COMM 317: A combat picture, a death and the ethical dilemmas that confront the news media

This gets us ahead of where I wanted us to be today, but it's in the news now and it relates to what we'll be doing next. It's also a good way for us to start *segueing from law to ethics. -- pe

Two stories on the Politico.com website today on an issue that's also reflected in our media ethics textbook ... where should we draw the line on publishing pictures that are: (1) graphic or disturbing, especially when they show people's injuries; and/or (2) not helpful to selling U.S. foreign policy to the public? Here's the issue: The Associated Press has published a picture of a 21-year-old Marine corporal being treated shortly before he died of combat wounds in Afghanistan. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked AP not to run the picture, saying the Marine's family asked that it not be published, but AP consulted its editors and decided the picture should be published anyway.

Here's Gates' rationale for asking that the picture be supressed:

Gates wrote to Thomas Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer. “Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed – as was the case with Walter Reed [military hospital where substandard conditions were revealed by the news media]."

“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”

AP editors explained their decision in a story picked up separately by Politico:

The Associated Press is distributing a photo of a Marine fatally wounded in battle, choosing after a period of reflection to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it. Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, 21, of New Portland, Maine, was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.

The image shows fellow Marines helping Bernard after he suffered severe leg injuries. He was evacuated to a field hospital where he died on the operating table.

The picture was taken by Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson, who accompanied Marines on the patrol and was in the midst of the ambush during which Bernard was wounded. She had photographed Bernard on patrol earlier, and subsequently covered the memorial service held by his fellow Marines after his death.

"AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is," said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP.

He said Bernard's death shows "his sacrifice for his country. Our story and photos report on him and his last hours respectfully and in accordance with military regulations surrounding journalists embedded with U.S. forces."

Here's how I'd frame the issue: (1) It's a question of ethics, not law. It doesn't give away upcoming troop movements, therefore doesn't call for "prior restraint." It doesn't sap morale or support for the war effort, although that case is at least arguable, and it doesn't threaten immediate harm. So nobody says the AP doesn't have the right to publish the picture. (2) The ethical principles are inexact, and we'll study them in more detail later. But for now, let's define ethics as "doing the right thing." And let's say two tests of whether something is "the right thing" are: (a) whether it is a universal moral obligation, like being kind to others or telling the truth; and (b) whether it does the most good for the greatest number of people, for example the old fund-raising pitch, "Give till it hurts."

Here's the overall issue, boiled down to a series of questions:

• Whose rights are involved here? The family's? The Marine Corps'? The AP's? How about AP readers? The public's? Does the public have a right to know?
  
• What universal ethical principles are involved here? (If you've had ethics in another course, I'm thinking of Immanuel Kant here.) Do they complement each other?Do they conflict? Both? Neither? How do you sort out the principles?
  
• If AP supresses the picture, who is helped? Who is hurt? On the other hand, if AP runs the picture, who is helped and who is hurt? Where is the greatest good for the greatest number? (If you've had that ethics course, I'm thinking of Jeremy Bentham's and John Stuart Mill's theory of utilitarianism. If you haven't, don't worry. We'll get to it.) How do you balance these interests?

According to Editor & Publisher, the trade magazine for, well, editors and publishers in the newspaper business, papers "had a mixed reaction" with "some using the image as a stark example of war and others declining to run it." E&P also has links to the picture and the story itself. I think we ought to read the story (it's up to you whether you want to find the picture ... it is disturbing), and we ought to think about its implications.

This is an issue that arises all the time. Why did British papers bribe a neighbor so they could get pictures of kidnap victim Jaycee Dugard's backyard compound? Why have British papers (some, not all) run such pictures, as well as pictures of Dugard's 11- and 16-year-old daughters? We'll look at coverage of the Dugard kidnapping in more depth later. But it's worth at least being aware of now.

__________________
* Jargon alert: Most of you probably know this already, but a "segue" (pron. seg-WAY) is a transition between segments of a broadcast program, more generally just a transition of any kind.