

Many of us faced the graphic photos question again yesterday. There aren't many front pages available yet. They'll all be up at the Newseum soon. So head on over there if you want, I'm sleepin'. Here are a few that are out.


The NYT and the Freep ran the photo of the bodies strung up on the bridge on the front.

The Washington Post went with an even more graphic image. Photo editor Michael duCille said: "I'm draconian. I say: Run it when you have a situation of such magnitude and such importance with American lives at stake in a war zone. People need to see the reality of this war."

The Dallas Morning News ran a milder photo out front and the bridge photo black and white inside, with a warning on A1 about the inside photo.
The Charlotte Observer (no page yet) ran the bridge photo and a note from editor Jennie Buckner.
While our usual policy is not to run graphic photos, we made an exception in this case because of the importance of the story. We don't seek to shock readers, but we also don't want to overly sanitize the harsh realities of this war.At the Los Angeles Times:
Editor John S. Carroll said that after considerable debate, "we decided not to use one of the grotesque photographs on Page 1. Instead, we chose to convey the nature of the event by means of headlines and a photo that is not so distressing.
"We also decided to run one of the many photos of the bodies inside the paper," he said. This, Carroll added, gave readers a choice about how graphic a portrayal they would see.
>It's not always so simple [Testy Copy Editors]
>Gruesome images: Does taste trump newsworthiness? [Dallas Morning News]
>Media Are Torn Over the Images [Los Angeles Times]
What you don't see: It's interesting that they will publish these photos, but not pictures of the caskets of dead Americans killed in Iraq or Iraqi civilians and children mutilated by warfare. By showing one-side of the violence, it promotes an emotional reaction to justify and promote the war.
Posted by: cpb at April 3, 2004 5:00 PMthese four contractors died serving their country,the same as all the service members are doing.the reason they make more is because they served their time in the regular branches of service,and were honorably discharged now they are wanting to contribute their skills to serve their country-----contractor
Posted by: contractor at April 6, 2004 12:59 AMThey were mercenaries, pure and simple. If they wanted to "serve" in this disaster thay could have re-upped, but at lower pay. They went for the money. And I highly doubt they picked their assignments, they just followed the demand on the market.
Posted by: RB at April 12, 2004 9:05 AMThis was done by the so called "innocent" people of iraq you know the place thats suppose to be safer now after a year of war.The hundreds of americans that are dying are dying in vein cause this war will never end.And if we try to quit we won't be able to.You people might not see this yet, but after a few more years.You'll realize what i'm saying.This is WW 3.It just hasn't reached full war.But it will.Trust me.
Posted by: Anonymous at April 16, 2004 1:17 PMIt's time that the American people see what Bush's war is all about. To censor any pictures and (or) articles is a disgrace of this President.
Posted by: KH at April 22, 2004 1:19 PMPressently, there are more than 100 countries at war with each other and WW3 is already in Progress.
The good news is that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
I think that they should show the photos. My daughter (3) and I are both in FULL support of my husband and the sacrifice that he and our family are willing to make for our country. The citizens of Iraq deserve to have the same freedoms that we do, and he see's the military making those differences and the happiness that it brings to a majority of the Iraqi's. We support Bush and we support our Troops.
Posted by: WifeToMarine at November 19, 2004 2:32 PM