Graphic images of New Orleans
If you think you've seen the worst of the catastrophe in New Orleans, you're wrong. As the toxic floodwaters recede in the city, a more complete picture of the horror of Hurricane Katrina will emerge. In the last week we've gotten just a grim glimpse of what Mother Nature -- and a slow federal response to a disaster -- can do to a community. Now we're going to learn what happens to a human body when it sits for days on end in a contaminated stew of industrial waste, raw sewage and who knows what else. What recovery teams find in the streets and attics around New Orleans will likely be more gruesome than anyone could ever imagine.
As this nightmare continues to unfold, I find myself thinking about the role of photojournalism. Reports have now been published about the Federal Emergency Management Agency's request that the media not take pictures of the dead.
This is from a Reuters report:
The bottom line is that photographers and videographers are going to get these images regardless of what any governmental agency says about it.
But then what? What should news organizations do with the photos and footage?
To get some perspective, I e-mailed my old friend and mentor Kenny Irby of The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "The public needs to see the impact of our inadequate planning and response to this national disaster," wrote Irby, Poynter's visual journalism group leader. "It our responsibility to report and present this horrific story with compassion and sensitivity for the stakeholders."
Alicia Wagner Calzada, president of the National Press Photographers Association, seemed to agree. "Publications need to be sensitive," she said in a telephone interview from Baton Rouge, LA, where she is taking pictures for Rumbo, a Spanish-language newspaper based in San Antonio, TX. "But there are times when you need to hit people over the head with reality."
Calzada referenced the pictures of people falling out of the World Trade Center on 9/11 as an example. "They were horrifying pictures," she says, "but they drove home the reality of the situation."
But how much reality is too much reality? How much is not enough? Where should these images of Hurricane Katrina run? On the front page above the fold? Inside? In color? Should media outlets stay away showing the most grisly footage? What about protecting the family and friends of the dead? If news organizations decide to show graphic images, should disclaimers be used?
These are just a few of the tough questions that photo editors and news producers now face. There won't be any easy answers.
Personally, I thought I wanted to see the images. I wanted perspective. I wanted the cold, harsh truth regardless of how ugly it was. Then, last night, I sat at my computer in pleasant, dry Cincinnati and came across a flood photo on a "shock site" that's too sad and grotesque to describe.
I don't know what I think anymore.
-- D.E. White
What about you? What do you think those of us living outside the affected areas absolutely need to see? What do we not need to see? Why?
Related links:
NPPA Opposes Any Suggestion Of Photography Restrictions In Hurricane Katrina's Aftermath (NPPA.org)
Ethical Questions About Covering Katrina (Poynter.org)
Shocking, Grisly Pictures Vital to Story of Katrina (Denver Post)
TV's Hurricane Images can Distress Children (The Journal News)
As this nightmare continues to unfold, I find myself thinking about the role of photojournalism. Reports have now been published about the Federal Emergency Management Agency's request that the media not take pictures of the dead.
This is from a Reuters report:
In an e-mail explaining the decision, a FEMA spokesperson wrote: "The recovery of victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect and we have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media."I truly wish I could believe that treating the dead with dignity was the sole reason for FEMA's request. But for some odd reason I have a sneaking suspicion that the organization's leaders may have some ulterior PR-related motives.
The bottom line is that photographers and videographers are going to get these images regardless of what any governmental agency says about it.
But then what? What should news organizations do with the photos and footage?
To get some perspective, I e-mailed my old friend and mentor Kenny Irby of The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "The public needs to see the impact of our inadequate planning and response to this national disaster," wrote Irby, Poynter's visual journalism group leader. "It our responsibility to report and present this horrific story with compassion and sensitivity for the stakeholders."
Alicia Wagner Calzada, president of the National Press Photographers Association, seemed to agree. "Publications need to be sensitive," she said in a telephone interview from Baton Rouge, LA, where she is taking pictures for Rumbo, a Spanish-language newspaper based in San Antonio, TX. "But there are times when you need to hit people over the head with reality."
