Every day at Reuters we deal with hundreds of pieces of news video, ranging from war to showbiz. Through decades of experience and client feedback, we have an institutionalized understanding of what our subscribers want and need, and much of our production process is second-nature.
Occasionally, there’ll be a story where we have to take a closer look at the ethics of the footage, and make judgments on what we put out, what we hold back, and really have to examine what our responsibility is in regard to our clients, our viewers, and society as a whole.
Most recently, the video of Saddam Hussein’s execution prompted wide discussion within the news service. We ran the first “official” footage of the former President being led to the gallows and having the noose put around his neck, after only a brief d
iscussion.
Later came the more graphic cameraphone footage of Saddam being taunted and jeered at the actual execution, and then his body partially wrapped on the ground. The audio of the taunting was actually more important than the video, as it fed into the global political debate about the manner of the execution. We therefore distributed this taunting, but opted not to show the actual “drop” of Saddam - the instant of his death - (although we did show the later footage of his body on the ground).
I have to admit that part of me believed we should run the whole thing, as this was Iraqi justice in action, conducted at the end of a long-running trial, made possible by a hugely controversial war and occupation.
However, we chose not to - few if any broadcasters would have run the actual moment of execution, and the showing of the body was proof to anyone who needed it (and certainly the Iraqi people needed that visual proof) that he was, in fact, dead.
Anyone who really wanted to see the entire execution could easily have gone to the internet and found it anyway, posted on any one of several social networking sites, so perhaps we got off the hook in that regard!
The debate over graphic imagery is often much more animated and divisive, however, than that over Saddam’s death. Historically Reuters has been a news agency, with our television subscribers making the final decision on what actually goes to their viewers. As such, our judgment generally leaned towards putting out slightly more graphic material.
Different countries have different broadcast standards and it is not our job to dictate what they should be. Also, some broadcasters want to see the more graphic material for verification, even if they don’t actually broadcast them. This was certainly the case with the first video of beheadings in Iraq a couple of years ago, where - distressing as that video was - a number of clients insisted we show it all, so they could make their own judgments not only about what they broadcast, but about what they told their viewers was on the material they held back.
The beheadings video was controversial within Reuters and within the industry, and was the subject of a vigorous debate hosted by the Dart Centre for journalism and trauma in 2004, with some journalists criticising Reuters and other agencies for distributing the video, and others saying it was essential we did.
The beheadings video was exceptional in that it was so unique that some broadcasters insisted on seeing it. On other stories we often will edit out the very worst - the material we know that no broadcaster would run. One gruesome story I recall from my days as a producer was the dismembered remains of a group of Buddhist monks blown up in religious violence in Sri Lanka. I chose to run the temple, blood, bodies from a slightly longer distance, but not close-up shots of piles of dismembered limbs being swept up.
In all such judgments, the actual story behind the images will play a part in the judgment around what and what not needs to be shown. You do not need to see a pile of limbs to explain the murdered Buddhist monk story. However, there are others where you might go further because of the nature of the story itself - if, in a war, there are conflicting claims over civilian casualties, news video can be valuable evidence on which the public can make their own judgment.
In the first Gulf War for example, we saw much video from so-called “Smart Bombs” clinically crashing into buildings, or shot from the nose of American fighter jets - what you rarely saw were the casualties on the ground. Where those were available, we felt an obligation to use them, as there was a big debate over whether civilian casualties were occurring, and whether those missiles and bombs were as smart or accurate as the military claimed them to be.
Graphic imagery is becoming a more complex issue for Reuters as we move into consumer-facing rather than just traditional agency areas. However, while some news video is distressing, and there are numerous times when we will edit out material because it is simply too graphic, we also have to give the viewer some credit for being able to make their own judgments, and not overly censor and therefore misrepresent the story in the process.
John Clarke
News Editor, Reuters Television
Picture is a frame grab from Biladi. Photographer: REUTERS/Ho New
Trackback
35 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
Images and videos showing someone’s death, like this one, in your article are far beyond far
- Posted by JobitemsMr.Clarke,
The incident you mentioned in Sri Lanka about dismembered buddhist monks is not exactly correct(Though it’s not the focus of the article).
The killing was done by Tamil Tigers(LTTE) and the monks were hacked to death and it was not due to any “religious violence”. So I think it was incorrect to say “blown up in religious violence”
Thank You
“One gruesome story I recall from my days as a producer was the dismembered remains of a group of Buddhist monks blown up in religious violence in Sri Lanka. I chose to run the temple, blood, bodies from a slightly longer distance, but not close-up shots of piles of dismembered limbs being swept up.”
- Posted by ThorWhat’s important to remember, Reuters, is that your job is to REPORT the news, not MAKE/FABRICATE the news. When your photographers photoshop, edit, or otherwise stage photographs in order to score political points or to make the picture more interesting/shocking/whatever, you are doing a disservice to the tens of thousands of men and women who have sworn to fight and die for your right to report without censorship. I find it unbelievable that Reuters so often expresses sympathy for the very side which (were it in power in the West) would shut you down in a second unless you slavishly reported IT’S version of “truth”.
