On Tuesday, the topic on NPR's daily gabfest Talk of the Nation will be war photography.

Reading news reports about four Americans killed and mutilated in Fallujah was shocking, but seeing the pictures was even more disturbing for many. What images should we see from a war zone? And how do editors decide what to run?

Update: It's on now. Kenny Irby is the main guest. And the audio link is here.

>Talk of the Nation [NPR]

Ryan Pitts of the Spokesman-Review and the Dead Parrot Society notes in the comments to my original post about the APME survey that he's the producer that set up the survey, and has posted the full text of the questions on the Dead Parrot blog. Thanks, buddy!

He also adds:

I just chatted with Ken [Sands, APME board member and Managing Editor of Online and New Media at The Spokesman-Review] to make sure on APME's position: Because the survey wasn't scientific, it's important not to draw too strict of conclusions on the numbers. For this reason, there were no hard breakdowns on who would have run the photos inside the paper vs. on A1, for example, or on differences in opinion if the victims had been soldiers. But the survey was instructive in a lot of ways, and getting 2,000 responses certainly gives you a good look at the base of opinion out there.

Poynter today has an article about the APME National Credibility Roundtables Project, which sponsored a survey after the Fallujah photos ran. Twenty-nine news organizations across the country e-mailed 13,642 readers beginning Friday, April 2.

They asked about a particular photo, which showed Iraqis cheering as the burned, mutilated bodies of two Americans hung from a bridge.

By the following Thursday, 2,009 readers had responded. Of these, 58 percent approved of the image being published in a newspaper or on a website; 39 percent objected to using the picture.

Update: In the comments, reader Chuck Welch notes that he was one of the surveyed readers and reproduces part of the survey. He also says:

The questions were the expected ones (all paraphrased): Would you have run the picture and why or why not and where? Would you have given your reasons for showing or not showing the photo. What about children seeing the photos? What if the faces were visible? Would it matter if the bodies had been soldiers or civilians?

Also, APME now has a story on their site. It's nearly identical to the Poynter article, but they also have a bunch more quotes from readers here, and a page of links to the stories participating newspapers ran on the survey.

>Readers react to photos from Fallujah [APME]
>More Comments: Fallujah Photo Project [APME]
>Nationwide Coverage of APME Roundtables' Fallujah Photo Project [APME]

The Newport Daily News finally gets around to thinking about the Fallujah photos:

The Daily News did not run any of the photographs out of Fallujah that day. In fact, we did not even discuss the possibility of running them, as our general policy is not to run graphic or gruesome photographs. This is in keeping with our sensibilities - and those of our readers - as a community newspaper.

But when I looked at the photographs, particularly one that clearly showed children celebrating as the charred remains of two bodies hung behind them, I experienced the sheer power of those images. I felt disgust, almost to the verge of being physically sick. I felt angry. I felt frightened. And I felt sorrow.

I do not know that I could have felt all of those things from reading a written account of the scene. I still cannot say that we would have - or should have - run the photograph that day. But in hindsight, I wonder if our policy is too prohibitive. Much like we do with local photographs, we should at least debate the merits of publishing such photos from the national or international wires before deciding not to run them.

>Graphic content intended to inform, not offend, readers [The Newport Daily News, via Romenesko]

The Newseum has archived the front pages from March 12, the day after the Madrid bombings, and they've added front pages from the day after Fallujah in their "War in Iraq" section.

>Madrid bombings front pages [Newseum]
>War in Iraq front pages [Newseum]

A good thread at Metafilter (which also includes a generous link to this blog from Metafilter founder and über-blogger Matt Haughey) about sex, violence and grisly photos in the media. "CrazyJub" writes:

"Start saving for your childrens future therapy. What they learned this month is dead bodies being burnt and strung up on a bridge is ok to print on the front page of a newspaper, and watch on the news at dinner time; but you better not see any nipple, even for a half a second."

Do you guys that want to see the photos saying that because you didn't like the war, or do you really think charred bodies is something appropriate for the front page news?

