Ambassador Stevens photo
September 14th, 2012 | Uncategorized |Ethics blog 8/13/12
Thursday September 13, many news organizations published a photo of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens either dead or dying after a terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. The ethics Committee would like to add some thoughts to the discussion on the use of this image. John Long, Steve Raymer, Peter Southwick and Donald Winslow (News Photographer Magazine editor) each contributed to this blog. An in-depth examination of these issues by Steve Raymer will appear in News Photographer Magazine but for today, this is a quick response to some of the questions being asked:
![[LA Times home page showing picture of Ambassador Stevens' dead body]](http://blogs.nppa.org/ethics/files/2012/09/lat_page_with_stevens_picture.jpg)
By John Long, Ethics Committee Chair:
Photo editing is an art form. There are no absolutes. One person’s historical document is another’s inflammatory propaganda. Today we were presented with a case in point: a photo of Ambassador Chris Stevens being dragged through the streets of Benghazi, either dead or dying. I use the term “dragged through the streets” on purpose. These are also the words we used when the photo of an American soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu during the1993 firefight in the Somali capital that became known as the infamous Black Hawk Down affair. In that old case, almost every newspaper in the United States, Europe, and Asia ran the photo. Were the same conditions in play today even though in Somalia it was a mob defiling an American and today it was a group trying to help the ambassador? Should the L. A. Times and many other newspapers and web sites have run the photo of Ambassador Stevens?
To begin, this is not an ethics issue for many of us. This is a taste issue with implications for families, our fellow citizens and their understanding of the Middle East and perhaps the upcoming presidential election.
We say taste because there is no lying, no deceit in this photo; it is an accurate depiction of what was happening in front of the camera at that time. If it is a matter of taste, you should ask the question, “does the public need this information in order to make informed decisions for society?” Does the public need to see this dying man, or the Falling Man, or the Black Hawk Down soldier, in order to fully understand what is happening? This is the art of photo editing.
Personally, as I get older the more I am inclined to use these photos. War is Hell and we should not be sugar coating reality. However, should we be inflaming the situation with photos that reflect a political agenda? We enjoy free speech but that does not allow us to yell “FIRE !!” in a crowded theater, unless there is a fire.
Does the photo today inform the discussion or inflame it? Does the public learn anything from this photo that they need to see in order to make informed decisions for our country?
Each newspaper, web site and television network must answer the question for themselves because each newspaper, web site and television network has a compact with its specific readers or viewers on what the limits of taste are for that publication. If I were still part of the editing staff at The Hartford Courant I would argue to use the photo inside. If I were working for the Daily News in NYC I would argue to run it on the front, in color. We all serve different expectations.
This is an ongoing discussion. Our hope is to bring some structure to the discussion. Below is a string of emails between the members of the committee and Don Winslow:
On Sep 13, 2012, at 13:54, Peter Southwick wrote:My initial reaction (after I gagged) was that this comes down to John’s tried and true distinction between ethics and taste. For me, it’s not an “ethics” question per se. There is nothing dishonest or incorrect in this photo. However, in my opinion it goes way over the line of taste judgment and has no place in any publication. It doesn’t lie to the public (an ethics violation), but it has no reason for being and serves no journalistic purpose other than shock value (a taste violation, to be sure).
On Sep 13, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Steve Raymer wrote:
I have tried this one on several colleagues and they agree that it is more taste issue than an ethical issue. Which, of course, still doesn’t let the profession or these newspapers off the hook in my view. There are still plenty of implication when you run this picture, from hurt to the parents, who live in Southern California, to inflaming anti-Muslim hatred.
On Sep 13, 2012, at 14:03, Donald Winslow wrote:
I agree that it is a matter of taste and local sensibilities but it also carries an ethical responsibility, I think. In that it can potentially be viewed as inflammatory language. My example of Somalia and Blackhawk Down, Kevin Carter’s vulture, Nick Ut’s Napalm Girl, Eddie Adams’ Saigon Execution were all, in their own way, inflammatory. So was Joe’s flag raising over Iwo Jima, in a different way. George Stock’s Buna Beach in Life was inflammatory in that Henry Luce and Roosevelt wanted to re-invigorate a weary and growing apathetic American populous to start buying War Bonds again because USA was going broke in the two wars. So yes, it’s taste, but it also carries with it the ethical yardstick of being potentially inflammatory, and if it were hate speech, racial slurs, or incited violence, it would be run through an ethical barometer.
