Reader’s reaction to the Globe’s war coverage underscores an old truth: Never underestimate the power of pictures.Dozens of readers have called or e-mailed their thoughts about the photographs from Iraq — far more than have expressed views on the written reports.
The strong reaction reflects the enhanced role photographs have commanded in overall coverage of the war. Images from Iraq have not simply added to the written accounts but have told a story of their own, giving readers an up-close sense of what combatants on both sides faced, the detail and emotion words struggle to capture. These pictures have been displayed big and well, with the Globe devoting more space than it has in other conflicts, most recently Afghanistan.
The scores of photos published in the Globe generated two clusters of complaints: First, some readers objected to what they felt were overly graphic images of death — a perennial concern in war coverage. That was followed by an outcry over a particular Page 1 photo showing US soldiers relaxing in a palace once occupied by Saddam Hussein. The caption said US troops ”rifled” through files and took ”souvenirs.”
The first complaint:
”Please, please, it’s so awful as it is, this war, please don’t print photos like that,” said one pained caller, referring to a March 31 photo, large and in color on page A28, of the bloody body of a Iraqi soldier spilling out of a destroyed car. Another caller worried that children would see the photo, adding: ”This is something I would expect of the Herald or a tabloid — it is beneath the Globe.”
The March 28 Page 1 photo of a man’s body on the floor of a Nasiriyah home was ”a disturbing way to start the day,” said one reader. ”You typically don’t display murder victims in their living rooms. This was a sucker punch . . . without advancing our understanding of the war.”
Such complaints may be perennial, but they have fueled a fresh round of debate in US newsrooms, both broadcast and print: Does honest war coverage require showing death and dying? Or is it sensationalism and disrespectful to the victims’ families?
The Globe, like most US papers, has declined the most graphic photos, the kind papers in Europe are inclined to run. But the paper has not shied away from showing the harsh realities of war. Each evening, editors review the day’s photos — provided by various news services as well as Globe photographers David Kamerman, Dominic Chavez, and Essdras Suarez — to decide which best reflect events.
Editors are wary of ”sanitizing too much,” said Paula Nelson, deputy director of photography. Yet they don’t want to run such shocking images that readers simply turn away.
”There’s been a great deal of conversation about what our limits are,” said Nelson. One rule, she says, is clear: The Globe will not run photos in which the dead — whether Iraqi or American — are identifiable.
I think the Globe has generally gotten it right. Many of the images shown over the past month are indeed unsettling. A few have made me wince or want to hide the paper from my children. But war is about killing. The images are necessarily disturbing. For the Globe to spare readers the discomfort of seeing them would be to violate an obligation to fully inform readers. That prospect is more unsettling than the images from the front.
On to the second case, the Page 1 photo of US soldiers lounging in the conquered palace.
”The image of the US is tarnished enough without broadcasting what looks like a post-battle frat party,” wrote a Newton woman. ”All that’s missing is a keg of beer on the marble top table.” Said a Cambridge woman: ”The Globe chose to put people who are risking their lives for their country in a very bad light. Everyone was talking about the photo. It looks bad. People change how they talk about the Globe.”
A third worried that the image ”helps fuel the hatred and the irrational anger” at the United States ”that makes more 9/11s.”
I can understand why the photo rankled, but I think the caption was the root of the problem.
A reader easily assumes that the soldiers in the photo were the ones who ”rifled through files and helped themselves to souvenirs.” But they were not.
The information about those activities came from the lead news story and was not linked to the soldiers pictured. The caption that the Associated Press sent with the photo said only that the soldiers ”relaxed” after searching the palace.
The copy desk staffers who write photo captions are urged to include information that goes beyond the immediate images, and that policy often serves readers well. But in this case, the resulting ambiguity made the Globe appear to showcase soldiers with too much attitude in a less-than-noble moment. In the context of a war, that’s grounds for calling the ombudsman.
