Image Ethics in Journalism

 Two Picture Editors Talk About the Rights and Wrongs of Image Publishing

by Daniel James Devine

Images have raised Cain in the last few years.  From Abu Ghraib to Denmark, simple frames of color or black and white have incited protests and been blamed for violence.  Some photos have been graphic and disturbing.  Others just made people mad.

Some publishers have personal guidelines to help determine what is appropriate for print.  However, what is appropriate varies according to the nature of the publication and its current audience.  Issues of morality may come into play, and images that are permissible under the law may be unacceptable under religious conviction.

I interviewed two picture editors to ask them about the sticky area of image ethics.  One edits for a Christian news magazine, the other for a regional newspaper.  The first interview below is with Gary Gnidovic.

Gary Gnidovic is Design Director at Christianity Today, a monthly news magazine with a circulation of over 100,000. My questions (in italics) and his answers follow:

In the April issue of Christianity Today, the "Cartoon Chaos" editorial used I Corinthians 10:32,33 ("Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God . . .") to back up the magazine's position of describing, rather than republishing, the Danish caricatures of Muhammad. Regardless of the caricatures, how should a Christian publication balance a "no offense" priority with the obligation to proclaim the truth of the Gospel?

In the case of the Danish cartoons, not showing those caricatures had nothing to do with an inability to proclaim the gospel or truth. Not showing the cartoons is just a matter of respect for other's beliefs—in this case the view of some (not all) Muslims that Muhammad or Islamic prophets should not be pictured. If, for example, we wanted to do a political cartoon on the subject of Islam, out of respect we would choose not to show any image of Muhammad, but find another way to express what we need to without needlessly violating someone's religious beliefs or sensitivities.

When working with photos dealing with war or violence that is news, how graphic is too graphic?

War is war, and it is generally an ugly affair. Images of violence or of the result of violence can be disturbing and evoke a strong emotional response. The earliest powerful war images were of the remains left on the battlefields during the Civil War. These photos were done using a large camera with glass plates using long exposures, and the resulting images have a sense of stillness and finality.

As photography has continued to change the images have gotten more graphic and have come closer to the action taking place. The Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq have left us with hyper-real images of burned corpses in tanks and horribly injured soldiers and civilians in the midst of battle with embedded photographers using grainless digital technology. In contrast to the static approach of Civil War imagery, contemporary war photography has a sense of immediacy and clarity that creates a very different experience for the viewer.

Our view of war has never been the same since the introduction of the photographic medium, which brings home the reality of war in a way that was never possible before. When are you going too far in showing violence or gore? This is a difficult question to answer, and certainly some subjectivity is involved. Some imagery, although gruesome, comes to symbolize a conflict (think of the charred body still sitting in a burned-out tank from the Gulf War.) If we are involved in these conflicts, we should be aware of the realities involved. I think, however, that a line can be crossed when we needlessly violate the dignity of a human being on whichever side of the conflict he was involved.

What lines should Christians draw with publishing photos that cast public figures in an unflattering or demeaning light? Was it inappropriate, in your view, for American newspapers to publish former dictator Saddam Hussein in his underwear?

Publishing images of Saddam Hussein in his underwear was an unnecessarily provocative and demeaning method of selling magazines and newspapers. To show images like this, which have no value other than sensationalism and humiliation is an extreme misuse of the responsibility we've been given.

A Christian needs to maintain a level of respect and dignity for every human being, even one on the level of Saddam Hussein. Respect for people is a witness to the idea that ALL are created in the image of God and that none, as long as they are alive, are beyond a hope for redemption. It also reflects the very attitude Jesus exhibited in his own life on several occasions, and through his parables.

Sometimes it's possible to go too far in trying to maintain fairness. Once we at CT were comparing the views of the presidential candidates. Although most, but not all of our staff, were supporters of one of these candidates, I chose photos that attempted to eliminate a feeling of bias. Several readers wrote us saying it appeared we were supporting the wrong candidate—evidently because we used a flattering photo of the man.

Whenever possible we attempt to exhibit fairness and not take cheap shots at people through unnecessarily demeaning images or unattractive images. We are not one of those political brochures at election time, showing the opposition in the worst way they can—bad light, awkward expression, and a greenish tint to the image.

