The war in Iraq was short, but it was not short on the ethical dilemmas it posed for newspaper editors who wanted to tell readers what was happening to the men and women fighting abroad. Last month, I presented readers with three scenarios and asked them what they would do if they were an editor at The San Diego Union-Tribune. Two options were listed for each scenario.
THE RESULTS
CASE NO. 1:
The first Marine of Camp Pendleton’s 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion to die in Iraq was Marine Lance Cpl. Jess Surez de Solar of Escondido. The initial story about his death appeared two days later, on March 29. It was accompanied by a poignant letter his father, Fernando Surez de Solar, had written telling his immigrant son: “Wear your American soldier’s uniform with pride, but wear with even greater pride your heritage of an Aztec warrior.”
That article told about his death but said it would be two to nine days before the family would get any details about how he died. As the family grieved, Union-Tribune reporter James Crawley, who was with the Marines, covered a battlefield memorial to the fallen Marine. The story Crawley dictated spelled out how the young Surez was killed; the information was central to the story.
What it didn’t say, however, was whether the family had been told about how he died. The Marines didn’t know; they suggested the newspaper check with the Pentagon. The Pentagon refused to provide any information or to even acknowledge Surez had died.
A. You decide against running the story. You do not want the family to find out the details of the Marine’s death from the newspaper.
Readers: 47 percent
Staff: 4 percent
B. You decide to run the story. It is news. But, because you don’t want the family to be taken by surprise, a phone call is made to tell them the story will be in the paper the next day. That way, if they haven’t been given details, they can make their own decision about whether or not they want to read the story.
Readers: 53 percent
Staff: 96 percent
CASE NO. 2:
While the Union-Tribune and other newspapers sometimes print photographs that have been provided by the military, ethical concerns are raised when photos of American prisoners of war taken by the Iraqi government are made available.
Some editors question whether they should use the news service photos taken from government-controlled Iraqi television. The images show the Americans being abused by their captors, which the U.S. government said is in violation of the Geneva Convention. Some editors are uncomfortable with the propaganda aspects of the images; they would prefer photos taken by independent journalists although it is impossible in this situation.
A. You decide against using the photos of the five POWs being abused. But, you think it is permissible to use head and shoulder shots of them as long as you indicate they are from images televised by the Iraqi government and distributed by the Associated Press.
Readers: 46 percent
Staff: 83 percent
B. As much as you would like to use photographs of all five POWs, you decide against using those provided by the Iraqis. Instead, you use a photograph of one of the families of the POWS. In it, a family member is holding a photograph of one of the captured soldiers.
Readers: 54 percent
Staff: 17 percent
CASE NO. 3:
As a photo editor, you are careful about showing images of dead bodies. However, this is war; death is one of the realities. How can you not show one of the big consequences of war and still give your readers an accurate accounting of what is taking place? Is it permissible to digitally alter photos to minimize the blood and gore? To improve the composition?
A. Technology makes it possible to move mountains. What is the harm of cleaning up a photograph to blur the gore, to make an image sharper, to make the composition better? You think technology is fair game and do not hesitate to use any of the available digital tools to make a better picture.
Readers: 4 percent
Staff: 0
B. Sure, technology makes it possible to fudge reality, and sometimes photo illustrations are used in the newspaper. But the goal of a news photo is to show what happened; it is not to alter photos to change reality. While it is permissible to use photo illustrations that are labeled as such and cannot be confused with candid photographs, it is not permissible to pass off altered images as the real thing.
Readers: 96 percent
Staff: 100 percent
Most who responded 96 percent of the more than 100 readers and 100 percent of the staff were adamant that technology should not be used to alter war photos, whether to blur the gore or to make images sharper. Some were blunt.
“Not only no, but hell no,” wrote reader Barbara Parcells. “Some of us don’t entirely trust that the media are telling the truth anyway,” she said in an e-mail. “The last thing we need to find out is that you guys have been ‘sanitizing’ photos. Nazi Germany did things like that.”