It's probably due to seeing photos from concentration camps and hiroshima bombings as a kid, but I don't see the need for photos of dead bodies where you can make out individuals. I just don't see any reason to run those on the front page, whether that's from a war, a plane wreck, or a car accident. I'm not the type of person to say "what about the children!" but some of these photos (like the madrid bombings where you can see a severed limb) would be more at home at rotten.com or alt.binaries.tasteless, not a major newspaper.

>Nippallujah [MetaFilter]

Editors took to the ombudsmen columns Sunday to explain their decisions about the Fallujah photos. I've included links to images of the pages I have.

The Washington Post [page]

The picture chosen for Page One, (Assistant Managing Editor Bill) Hamilton explains, "seemed to capture the motivation and mood of what happened in Fallujah better than anything we saw. We were of course concerned that it also showed human remains. We decided to crop out a limb that clearly indicated the blackened mass was a body. It was possible to look at that picture and not immediately know what you were looking at." The bridge picture was initially rejected for the front page as too graphic. "You knew exactly what you were looking at," he says. Then, it was reconsidered, in part because of Executive Editor Len Downie's concern that, like the incident in Somalia, "this day could become a hugely symbolic one in the course of the Iraq war." After more discussion, the consensus was that the other picture conveyed what had happened and that the picture of the bridge would have been "overkill" on the front page.

The Toronto Star [page]

In her corner office yesterday, managing editor Mary Deanne Shears comfortably answered the question with three of her own:

"Are we hiding the story? No. Are we telling the story? Yes. Are we telling the story with 100 per cent intensity (by not running the bridge picture)? No."

The Salt Lake Tribune [page]

According to Editor Nancy Conway, the decision to run a small photo of a burning Humvee on the front page and run the photo of the bodies hanging from the bridge inside, with a warning of graphic content on A1, was based on the philosophy of "not censoring or sanitizing the news." Also a part of the Tribune discussion was the "realization that some people don't want their children to see it. This allowed parents to make those decisions and warn children if parents did want them to see the image."

Palm Beach Post [page]

What dozens of readers considered "poor judgment," however, the paper's editors considered good news judgment. "We selected that photograph, after a lot of thought and discussion, because it's a powerful news image of a dramatic, horrific and brutal day in Iraq," Post Managing Editor John Bartosek said. "I think it best showed the barbarism of the ambush and its aftermath, and the jubilation of the Iraqis who participated or watched it.

"The violence in Iraq directed at American troops and civilians has been a continuing story for months." Mr. Bartosek said. "But this was not a normal day in Iraq, not just another typical day of violence. We picked a photo that shows the bodies in the background but still captures the news. Similar photos have often been available from that war zone, as well as from Afghanistan, the Middle East and Indonesia. We don't normally publish them, nor do we publish dead bodies in Interstate 95 accidents. This was the biggest story of the day, so we played it at the top of the page."

The Oregonian [page]

Other editors sought a middle ground. Tom Maurer argued the news value of the photographs required the newspaper to publish one for readers. Maurer recommended offering readers some control: Warn them on the front page that a grisly photograph appears inside.

Editor Sandy Rowe agreed with his reasoning. She put a story and a photo that did not show bodies on Page One, along with a note warning readers that a picture showing two bodies was inside.

Hartford Courant [page]

Managing Editor Cliff Teutsch explained that it was a collective decision among news editors, photo editors and graphic design editors to publish the pictures that sickened so many of you Thursday.

"The reason we put that picture on the front page so prominently was because it was an important part of the story about Iraq, where the United States has been engaged in war and is trying to bring democracy," Teutsch said. "The picture showed the emotion of the people demonstrating. It gave a much more complete understanding of what's going on over there."

"It's our job to not only tell the things that are going on but to show what's going on. Throughout our paper - in the Sports section, in the Life section, in Town News - we tell stories by using words and photos. ... I think most readers would say we weren't doing our job if we didn't show that picture."

Fort Worth Star-Telegram [page]

The small picture, played as secondary art in a two-photo package, showed the charred remains of one civilian hanging from a bridge over the Euphrates River while a crowd of Iraqi men and boys celebrated.