Sometimes, of course, a person is caught doing something in such a way that they bring it on themselves. A journalist's responsibility may be to show that.

From a Christian perspective, is it ever permissible to publish nudity? (Consider, for example, the crying "napalm girl" of Vietnam War fame, or WWII Nazi prison camps.) Does your magazine hold to a set of guidelines in this area?

I think the only occasion we've ever shown full frontal nudity would be the napalm girl during the time of the Vietnam War. I don't think we'd hesitate to show one of the Nazi prison camps images if we had reason to in the context of an article. There are certain images that include nudity that convey the essential meaning of a time or event, and express an idea much better than another photo might. In the case of the napalm girl and prison camp images, nudity is part of the essence of the image and the meaning of those photographs—human beings stripped bare against the horrors of war. There is absolutely nothing sexual about them. And they express certain things that no other photo can. And it is my belief that there are certain aspects of truth that even words cannot adequately convey. Jesus himself drew many pictures (with words) to express ideas where a didactic approach would be inadequate or too small to hold the truth he was expressing. (He left that part to Paul and others).

Recently I was considering running an image that contained female nudity in a native tribe in Africa. When nudity is part of an indigenous culture, to portray a people otherwise is dishonest. I would not have hesitated using that photo, although we chose another image because it ended up being a better fit with the story.

Having said all that, there are certain sensitivities in our evangelical culture that we need to be aware of. Believe me, we'll hear about it if it's felt that we've stepped over the line. We once ran a story on the way Hugh Hefner affected our present culture. Several readers were quick to observe what appeared to be part of a nipple showing under a low cut dress in a small photo. (I checked—it was just a shadow.)

Jesus gave a special warning about not being a source of temptation in Luke 17:1 ("Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.") How can picture editors be honest about news events involving nudity without publishing an invitation to lust?

This is a good and important question, and a principle from Scripture that I try to take very seriously in this role. Obviously the variety of cultures, and even different generations or subcultures within a broader culture, have unique sensitivities. I think the guideline here is the intended use of the images shown. If the intention is to honestly portray a group of people through images, and partial nudity happens to be a part of that story or even necessary to conveying the essence of a situation (holocaust images for example), then to me this is acceptable. Remember, the church throughout its history commissioned countless paintings that contain nudity. But you see there is nothing sexual about them. It's all in the perception. If someone wants to find eroticism, they can find it just about anywhere—a catalogue, a comic book, or the woman sitting next to you. It's a matter of the heart.

But certainly I won't ever place anything in the magazine, and there are safeguards against this, that would intentionally be used to stimulate some kind of sexual response for the sake of a more hip publication or something like that. In fact, once I was walked in on with a giant woman's derriere on my computer screen. It was a bit embarrassing, but I had to explain that I was actually adjusting the length of the woman's shorts so it wouldn't appear too revealing for our audience. I have a tough job.

Does Christianity Today follow a specific code of ethics, such as the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics?

Christianity Today magazine does use SPJ's Code of Ethics as a guideline for journalistic integrity. We also adhere to the Evangelical Press Association's Code of Ethics which David Neff, our editor, and Tim Morgan, our deputy managing editor, helped initiate and formulate. It can be helpful to have guidelines to refer to, but common sense, cultural sensitivity, and a desire to convey truth go a long way, too.

Andy Lavalley is Photo Editor at the Post-Tribune, a regional daily newspaper in Northwest Indiana with a circulation of over 60,000.  My questions and his replies follow:

What's your reaction to the Danish cartoon controversy? Is there a free speech issue involved there or not, in your opinion?

Maybe it's hard to divorce my reaction as a citizen of this country with that, but at the end of the day I think it was a sign of the growing power of a certain religious group in our world. There are newspapers around the world that have no problems running horribly offensive cartoons of any of the leaders of the world's leading religious orders. And all of a sudden when you run one that offends the Muslims you have rioting and people being killed.

Now, having said that, should the newspaper have run them? I believe they should. I believe they should have the right to run them if they want to. But I don't believe in a civilized world you have to fear for your life if you run a political cartoon. You should fear lack of subscriptions or advertiser drop-off; but I don't think you should have to worry about rioting and actual killing due to something you write in a newspaper or magazine.