- Posted by Dave GA while ago, I learned the difference between a “News Agency” like Reuters (and Associated Press) and “Broadcasting Channels” like CNN (and ABC).
- Posted by Uncle SamNews agencies actually gather facts about an event and are chartered to portray the facts of such event using the best medium possible (i.e., videos) at a premium.
On the other hand, broadcasting channels digest your factual news and spinned them to service the audience and network they represent (i.e., liberal or conservative sector). That’s why TV channels news anchors start their sales pitch by saying “According to Reuters…” and eventually you hear/see something like “This message was brought to you by…” (their sponsors and special interest groups).
Therefore, if you still consider Reuters a “News Agency” capable of gathering real-life events to sell them as “facts” you must deliver your news in raw format in the best medium possible (i.e, web, video). That’s your role, that’s your market, that’s what Reuters has been chartered with, your audience demands it, and Reuters is protected by the First Ammendmend.
If Reuters has become a broadcasting channel, then you must catter to your sponsors (i.e., political parties, special interest groups) and should not be afraid to twist the truth and sugar coat the facts to satisfied your audience.
Nobody,including Reuters, can serve two masters though. You tell me what role Reuters represents (News Agency/Broadcasting channel) and I will tell you how you should portray reality because your focus determines your reality.
For the record, Reuters has historically been one the best news agencies on the planet. Thank you for your good work.
Brutality and violence have sadly been a part of human behavior for thousands of years. There’s an old saying; “misery loves company”. Some people seem to need to be assured that there are people worse off then them. In Roman times, there was Circus Maximus, and in the thirties during the depression, there were six day bicycle races and marathon dances. Consider the 78% increase in profits in the horror movie industry just last year. The censors have lost the battle for any “socially redeeming qualities” in movies. The movie industry now freely churns out graphic scenes of torture and mayhem to an increasingly jaded audience. Regarding graphic photos in the news, let your readers search for these, instead of posting them on the front page. Consider the sad case of the Texas boy who hung himself because he saw a photo of Saddam at the gallows. As the saying in the news industry goes, “if it bleeds, it reads”. I vote for a little more discretion in the posting of graphic material in the news. Thanks for your blog.
- Posted by Mark AndersonAll,
Thank you for all your responsesthere are too many for me to reply to each individually, but I should correct a couple of possible misconceptions.
A number of respondents seem to have confused CNN and Reuters, criticising Reuters on the basis of what CNN has put to air. We are completely separate organisations (although CNN is a client of Reuters and uses large amounts of our international news video). Reuters is also not an American news organisation, nor in fact, a news organisation tied to any one country it is an independent, international newsgathering organisation with an international staff and global client base, committed to impartial and independent reporting.
Reuters supplies thousands of news companies around the world, and apart from our own consumer-facing properties such as this website, it is up to those subscribers what to use of our material and what they say about it. I understand that many of the responses to my first posting were about how the media generally does/doesnt or should/shouldnt treat graphic imagery, rather than direct comments on Reuters policy, but Reuters is no more the media than any other news organisation is.
As one respondent correctly pointed out, the internet has resulted in an explosion of different outlets for news-linked material (including war and related video). If long-established and dare I say it, respected news companies like Reuters ever did act as something of gatekeeper of standards and ethics for what the public sees, we no longer could be that even if we wanted tothere are far too many other news outlets for people to choose from and the internet has (rightly) ensured that no single news organisation can or should dominate the pipes of distribution (and therefore content) in a democracy.
That doesnt mean that we at Reuters should abandon all concepts of taste and ethics, and adopt a free-for-all mentality. There is an equally strong argument that in the anything-goes culture of the internet, a company like Reuters is needed more than ever before to provide a trusted and reliable source amid a media sea where the provenance of information is often difficult to be sure of.
Reuters will probably always be accused in equal part of being pro- and anti- the same country by different viewers/readers at the same time, with a variety of ulterior motives attributed to us by various sections of the community. Whether or not Saddam was a bad man is not particularly relevant to how we approach coverage of the occupation and insurgency since his capture (which is to cover it objectively and as best we can within the dangers and logistical challenges of the situation, because democracies, unlike Saddams dictatorship, are supposed to be open to scrutiny). I can understand however the view expressed by a couple of respondents that if the US media was prepared to show the sniper killings of US soldiers, then why not the execution of Saddam? (Unlike with the beheadings cases, we did not have a lot of television news editors around the world demanding we show the instant of Saddam’s death, as verification was not the major issue).
Generally however, your comments have reinforced to me that we should wherever possible, provide all the relevant material we can to viewers (with warnings where necessary about graphic content), leaving it to their judgment as to what to conclude from it. That by necessity means sailing very close to what some would see the line of taste and decency, and maybe across it on occasion too (although it is also clear there is no one line or one correct decision in these matters). I would rather occasionally however put out material that is disquieting, because war and war imagery by definition is disquieting, than be too willing to edit something out and therefore deny potentially important information to the public.
