To print or not to print.....

Exercise 42 - Read Claire Cozen's article in the Guardian about Guerrero's photograph. What would you have done had you been the editor of a British broadsheet newspaper?

In addition read the reflective piece by Michael Ignatieff of Magnum Degrees on the ethics of photojournalism "But Should You Print It?"

Part 1

As editor for a British newspaper, I'd have printed the picture, but in black and white! 

The photograph is graphic, but I don't accept that it's too graphic because it merely records exactly what was there at the time the photographer pressed the button. Terrorists bombs explode in Madrid on the commuter trains, killing 191 people and injuring 1,800 more - the act was horrific and the results were graphic. I think in these bloody times of war we should provide the public with the information then need to understand the full ramifications of the current behaviour around the world - but it shouldn't be so shocking that the general public can't look. 

I would also have made the image available on the web again in black and white, but as per the links originally set up by the Guardian (and now removed) I would have given people the opportunity to view the image in colour had they wished to do so. 

I don't doubt that the British culture is more reserved or more sheltered than the Spanish culture, but this doesn't mean that we should be able to opt out. 

Extracts from article "Editors 'clean up' bomb photo" by the Guardian Friday 12 March 2004

The Guardian also took the decision to change the image - it changed the colour of the bloodied body part from red to grey, making it almost impossible to distinguish. Paul Johnson (deputy editor, news) said that while the colour change was "not perfect by any means", it was the best solution.

The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun and the Daily Mail removed the blood-soaked piece of a limb, airbrushing it out and replacing it with stones matching those between the rails.

Other newspapers, including the Independent and the Daily Mirror, got around the problem by printing the image in black and white.

In response to the controversy regarding this image, David Viggers, senior pictures editor at Reuters, commented "Our view is that we don't like any removals of any kind. We do not tolerate it on behalf of our photographers. Our view is that anything that could have been done in a dark room is acceptable, but we can't tolerate anything that changes the editorial context - we couldn't afford to do otherwise." 
[I take this to mean that Viggers was fine with the modifications that the press generally made to the image.]


Part 2

But Should You Print It? make very interesting reading...

My overall take on the article is that Michael Ignatieff is thoroughly frustrated with the current state of journalism and the namby-pamby way in which editors respond/reply to criticism they receive re their publications - fundamentally "you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't!"

Ignatieff posses four very reasonable questions to keep you straight when you have a dilemma regarding to print or not to print, namely:

1. Is the event it portrays of such social or historical significance that the shock is justified?
2. Is the objectionable detail necessary for a proper understanding of the event?
3. Does the subject freely consent?
4. Is the photograph expressive of humanity?

Ignatieff is not foolish enough to say all of these questions must be answered in the affirmative, only that at least one must be and even then proceed with care!

The only minor challenge I have with regards point 1 goes back to the points made by David Campbell in his lecture on documentary and narrative (pre-work for Assignment 3) when he discusses historic events - at the time of the event nobody living through the event knows if its historic or not! My point being, if its historic we probably don't know it, but its important by default, however, just because its horrific doesn't mean its going to become historic and therefore significant caution is required.