That's big issue now with more Muslims immigrating to America. Journalists are going to have to consider their audience as they write and publish photos.

On one hand, you're right. I think we always have to consider our audience. But there tends to be a different standard. There's certainly no problem with running a cartoon that shows certain Jewish or Christian leaders or the leader—Jesus or whomever—in a light you just wouldn't ever believe. I think people that come to this country are going to have to realize they are in a country where that happens, and it's not a country [like] in the Middle East where it's run by the religious leadership who can exert that sort of power. In this country there is the freedom of press; if you choose to come to this country you have to live within that framework. You can't kill someone because they published a cartoon.

What a lot of other editors who have made the decision not to republish the Danish cartoons say is, "Well, according to Islam, Muslims are not allowed to have images that depict Muhammad." To them, publishing the cartoons is an affront to Muslim faith; it's not about the right to have free speech about Muhammad.

Would you change your last answer in light of that?

Well, not really. You look at Salman Rushdie who wrote a book, and next thing you know they've got the religious leaders calling out a fatwa that whoever killed him would go to heaven. So yes it is an affront to the religion, but . . . does it ruin your religion if you see a depiction of Muhammad? Does it absolutely ruin your religious experience, or does it give you a chance to say "Look, you printed these photos or this cartoon, we're offended; we are now going to boycott your advertisers. We're going to run a de-subscription drive. We want to drop your subscription a thousand percent." That's fine. But we face that all the time. We run a picture, or run a story, and people get mad, and they drop their subscription or advertisers drop in and out. That's how a civilized society works. You can't be fearful of your life or your family's life simply because you choose to run something, run a photo, run a cartoon.

And I certainly hope that's not the coming trend, because then we're going to be facing that on many levels. Whoever is willing to go kill a couple people because they ran something offensive, then that's going to put that thought in the back of your mind, "Well, do we run that, and make the atheists mad, or make the Unitarians mad?"

Have you ever made a decision not to run a picture because you suspected it had been inappropriately staged?

Yeah. Oh, yeah.

There are times when you can see that a photo has been staged. There are two ways around it. You cannot run the photo--especially if you have another photo to run that's from that situation. Or you can, if you really, really, need to run the photo--if the photo has enough editorial value--you can made it very clear in the cutline of the photo that the photo was staged.  Of the two that's the least tasty way of doing it.

But it's interesting because that is such a changing acceptability. Staged photos in the early era of photojournalism were just the absolute norm. People had no problem staging photos. One of the fathers of all photojournalism, Robert Capa, who shot for Life magazine--it's openly said that if he had to stage a photo to get the message of his photo across, he had no problem doing it. And this was a guy [who's] seen as one of the fathers of our profession. People tend to forget that. We've gotten to a point now where we're like, "You can't move a Coke can if it's setting in the middle of your photo."

It still goes on. You still see it in the paper a lot. Personally, I find it better to get people in real life; but I guess to get to your answer--yes, we have. I can remember one where there was a guy [who] said he had taken a nice feature photo of a guy painting [an empty] swimming pool. And we looked at it, and the guy had a paint brush and a can of paint, but the paintbrush didn't have any paint on it. And it's like "Whuh?"

Do you have a policy or rule of thumb–either you or the Post-Tribune—regarding nudity in photographs?

We don't have a written policy. We try to educate the photographers on what we find acceptable. However, if the situation were to arise where there was nudity—and generally speaking on something like that it's going to be a spot news situation where perhaps someone has been taken hostage or assaulted, or maybe there was something at the beach where there was a drowning. We always educate our photographers. "You know who we're shooting for. We're not shooting for a major metropolitan or one of the British tabloids that runs nudity regularly. So make sure if you're at one of those situations that you get a photograph that we can run in the paper. However go ahead and shoot the nudity because if down the road we were to find out that some photo we had was of incredible value, we can then have the discussion of whether or not to run that photo." If they don't shoot it, then that discussion never happens. And I think you'll find that with a lot with editors.

