PressEthic

James writes: "Journalists must remember that as they seek the news, they must weigh the cost of their reporting on private individuals. Photographs of dead people do not really increase the way in which the audience understand the facts of the event, they only serve to satiate morbid curiosity."

I agree with alot of what James is saying in his post, but I remember seeing an image last week of a man dead in the streets of New Orleans covered with a blanket, marked off by two or three traffic cones. The photograph actually did help to give me a deeper understanding of how bad things were, in a way that a picture of a flooded street (or even people waving signs from rooftops) could not.

James's blog and the first comment about it both make excellent points. It goes back to how people understand and break down knowledge - some people have to read it, some to hear it and others to see it. The most important thing is to use tact, as James notes. Page placement - whether the photo is featured prominently on page one or on inside news pages - is also a factor to consider. If a photo adds news value it should often be used, but even then a lot of serious thought and editorial discussion should occur before it's published.

A crucial part of journalism is accurately placing a photo with an appropriate story or caption. Check out Photo Captions From Katrina Stir Debate. It talks about two photos, one of a young black man and the other a couple of white people, and the corresponding captions.

Photos that are mis-captioned are lies in themselves. In this instance you can see how much race plays a part in the journalists's perceptions on the population of New Orleans - which was passed right on down to readers to take as fact.

In response to a couple of points raised about the images of dead on the Gulf Coast:

“However they do not really further the understanding of the audience to such an extent that it is worth putting family and friends through the ignominy of having their dead loved one, on page one.”

Are you saying that photographic journalism is just a tool in furthering the readership’s understanding of an event? Can it not be to provoke an emotional response, to jolt the news audience, to highlight an atrocity, a disaster or a massacre? Video and photographic evidence of Serbian authorities’ slaughter of Kosovan Albanians drew international attention to their plight and - though undoubtedly disturbing to victim’s families - has been used as legal evidence against Milosevic during war crimes’ trials at the Hague. See this story from MSNBC with a relevant example.

Is your issue with the intent of journalists in taking these shots? Do you draw any distinction between amateur footage of catastrophic events (July 7th bombings in London and the Tsunami in SE Asia last December spring to mind as examples) and that produced by photo journalists and cameramen, if it is disturbing? Is the desire of ordinary bystanders with a camcorder to record events “morbid”, or is that desire to document and inform only morbid when manifested by those in the journalistic profession?

And I’m pretty sure it’s not “ignominy” (see an online definition for this word’s meaning) that family and friends of someone killed by Katrina are concerned about; as with MSNBC’s example of Nura Alispahic, it is the shock/anger/distress/pain caused by the images that should preclude them being shown. There has been this same recurring argument in the UK for many years now, which focuses on the use of graphic images by newspapers and TV stations, and the damage they can do to young children. Adults, it is argued, can just avoid reading newspapers and watching TV, but surely this is no solution.

Newsreaders on the BBC will preface particularly gory reports with a caveat, along the lines of, “viewers are advised that this report contains graphic images of dead bodies which might be found disturbing.” We are looking to protect the families of the dead, but I don’t remember that argument being used for Saddam Hussein’s daughters when the horrifically bloody faces of Uday and Qusay Hussein were splashed around the world following their death at the hands of US forces.

“After all, imagine if photographs of Menezes bodies (sic – there was only one body) were shown around the world, before it was revealed that the shooting was a serious mistake. Such pictures would only have intensified the injustice of the situation.”

Here I believe ignominy does come into play. If a photo of Menezes’s bullet-riddled corpse had been shown around the world, his family and friends would not only have been shocked and upset, but in the environment of fear doubtless pervasive throughout the city at that time, it would have been cause for reproach that their son had been an attempted suicide-bomber. With certain news stories, later corrections to an earlier factual error, i.e. that Menezes was not an attempted bomber and that the shooting was therefore an error of judgment by the authorities, are as prominent as the initial story.

So even if an image of his dead body had identified him to those in the audience who knew him, later criticisms of the police would have ensured that the damage to his reputation would have been reversed. So presumably it’s the initial reaction of his friends and family that you are concerned with, rather than the long-term fallout from a character slur, intensified by accompanying photographic evidence?

“Photographs of dead people do not really increase the way in which the audience understand the facts of the event, they only serve to satiate morbid curiosity.”

Surely the telling of a news story is not merely relating the facts of an event? With an event as large as Katrina this would effectively be impossible. Your position that photographs of dead people “only serve to satiate morbid curiosity” is extreme; providing a realistic view of a disaster, warts and all, is surely acceptable practice by journalists? Is the possibility that family and friends in separate locations may see these photos your concern? Are shots of Iraqi dead shown on US cable news therefore acceptable, since they won’t be seen on TV by their families in remote parts of the country without television reception? Is it disrespectful to relatives of the dead to show dead bodies before they have been identified formally – is it an issue of timing? Unfortunately, I think we can both agree that the old adage, “what bleeds, leads” has held sway during Katrina and will continue to do so, but that is not necessarily to say that a “morbid curiosity” is the only motivating factor for journalists wishing to air or publish such images.

I'm anonymous. Tip #1:make sure you're signed in.

"This really is the crux of the argument against the use of such photographs. These images are really used to satiate morbid curiosity.”

This seems like more of a personal scruple than a rule you should apply across the board. “Satiating morbid curiosity” isn’t the only reason for accurately portraying a corpse. Not to be too crude, but that would be like saying violence in film serves only one function: to sell tickets. Yet film doesn’t only use violence to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Do filmmakers overdue it? Sure. But thankfully, journalists are much better at exercising restraint, so the rare instance in which a journalist uses a graphic image to portray a scene is not only “shocking”, as you said, but powerful—and difficult—in a way that allows the audience to better understand the situation. Of course such depictions should be used sparingly and, as you mentioned of the SOP, when there is an “overriding public need”—but that doesn’t mean they only serve one purpose, and that they’re not at all useful.

I agree completey, expicit photographs of dead ppl only serve to `satiate morbid curiosity`. It is all connected with the saddistic concept of `depressing` and `scandalous` news. Ppl love to read about stories that are shocking, more so than something positive. famous couples breaking up because of an affair, bombs, murders,wars. That is the news that sells. Graphic pics of dead bodies serves to feed that insatiable hunger to feel better about one`s own situation, not to further explain what occured. Tash Borksy

I was glad to see that the government has withdrawn the alleged ban on photographing the recovery of bodies in New Orleans (thanks for the update Prof. Penenberg!). I wanted to clarify my argument since James does link to my blog in his piece. I do not support "grotesque" coverage of the news, but, as James Caldwell points out, it is possible to bring the truth before the people without disrespecting the dead or their families.

The lifting of the ban also highlights another point I had made, perhaps not strongly enough, that the government should not be allowed to curb media reporting. While I do agree with James Walker that the media has a responsibility to be sensitive towards those affected by tragedies such as this one, I don't believe it's the government's place to be enforcing this. We have to leave the ethical decisions up to the editors -- and hope that they will find a way to keep the truth alive in an ethical and value-adding manner. Allowing the government to interfere with such decisions sets a dangerous precedent.