Calzada referenced the pictures of people falling out of the World Trade Center on 9/11 as an example. "They were horrifying pictures," she says, "but they drove home the reality of the situation."
But how much reality is too much reality? How much is not enough? Where should these images of Hurricane Katrina run? On the front page above the fold? Inside? In color? Should media outlets stay away showing the most grisly footage? What about protecting the family and friends of the dead? If news organizations decide to show graphic images, should disclaimers be used?
These are just a few of the tough questions that photo editors and news producers now face. There won't be any easy answers.
Personally, I thought I wanted to see the images. I wanted perspective. I wanted the cold, harsh truth regardless of how ugly it was. Then, last night, I sat at my computer in pleasant, dry Cincinnati and came across a flood photo on a "shock site" that's too sad and grotesque to describe.
I don't know what I think anymore.
-- D.E. White
What about you? What do you think those of us living outside the affected areas absolutely need to see? What do we not need to see? Why?
Related links:
NPPA Opposes Any Suggestion Of Photography Restrictions In Hurricane Katrina's Aftermath (NPPA.org)
Ethical Questions About Covering Katrina (Poynter.org)
Shocking, Grisly Pictures Vital to Story of Katrina (Denver Post)
TV's Hurricane Images can Distress Children (The Journal News)
13 Comments:
SportsShooter, a website where photojournalists usually discuss their assignments at the games people play, has an interesting thread on this with almost every viewpoint under the sun already available.
. . . and I think the first comment on the SportsShooter thread -
"From the same goverment that didn't bring you photos of coffins of servicemen and women killed in action..."
. . . says it all. If we cant take pictures of dead bodies >in< coffins, why would the same government approve of photos of bodies yet to be placed in coffins ?!
If FEMA hadn't done such a poor job handling the situation in Louisiana, this issue of censorship wouldn't have come up. Each dead body we see on the news or in our papers is a reminder of their ineptitude. I think the administration realizes that as well.
The feds continue to paint a relatively rosy picture of what's happening in the affected regions despite tons of visual evidence to the contrary. Hmmmmm. Wonder if that's also been their approach to their PR efforts relating to Iraq and Abu Ghraib.
I was an editor at Ohio State's student newspaper during the 2003 fire that killed five people. We had to ask ourselves some of the same questions.
The day after the fire, we ran a photo on our front page that showed a line of police officers in front of an ambulance. You didn't notice it at first, but if you looked closely, you could see that they were standing in front of a body bag.
One of our editors was on vacation when this edition ran. When he came back, he was very disappointed by how tame the photo we ran was. In fact, he was so disappointed, he redesigned the front page (several days after it had already run) - I guess to show us how much "better" it could have been if only he'd been there to guide us.
In his version, the main photo showed emergency workers pulling a body bag from the charred building. It was certainly a striking and evocative image - and to be honest, if this tragedy had happened on the other side of the country, that might have been the photo I'd pick.
But here's the thing. These victims were students; lots of our readers knew them. My sister knew them. And she thought it was insensitive of us to run even the toned-down photo we used. After all, that was her friend in there, on the front page for all to see.
I know the circumstances are vastly different (for one thing, there was no question about the role of government in preventing the fire), but the lesson that was hammered home during that episode is that journalists must always keep their readers in mind.
At OSU, we had an obligation to tell the story of the fire, but we had to balance that with our obligation to our readers, many of whom were grieving for lost friends. One person who never understood that was the editor I mentioned earlier, whom the rest of us became convinced was an absolute ghoul as our coverage of the fire continued.
(In one particularly disturbing episode, he admonished a photographer who came back to the newsroom in tears saying she couldn't take any more pictures of students grieving at the burned-out house; one had actually broken down crying on the photographer's shoulder. The editor said she should have pulled her camera back and snapped a photo of the crying student.)
I guess what I'm saying is: we're journalists, but we're also people. And the more closely our readers are connected to the tragedy, the more aware we have to be of their feelings.
