a number of readers have suggested that in its reporting on events in the conflict, the paper is not supporting U.S. troops — some of whom are family and friends of the staff. Some of the reporters in harm’s way, of course, are professional colleagues.
The inevitable questions and criticism are arising not just here. For example, the ways our various news organizations handled the photos of the U.S. soldiers captured last weekend was discussed among members of the Organization of News Ombudsmen. The Palm Beach Post ran black-and-white thumbnail photos Monday of five “Captured U.S. soldiers” along with the continuation of the story (“Advancing under fire/GIs killed, captured on fiercest day yet”) on Page 15A. The caption went on to say, “Prisoners of war: The Pentagon has not officially released the names of the five American soldiers captured and videotaped by the Iraqis.”
Other newspapers did much the same. Others ran some or all of the photos on the front page, and others none at all. Obviously, the human element is an undeniable factor in editors’ decisions about articles, headlines and photos. The same applies to readers’ interpretation of those decisions. Regarding the conflict in Iraq, however, there will be many other developments to be reported. To put them in perspective, it may help readers to look at each day’s paper as a snapshot.
