Some readers were outraged and dismayed by Wednesday’s front page photo of Subhiah al-Ghoul mourning her son, a suicide bomber who killed 19 people, including children, and wounded 55 others Tuesday in Jerusalem.
Callers said this is the second time this month that they felt the Star fell short in its presentation when bombers killed in Israel.
Judith K. Temple, who taught writing at Pima Community College, called the photo selection “unbalanced” and said it looked as if the Star were “glorifying” the bomber.
“The photo of the Palestinians grieving was more powerful than the one of Sharon. He’s an official and does not represent Israel in grief. One evokes emotion; the other does not. I know she’s sad, but her son did a really bad thing.”
In all, more than 20 people called or wrote raising many of the same points.
Making a different point was Rosemarie Carnarius. “Having lived under communism, I’ve long realized why Palestinian children rise up against tanks with stones. The front page photos brought home to us that there is bitter grief on both sides and that is why outside help is urgently needed in this region to end the suffering on both sides.
“We need to see the humanity of all the people in the region. Only then will we be committed to ending this vicious circle of hatred and revenge.”
Teri Hayt is the Star assistant managing editor who oversees photo selection. “There were several images of grieving relatives on both sides of the issue. Most of the photos of the scene were too graphic to publish,” she said.
“In the end, I felt that we needed to show the grief and despair this war has created on both sides. Thus the side-by-side display of the mother whose son blew himself up and Sharon viewing the carnage visited upon his people again.
“Was this the right call? I thought so at the time. I knew regardless of how we displayed these images there would be strong reaction from both sides. Honestly, it doesn’t matter what images run, someone will be offended. It is never our intention to offend but rather inform.
“They say hindsight is 20/20 so Wednesday morning, after looking at our front, I opened my copy of the New York Times and saw that they had a photo of the remnants of the bus.
“The image did not have any bodies visible, nothing really compelling about the images, but it did show the damage. And I thought that if I had to make the call over again I would have gone with a single photo of Sharon standing over the body bags with the bus in the background.
“I believe that we are being much more sensitive to both sides of the issue than a year ago, but the fact remains that each side had suffered.
“Our job is to report this war and that means photos that are hard to look at. I would hope that our readers trust we are making thoughtful decisions, not just putting the first photo we come across in the paper. I worry that we are being so sensitive to both sides that we are not covering the news story of the day.”
New on StarNet
StarNet now offers a free weekday morning newsletter with a quick run-down of the day’s top stories and e-mail alerts when major stories break during the day. Go online to www.azstarnet.com/newsletter.
Due to do it right
Bob Knoll, who drove his “co-workers nuts because I read what they wrote,” duly pointed out a “do” error in a headline Wednesday: “Hikers, joggers who are fans of canyon are making due on nearby roads.” Said Knoll: “If we could just get those hikers and joggers to make ‘dew’ there’d probably be enough moisture to reopen the canyon.”
The Star, up close
Each month, readers are invited to the daily news meeting. Last week, Sarah Evans and Pamela Dickens sat in.