Editors decided that the gravity of the horrific development called for extraordinary candor and illustrated the story accordingly. Many photographs that were far more chilling were available, but editors opted for restraint out of concern for the public's sensibilities.

Editors also anticipated reader reaction to the image and offered an explanation in a note to readers saying that "the editors felt it was necessary to publish at least a small image to accurately convey the horror of the incident." And they invited readers to share their opinions about publishing the photograph.

Florida Times-Union

There were many decisions to be made. Which photos were most newsworthy? Which were unsuitable for publication? Some showed close-ups of the bodies.

The result was that the Times-Union used a photo of burning vehicles on the front page. Next to that photo was an editor's note informing readers of a disturbing photo inside the section. The photo showed American bodies hanging from a bridge. The photo was run in black and white, which meant it was not so graphic.

Charleston Post and Courier [page]:

Executive Editor John Huff met with key staff members over the course of several hours Wednesday afternoon and night to consider the newspaper's obligation to provide readers with information they need to know, although it might conflict with reader sensibilities.

He made the decision to use the photo on 1A because he believed that "without it, the full scope of the incident in which U.S. citizens were killed would not have been conveyed."

The reactions to the Fallujah photos are rolling in. Romenesko, naturally, rounds up all the links for us.

The ACES list also has some reaction, including this from John McIntyre at the Baltimore Sun:

The Sun's Page One carried the photo of the bodies suspended from the bridge.

We received something like 60 complaints by letter, telephone call and e-mail, castigating us for (a) offenses against common decency, (b) insensitivity to the families of the victims, (c)willingness to scar children's delicate sensibilities, and (d) pursuit of a political agenda to discourage support of the president's war effort.

There were no responses supportive of the decision to publish the photos. On the other hand, 60 complaints out of a readership of around half a million do not constitute an overwhelming response. To put the matter in perspective: a few years ago, The Sun dropped the London Times crossword puzzle, and the reader respresentative received something like 2,000 complaints.

The E&P article also says: "Arguably, the most graphic front-page images were shown by The Washington Post and USA Today. Both displayed Iraqis taking turns beating the burned corpses with shoes."

That would be this:

Interestingly, The Globe and Mail says just about the opposite: "But in general, newspapers played it safe. USA Today, like The Guardian in Britain, used a picture of an Iraqi boy using a shoe to beat the grey dust of what was once a corpse. Both papers, however, rendered the ashes more indistinct than they were in the original pictures."

Here's the original photo by Ali Jasim of Reuters:

And the WaPo's crop:

I would agree that USAT's crop, and to a much less extent, the Post's, makes the body's form a bit less distinct. But I wouldn't characterize that as "playing it safe."

>Philly Inquirer gets 185 complaints re charred bodies photo [Romenesko]
>7 of Top 20 Papers Published Front-Page Fallujah Body Photos [E&P]
>In pictures [A Capital Idea]
>Packaging news when the picture is not pretty [The Globe and Mail]

After slogging around the Newseum today (time for a server upgrade, buddies!), I can report some Actual True Facts about newspapers' use of the Fallujah photos.

Of the 163 American newspapers on the Newseum today...

118 ran no pictures of bodies on the front page.

45 ran pictures of charred bodies in some form on the front.

33 led the front page with pictures of bodies strung up or burning.

63 led with a photo that had no bodies in it. Of these, 7 ran a smaller, secondary picture of bodies.

35 ran no pictures of the event at all on the front page. Of these, 9 also ran no story.

Newspapers that ran the bodies on the bridge photo included The Miami Herald, the Allentown Morning Call, the Palm Beach Post, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Post, the Chicago Tribune, The Tampa Trib and the St. Pete Times.

Newspapers that ran photos without bodies included The Seattle Times, the Sun-Times, the San Jose Mercury News, The Oregonian, The Detroit News, The Boston Globe and the Orlando Sentinel. The (Lakeland, Fla.) Ledger and the New York Sun appear to be among the few American papers that actually ran photos of bodies burning as their main A1 image. Canada's National Post did as well.

It would be interesting to see if there is any sort of pattern along geographic/circulation/editorial stance lines. But I ain't gonna do that. That's why God made grad students.

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.

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]