This just in from the Trib’s Connie Coyne:
For those who did not see the photograph, it was shot from a distance with a long lens, meaning the photograph looked fuzzy.
From editor Nancy Conway:
“When we made the decision to go with this photo we were unaware of the father’s request not to run the photo or that Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not want the AP to release the photo. Would it have made a difference? I don’t know for sure, but I think not.
“What may have made a difference is if the soldier were local.”
Connie also quotes a Trib blogger. But why no quotes from whoever runs the Trib photojournalism department? What do you think about the photo, Trent?
Connie’s article: http://www.sltrib.com/columnists/ci_13318735
/rating_on.gif "1 Coin")
/rating_half.gif "14 Coins")
/rating_off.gif "15 Coins")
55 COINSLike this post? Give it some coins.
Loading ...
I’m somewhat reluctant to comment because I don’t have the time to give it the thought it deserves. It’s a complex ethical situation. But here are some thoughts-
In general I find myself in favor of publishing controversial photographs. I like to think that readers are smart enough to develop their own informed opinions, and that sometimes we need to be exposed to difficult topics. In cases like war I think more content is better than less, as it is important for people to know what is happening. It’s not enough to say, “We know how bad war is, so we don’t need to see photos like this.”
In my history with newspapers editors, there is often a fear of anything that’s outside the norm and sometimes a single angry phone call from a reader is enough to make them second guess a solid decision.
This photo was not a Burrows from Vietnam or a Turnley from Iraq, a photo that captured the emotion of loss and the brotherhood of war in a way that hits your soul. So was it published to say that we’re not afraid to show the death of an American soldier? Was it published to say that we’re not the weak-kneed mainstream media who didn’t question the rational for war in 2002?
Asking the family’s permission (and having it be denied) gave opponents of the photograph a solid attack against the Associated Press. Where would we be if we were to ask permission whenever we published a photograph of a controversial subject, arrest, or tragedy? This was a move that backfired on the Associated Press as far as the public is concerned.
As for the embedding process itself, I have major concerns. The many rules, the recently uncovered vetting of journalists by a PR firm contracting for the government, and more. That’s a whole topic in itself.
But covering the war outside of the embedding process has proved to be very dangerous. On the first day of the Iraq war, Newsweek’s un-embeeded reporters and photographer came under fire and were basically shot out of the war. Journalists no longer have the immunity they had before the 90′s came along. So the military-arranged embed is the easy answer to a tough problem.
These are just some thoughts that come to mind and hardly a conclusion. I had nothing to do with the decision to publish the photo in the Tribune, and I don’t really care to comment on the decisions made in our shop. That’s for those who made the decision to talk about, as they did in Connie’s article.
FYI- Susan Cohen is the Director of Photography at The Salt Lake Tribune. She’s a member on this site and you can message her through this site or get her e-mail from the Tribune’s site here: http://extras.sltrib.com/help/staff.asp.