“Pictures should not be messed with to soften the blow,” wrote Terra Mayne, a student in Dave Feldman’s news editing class at San Diego State University. “Dead bodies are a result of war no matter how explicit and disgusting they are. If you are going to support the war, you need to see what you are supporting.”
In addition to students from SDSU, other journalism students who responded included Adrian Vore’s class at Palomar College; Chad Tew’s media writing classes at the University of San Diego; Susan Oxford’s class at El Cajon Valley High School, and Eric Johnson’s class at Christian High School in El Cajon. Feldman and Vore also work as editors at the Union-Tribune.
Some who disagreed apparently wanted to shield readers from the unpleasant.
“I think it is extremely disrespectful to show a dead body covered in blood and gore in the newspaper,” wrote SDSU student Katie Bocuzzi. “Some things just shouldn’t be shown. I think it’s OK to alter an image as long as you make it clear that the image has been altered and how.”
For the record, it’s unacceptable for journalists to ever war or no war alter an image unless it’s a photo illustration and plain to the viewer that it doesn’t represent reality. Technology may permit sharpening a photo or moving objects, but journalistic ethics do not. Photographers don’t risk being killed to blur the reality of war. If news photos are altered, the newspaper is not living up to its journalistic responsibility to tell the truth.
Staff members who responded to the scenarios overwhelmingly said they would run a story that spelled out how a young Marine died even though the Pentagon would not verify the story. Readers weren’t so sure, however, although most 53 percent said they would go with the story.
The story involved the late Lance Cpl. Jess Surez de Solar of Escondido. The story in question, about a battlefield memorial by his comrades, explained how he died; the first story reporting his death did not. Editors, frustrated by the Pentagon’s refusal to verify or deny the story based on information from those who had been with the Marine, got in touch with the Surez family to let them know the story would be in the newspaper the next day. The family not only wanted to know how he died, they were grateful for the information, editors said.
You might have noticed that the scenarios did not mention asking the family’s permission to use the story. While any objections from the family would have been weighed by editors, the ultimate decision on whether to publish or not publish the story remained with the newspaper, as it always does. But, alerting the family was respectful, responsible and essential.
Not all agreed the story should have been told. Eric Cochard, the photo editor of the Genesis, the Christian High newspaper in El Cajon, would go along with the Pentagon’s refusal to provide information, reasoning: “The Pentagon has its reasons for not telling the family, so let them decide when it is right.”
However, Jill Moore Sugar thought it would be reasonable to publish the story. She noted that the father, Fernando Surez de Solar, made the story “more public” by “actively interacting” with the Union-Tribune by turning over a personal e-mail he had written to his son.
Aaron Henderson, a SDSU student who lost a cousin to “friendly fire” in the Persian Gulf War, objected to the story. Had it been about his cousin, he said, he would not have wanted to read it.
Readers also were divided about whether the newspaper should use photos of five prisoners of war photographed by their captors as they were being abused. Most opted against using the photos but agreed it was acceptable to use a photograph provided by one of the families that showed a captured soldier. Most staff members said they would use the head and shoulders shots, but when faced with the same decision, editors used the family photo.
Some readers who said the POW photos should be used thought neither option I provided adequate.
Ron Bonn, a former television journalist who is taking a semester off from teaching at the University of San Diego, said the option not offered would have indicated that a newspaper or a network must use “the photos which actually show the abuse,” rather than even the head-and-shoulder shots taken from Iraqi television. “It’s always seemed to me that in one way, at least, we are like the legal profession: we must go for the best evidence. How dare we ignore the actual pictures and expect the reader to trust us to describe them?
“It’s not our role to ‘clean up’ the news,” Bonn said. “We cannot hold ourselves responsible for how our readers might react to the information we present.”
Gina Lubrano’s column commenting on the media appears Mondays. It is the policy of The San Diego Union-Tribune to correct all errors. To discuss accuracy or fairness in the news, please write to Gina Lubrano, readers representative, Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, or telephone (619) 293-1525. Send e-mail to: readers.rep@uniontrib.com.
Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
——————————————————————————–