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Steve Raymer wrote:
That’s exactly my point, Donald, that it may be taste, but it’s inflammatory. There was an image going around yesterday of Libyans standing in front of the US Embassy in Tripoli with hand-made signs says they were sorry and were apologizing for all of their countrymen and women. How many papers used that on their front pages? From a foreign policy perspective, this image is trouble. For President Obama the image spells trouble.
On Sep 13, 2012, at 13:54, Peter Southwick wrote:I think the examples that Donald cites are all good ones, but I’m also wary (as someone who sat at the Page One desk of a major metro daily while these decisions were being made) of editing or pulling back images because they might inflame people, or for political reasons. That can be said of so many photos, and it’s a tough line to draw. I’m not saying it shouldn’t ever be done, but it’s a tough call every time.
By the way, my old paper (The Boston Globe) was likely the only major paper in the US that didn’t use the pilot being dragged through the street in Somalia. I argued for using it.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/188259/l-a-times-ny- daily-news-feature-graphic-libya-ambassador-photo-on-front-page/
Thank you for sharing with us the debate. For my part, the issue is for the family. On a journalistic level, I understand running it. What is graphic is the act of violence itself depicted on the image.
Same when NYT ran in its Front Page, Massoud Hossaini’s image of this little girl crying among the dead people.
He won awards from Pulitzer and the World Press Photo this year for it.
When I saw this LA Times cover, I was shocked about the power of it.
It is disturbing and it’s reality. It’s news. Sadly.
Another value of the photo is not just to show war is hell, but also that Libyans were helping the Ambassador. It’s very valuable as a news photo in that sense.
I agree with the NY Times’ public editor, who made the point that we have seen newspaper photos of bloody bodies of Syrians, Egyptians, and people of color around the world being traumatized, brutalized, injured and killed in all kinds of terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Why are we so sensitive when it is a white American. I am terribly saddened by the loss of Ambassador Stevens, but I think we have become too timid about confronting the reality of violence and war around the world. It’s only OK to show Americans images of people dying if they are not American, and preferably if they are from a minority ethnic group in another country? Sorry, that dog don’t hunt!
“We say taste because there is no lying, no deceit in this photo; it is an accurate depiction of what was happening in front of the camera at that time.”
There is a problem here. Assumptions are made that the photo is an accurate depiction of the events happening. Without the context, the wide shot, you don’t actually know that’s true. Manipulation of the viewer’s emotions are an large part of the purpose of the shot as reported by media. Yes, the photo may be documentary – but what have you documented? The fact of the ambassador’s death is already corroborated by a number of sources.
The point of the photo is for its commercial value, not its documentary one. There isn’t enough information to discuss the ethics of running it on the basis of documentary. There is a problem, however, with the issue of running it in regard to the dignity of the victim, which may be the real ethical issue. We know from multiple sources of the fact of the death – no photo changes that, so the question of running of the shot becomes that of evaluating an agenda. Does the agenda behind the decision to run it have merit? Whose agenda does it advance? Is the agenda consistent with a documentary basis of the event?
Press media need to be more honest with themselves about why they do much of what they do. The public sees through much of this. The ephemeral nature of the news bite means the vast majority of viewers will pass this through their consciousness quite quickly. The viewers who won’t, are the friends and family of the victim, so the question comes back to: whose interest is being served by running it? The answer has to be more than,”the publisher’s”, and if it isn’t, then the ethical issue isn’t about the event, it’s about the organization.
his photo is what you were talking about right?