In news situations involving dead bodies or violence, how graphic is too graphic?

Quite honestly it's on a per instance basis. One of the arguments I had that I regret most losing: Two years ago in Beslan, Russia, a bunch of [Chechnian] terrorists overtook the school. They snuck into a school on the opening day and rigged it with bombs, and ended up killing over 300 people--well over half of them were school-aged children. It was just one of the most horrific things you can imagine. And there were some photos [that] came across the wire of this line of children, all their bodies laying out. And there was a mother who was just absolutely destroyed, grieving over her child. It really spoke to this tragedy. I knew it was a hard photo; it was hard to look at. I took it to my editor and argued for it, and there was going to be no way we were going to run the photo of the dead kids. So I lost that one. Similarly, during the tsunami [of Christmas 2004] in Thailand and Banda Aceh and all around there, we ran a number of photos with bodies. I don't know why one we seemed to not have the fortitude to run and the others we did. With the Katrina flooding in New Orleans last fall we ran a couple photos with bodies floating in the water. But the one that I really feel strongly about that will probably always stick with me was the one of the shot of the mom. I couldn't win that one. I think sometimes it goes to the fact that, if it's children. . .

On a local level it would have to ramp even much higher than that for a photo of a body. We had a triple drowning last year just north of Chesterton, [Indiana]. Three sisters drowned at the same time, and we had some just amazing, heart-wrenching images of these little girls being pulled out. And we ended up, after much discussion, [running] about three frames where you knew what was happening but you couldn't see the victims, and we ended up running those photos. Our competition went the other way. I think they ran seven or eight photos and on five of them you could see the victims, you could see their faces. I think we made the right decision on that one.

So both of these issues, graphicness and nudity, have a lot to do with knowing your readers, and what they expect?

Absolutely. We're a 60,000-circulation newspaper in Northwest Indiana. And our readers expect to be treated that way. If you were to look at newspapers in Europe, in Germany, in England, it's a whole different aesthetic. They are used to seeing graphic images and it doesn't upset them at all, so they're working under a different set of mores.

I don't want to open up the paper in the morning and see someone's last moments, if at all possible.

What would be your advice to younger picture editors on how to publish truthfully without offending individual groups?

You have to be careful, I think, with "the truth" and "accuracy." We strive to be accurate. The truth is, I don't know, it's very poetic. If you were to listen to your average politician speaking and you were looking for the truth I think you'd be on a very long journey. You try to be accurate in saying what the politician said.

Let's say with the photos of the tsunami. You're trying to edit pictures that show the magnitude of that. You're trying to keep in mind, first of all, "Are you taking photos that are accurately representative of the situation?"

There's a really good example--something we have to be careful of--if you go to a press conference, and some guy is speaking at the podium, the president or the governor or whoever, you may take literally 80 to 90 pictures of him or her at the podium. And you'll get him smiling, frowning, wiping his eyebrow. You'll catch them in between words where they look like a total doof. You'll catch them with their tongue sticking out. And you've got all these images . . . You can make this person look like they're scared, happy, bored, disinterested. And it all happened. But which one do you pick? If you have a certain political or a certain philosophical bent you may pick one that kind of shows him or her looking like the savior or the goofball. And you see that a lot, you'll see mug shots from a press conference, and I think to myself, "Why did they pick this one?" So we try to be very fair in that.

You'll see a lot of photos where someone's wiping their brow with their hand or it looks like they're wiping a tear out of their eye, and in all reality they just were wiping something out of their eye. Well, it looks very emotional to show this guy or woman wiping a tear out of their eye—but they were never tearing up during the press conference. So if I ever do see that photo I'll ask the photographer, "Was this an emotional moment?" and they're like "No, he just--bug flew into his eye." So, you want to be accurate.

What's been the most challenging thing for you as a photo editor at the Post-Trib, ethically?

Convincing the people that make the decisions up the ladder from me that our readers can take a little more than what we give them. They can take a little more shock with their morning cereal. Not that I want to run bodies and stuff. But there are some images that are very powerful that may have a little bit of a graphic content to them, and trying to get those in the paper, instead of going with the safe one . . . that to me has been the biggest challenge.

 ~GL~