I think I would give people a choice about whether to see the most disturbing images. I would put the photos online, or possibly provide a link to other sites that have photos. And I would make damn sure to point out that these images are graphic, and I might even arrange them so that the tamest photos come first, so the reader can stop if it starts getting too intense.
But I've got to say, I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions.
"Brownie, You're Doin' A Heck of A Job"
When I think Cin Weekly, I think hard-news journalism ethics.
And recipes.
I think it's important to consider the motivation. Even if FEMA and the state of Louisiana had done an admirable job reacting to this disaster, it was such a devastating one that there would still be a significant death toll, and there would still be plenty of pictures of the victims. But I don't think it's appropriate to put pictures of the same victims "in your face" just to prove a point that the situation could have been handled better. If we're going to show pictures of the victims, do so to let everyone know what a devastating impact this storm had ... not as fodder for an attack against the government/administration.
I think there needs to be some consideration for the families of the victims involved. As a close friend of the family who lost someone in the fire at OSU, that was disrespectful to the families to show that picture. You can show pictures of death, destruction, and the aftermath of Katrina but you do not need to show it from every angle, every day and every hour. After Sept 11th (God Bless Them) you constantly saw the same images and pictures and newscaster stating the same thing. People were getting sick of hearing the same things and dwelling of the same information. I think the population loves to find fault in the government but there needs to be fault placed on the media. The media is a very good source of inaccurate and bias news. They only want to discuss what will make the most listeners tune in or buy issues. They would rather report on everything that is completely wrong. I think pictures will show how "bad" the administration is but how do you show how horrible the news is at reporting the information. I'm glad all those newscasters were able to have food, water, and fresh clothing while survivors were suffering in the Superdome
Your description of the devastation is more than enough, we do not need the horrible pictures, nor do we want the families to be in the position to see them over and over again. According to the media, no one ever does enough or does it correctly. The media has lost creditability with the Dan Rather, media of the must tell, which increased the loss of our soldiers. The situation is bad enough, your coverage was needed, please don't take it beyond the limits. We don't want to see it, nor do we need too.
I think as a human beings, we can all envision what will happen to the human body if it is misused. In this case, the government took the opportunity to misuse our trust in their capability and now we have the outcome of people not doing what they are required to do. My heart goes out to the families. I hope that they will not have to identify their loved ones in this condition. I hope they will be able to identify them thru dental records. We will continue to endure nature's wrath, but we need to learn from each encounter and prepare for the next.
No absolutely not. We don't post dead bodies on TV or in the newspapers. Have some sense of decorum. There are deaths every day in nearly every city, auto accidents, falling from the 25th floor and many other examples. Pictures should not be overly graphic. Children watch TV and read newspapers. We sensor sex from public channels and newspapers (unless it is associated with Bill Clinton). If you want to post graphic pictures, use the same censorship and methods used for sexually explicit material.
I agree FEMA's response could have been better but I take offense at blaming all on FEMA. What happend to the 1st responders? Why not blame New Orleans and Louisiana political organizations for the superdome problems. The red cross and other organizations were not allowed in to the superdome. If there were hungry and thirsty people in the superdome that was a locally created problem. Evacuation could have been done with school buses before the storm but the mayor wanted tour buses.
IF you are going to post images to tell a story, THEN photograph the whole story. I saw one overhead photo of a school bus yard under water. This photo tells me that a vital resource was not used to evacuate residents. What about photos of those inside the Superdome hurting each other (rape/assault)? What about photos of the other many communities around the affected region that are banning together as a TRUE community should to begin helping themselves to rebuild? For those of you who want to blame the Federal Goverment first, take an equal look at local governments, angencies and groups (healthcare included). I hope we ALL learn a valuable lesson from what "could have been done", and do our own local disaster planning from our townships/cities/counties perspective. In whole, I think these type of photographs should be published, but under a complete story package.
Post a Comment
<< Home