I don’t see this image of Ambassador Stevens as inflammatory. I think the photo helps give balance to a horrible event. The image gives Americans, and anyone concerned about what happened, a visual aid representing reports that Libyans tried to help Stevens. Without the report and photo of this effort, we would all be left guessing if anyone tried to help. Knowing that citizens tried to help Stevens works to diffuse a knee-jerk reaction that all of Libya should ‘pay’ for what happened, whether through withholding financial aide and other support to a nation we helped liberate or by other means. As a photojournalist, loved ones have thanked me for publishing photos of tragic situations, at times, even those resulting in death. Some have described similar images as helping them process a tragic event. Not all are so understanding of images of this nature.
I have to say taste faltered here. This mans family has been robbed of the vision they last had of their son,, husband, brother, father, alive and well. It has been replaced with this nightmarish image which I am sure they will be unable to forget. Is it ethical? Well that depends but it was unneeded and thats the truth. I think all to often Shock Value trumps decency and that is the sad reality of what has become more important to the rags that once had credibility.
i have thoughts about this but at this time of morning and given the distraction of my toddler son, walker, they are probably incoherent, but this is my first thought.
i think we show it all. every bit of it. the falling man. the chris stevens death. mogadishu.
because photography is about shedding light and enlightenment is the only hope for humanity.
yes, there are those who will riot in the streets over images like this one. there are those who will hate. but we must not — we cannot — sink our standards to the lowest common denominator of humanity or we are certainly doomed.
i refuse to allow those who think that violence as human nature is inevitable corrupt the medium through which i hinge my hopes for humanity and our collective enlightenment.
communication of our commonality is our only real hope. and it is images like this one that i find strikes our most common human element… that we are fragile. that we are mortal. that the actions of our fellow man can either uplift or destroy us.
this is the reality of violence. this is the reality of war. death. madness. chaos.
my personal understanding — my empathy, my compassion, my sense of our common bonds — of the world and people around me comes first from first-hand experience and then from words and images.
limiting any of those for any reason diminished the chance for conversation, regardless of how challenging or futile-seeming or painful or horrific because talking about what we see and read and experience and how it makes us feel is how we work through our fears and differences. first in our own heads, then outside and among each other.
every age of man has been as dickens said, the best of times and the worst of times. and in every age of man there has waged the battle between darkness and ignorance and light and knowledge.
for me, images like this one, however painful, however outrageous to the common newspaper reader, they must be published if we hope for the light. there will always be those who hate, who blame, who only see libyans and americans and not our common element of humanity.
but we must publish despite them. we must drag them into the light, or face a future humanity consumed by darkness.
viktor frankl once said, ‘that which is to give light, must endure burning.’
to honor chris smith, yes, to honor his life and death, his work, his belief in our common ground, we must continue to publish images like these.
journalism is, of course, beholden only to seeking truth, minimizing harm, and being accountable. i think not showing these types of images, not telling these stories, is a kind of shirking of duty, an irresponsibility, that diminishes the profession. telling these stories, showing these images, this is our job. it isn’t easy. it isn’t pretty. hell, i’m not even sure it is fair to burden one profession with so much. but it is our job and we must do it regardless.
inelegantly stated and raw and unedited, but this is the best i got right now.
cheers,
I wonder why there wasn’t a similar discussion when Massoud Hossaini’s 2011 Pulitzer prize photograph was initially published. Personally, I found that image much more disturbing than the photograph of Ambassador Stevens.
Why is it permissible for American media to publish graphic war images from distant lands of people we cannot identify with and have no connection to?
One must ask: is the American revulsion to the Stevens image a double standard in terms of journalistic ethics?
Thank You!!!! this was an extraordinary response. Absolutely beautiful..JL
Yes, this photo is shocking but my reaction and increased sadness is worth the horror it displays. I feel brought into this tragedy more deeply now and can see for my own eyes the raw truth. I’m infuriated much more than before I viewed this, as all Americans should be. Not viewing with my own eyes the cold, stark and horrifying reality of what has happened keeps a buffer for me on the realities of terrorism.
Appreciate your almost every other helpful web-site. The location in addition could I purchase this sort of information and facts developed in this type of perfect indicates? I’ve a vision that i am just at this moment operating in, and i have recently been for the watch out for these kinds of information and facts.
You could certainly see your expertise in the paintings you write. The sector hopes for more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always go after your heart.