John Clarke
- Posted by john clarkeNews Editor
Reuters Television
I think media should not be censored. I believe that as a journalist your job and obligation to society is to deliver news with as little bias as possible so that the public can derive their own truth. Media has become so censored and bias it is hard for an educated person who knows this to even keep up. I don’t think anyone wants to read/watch the news so that the station or its sponsors can influence their opinions on us. It is supposed to be informative.
- Posted by MichelleEditing is censorship in my opinion. However, as you well mention in your article, editing graphic imagery after verification (ex. “are there indeed civilian casualties?”), should be left to the reporter’s good taste and discretion, as long as it does not take away from the truth.
- Posted by Jean-FrancoisIt is important to report the truth. We the public are and have been continuously lied to.
Fox News posted a link to the unedited execution on their website. Conservatives went crazy with outrage when Janet Jackson bared her breast on national television, but an execution is apparently OK for all to see. That’s American puritan logic for you.
- Posted by AlexIn a world where we participate in global conflict, it is the duty of those reporting to display, as accurately as possible, the facts of the situation. I whole-heartedly insist that you show anything that is available to you, which enhances the viewers understanding of the subsequent events. I’m tired of the notion that displaying reality is bias–one way or another. I think it is high-time that ill-informed people get a dose of what is truely happening on their behalf (yes, with thier well wishes) unfitered, and not through the mouthpiece of a third party. YOU, Reuters, should have no say in what I can handle, and what I can not. You are to let me decide such matters. It is why I continue to fund you, allow you to exist. I will always posess the ability to tune you out if I see it fit.
For all whom say displaying images and video of war makes the recipient numb, is insane. It makes such people aware, and perhaps able to form a more complete and personal opinion without the pressure of conforming to opposition.
I wil never get used to seeing dead people, streets covered in blood or compassionate human beings mourning for loved ones who were torn apart due to violence. It can only help to see. It can only help end the cycle.
- Posted by Kirk MShow it all. We will choose what we watch. The media is not who I want to censure what I see or hear nor do I want the opinion of the pundits to replace my own. I can decide for myself what to look at, thank you very much.
- Posted by Karl HeckmanGraphic images directly affect peoples opinions on issues. Witnessing war does the same. War exists in reality. Pictures are images of reality. If pictures of reality shock or offend you, maybe you aren’t ready to form opinions about reality in the first place. The news is supposed to bring us an accurate record of reality. You can’t let the pictures alone report on reality. Pictures must be followed with good journalism to explain their exact context. If people aren’t interested in the context, well, there’s nothing you can do about that. You can’t garner your reporting (i.e. take out pictures) in anticipation of how people who irresponsibly form opinions are going to react.
- Posted by JoeJohn and I used to work in the same bureau and “argue” over these things on a daily basis so my comment to his article is in a way a continuation of that tradition by other means.I would like to make two points if i may;
By taking out bloody parts of video You are sanitizing video images of war in Western Europe and America to such an extent that the war to this audience seems like a cloud of smoke in the distant landscape or a minor traffic inconvenience during Bghadad1s rush hour.I find that to be very hypocritical considering the fact that most of the organized violence does come from this part of the world.I believe that if people “had to” watch the real pictures of the war every day, they would not easily make decisions about starting or supporting one.
I also think that the purpose of the news is to inform people, not entertain them.
I grew up with the television that showed “everything” from normal and healthy naked human bodies, to the horrors of Sabra and Shatila
and, i think, that growing up like that i turned out pretty fine.
The television is for the mostpeople around the world(internet is still an elite club) the window into the world, and if different pictures of the same event are shown on TV in different countries it is not surprise that we cannot even agree what the reality is, not to mention agreeing on how to deal with it.
(During the Schiavo story, which divided American viewers into two camps (the woman in a decade long coma whose husband was fighting for her right to die in Florida
depending on which network you watched, she was practically dead for years, or few yoga classes away from going to Starbucks)
I could also mention the fact that we(Reuters) feed our pictures not into the kindergartens , but into newsroom around the world (though it is sometimes hard to make a difference)but that would be my third point and i promised only two.
In a conclusion, i wonder;
Is the alteration of the news coverage from tragic places like Darfur or Iraq worth the comfort that you trying to protect.I too wish that the world is a place “as shown on tv” , but its not.Making wars look family friendly started long time ago(in Europe,i think,in 1994 with Eurovision decison) and this is where we are now.
Is it a better place to live?ich dont tink so.
yours
- Posted by pedja kojovicPedja Kojovic
How far is too far ? Please ! We have CNN Anderson Cooper airing video that is really enemy propoganda showing the killing of U.S soldiers by insurgent sniper fire and the voice describing the video whispers as though he is so impressed with the attack. Disgusting ! Nothing is too far if it is against America but we get in a tizzy when it is the leagl execution of a tyrant, a dictator, and a murderer. I’m appalled at the question !
- Posted by Jim ZellI just wish you were required to publish the films I saw while serving in Iraq of the people being dropped head first from the bridge in Tikrit, Iraq onto the pavement below while that bastard watched and smiled, or the little tiny baby bones dug up by our engineers in the Diyala Province from the mass graves, or show the Hablija mothers holding their little children as they gagged and died from the poison gas he dropped on them. He got less than he deserved if you ask me.
- Posted by Rick