Victims trivialized in published NY Times photo
One of the most difficult tests newspapers face is whether to publish horrifying, gory images from crime scenes and terrorist attacks. Journalists covering the recent Nairobi, Kenya hotel-office complex attack recently faced this test.

On January 15, the New York Times published a graphic, bloody, close-up photo of bullet riddled victims from the Nairobi attack, and received an avalanche of criticism. In Kenya’s Business Insider, George Tubei writes that New York Times “like countless other foreign publishers seem to be hooked on African ‘gory porn’ which they can’t wait to go on another mindless orgy.” Tubei noted that the Times never published similar gory photos from 9/11 or the Nov., 2018 mass shooting in California.

Controversial NY Times photo from Kenya, pixelated

In a defense of the decision to publish this photo, The Times wrote on Jan. 17, “Generally, we try to avoid identifying victims or showing unnecessary blood and gore, particularly if it is not central to the news story that the photograph accompanies. But it is an important part of our role as journalists to document the impact of violence in the world, and if we avoid publishing these types of images, we contribute to obscuring the effects of violence and making debates over security and terrorism bloodless.” The Times cited examples where they did publish pictures of victims from the Las Vegas shooting. “If you go through the archives of The New York Times, you can find a number of photographs that depict dead Americans,” according to the article.

This photo should never have been used, and does not represent peace journalism.  In my textbook Peace Journalism Principles and Practices, I discuss how peace journalists might approach using images that accurately reflect the story without being inflammatory. Journalists should consider these questions as they make decisions on whether to publish potentially inflammatory images from terror or crime scenes:

1. Are these images sensational? Are they necessary for a complete understanding of the story?
This picture is clearly sensational, designed to shock more than inform. Certainly, there were many other less sensational photos that can help the reader understand the story without the gore.
2. Are there images the families of the victims would consider inappropriate? Should we consider their feelings before we publish?
This photo clearly re-victimizes the victims’ families, and disrespects the victims' memories. How would you react if this was a picture of your father or husband or friend?
3. Do the pictures in any way glorify the attack/crime, making it (in a sick way) attractive to copycats?
Perhaps not for copycats. But the image certainly is exactly what al Shabab wants—to sow terror and fuel panic. In fact, this is the exact image al Shabab would've selected if given the choice.
4. For U.S. media--If the images are of overseas victims, and a decision is made to publish them, ask: Would we use the same image if it were of Americans?
Here, the Times defense rings hollow. While there have been published pictures of dead Americans, there are no images as graphic or sensational as this one. A body covered by a sheet at a crime or terrorist attack scene, or taken from 200 yards away, is not the same as a zoomed-in image of uncovered, bullet riddled, bloody, slumped over victims taken at the scene.

The New York Times says that it’s going to convene a group to come up with clearer guidelines for use of images in situations like this. Good. Let’s hope these guidelines include the principles of peace journalism.

Shutdown coverage should highlight suffering, spotlight solutions

In covering the government shutdown, some news outlets have tried to break free of the usual partisan bickering, and instead have offered exemplary reporting that tells stories of the voiceless government employees, concentrates on solutions, and rejects “us vs. them” narratives.

In a Nexis Uni search for Jan. 2-9, there were 25,527 news items on the government shutdown. Of these, 776 discussed government employee, paychecks (2,373), mortgages (676), second jobs (92), food stamps (92), savings (729), and employees going broke (1,370). In the search, 2,355 mentioned “employee impact” generally. For example, Chris Cuomo’s concluded his CNN program on Jan. 9 discussing the impact of the shutdown on employees, and cited a pitiful example of advice given to those without paychecks that included suggesting that they hold garage sales. In another interesting piece, the Huffington Post discussed how the shutdown is “piling on the stress” for expecting parents.  Local reporters are also getting into the act, describing, for instance, how the shutdown is affecting one family in Rochester, Minnesota. 

Some news outlets have also helped to educate the public about possible solutions. Of the news items in the search, 2,370 discussed solutions; 3,111 compromise; and 346 mentioned the possibility of a state of emergency. That said, many of these mentions include the word no before the aforementioned terms—“no compromise” or “no solutions in sight” were common themes. (“White House meeting ends with no shutdown solution,” for example.) Still, important ideas for solutions have been discussed in USA Today (“If they don’t want a wall, what are Democrats’ border solutions?) and The Hill website (“Ending the shutdown presents opportunity for solution on immigration”) 

Finally, in the news search, there were occasional reports during the previous seven days that rejected “us vs. them” narratives and instead examined common ground (364), unity (468), and bipartisan (2,697) and nonpartisan (305) solutions to the crisis. For example, the Washington Post wrote, about how a bipartisan governors group is calling for an end to the shutdown.

While it’s encouraging to see articles like these, it’s important to note that these pieces are still in a small minority—about 3,000 out of 25,000 news pieces included the terms “bipartisan” or “nonpartisan”; about 5,500 out of 25,000 articles news items mentioned compromise or solutions of any kind; and only about 4,500 of the 25,000 items discussed employee paychecks, suffering, and going broke.  

As the shutdown continues, journalists can better serve their audiences by including more stories that give voice to the victims of the shutdown and discuss solutions while rejecting pointless name calling and partisan posturing.