Another terror attack, this time at an upscale hotel in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi. At least 21 people were killed in the assault on the DusitD2 complex last week. As the siege went on for 20 hours, photojournalists captured images of the victims and editors had to decide whether to run them.
The New York Times drew criticism for using a photo of two people shot to death at an outdoor cafe. Their faces are not visible, but the image clearly shows bullet wounds and blood-stained clothing.
On Twitter, users attacked the Times for being insensitive and unethical. Some implied the decision to publish was racist.
I encourage everyone to report the @nytimes for their flagrant disregard for human life. It is unethical and unacceptable to publish these images and it would NOT happen if the deceased were white North Americans.
— Sarah Kastner (@SarahKastner) January 15, 2019
In response, the paper tweeted an explanation that satisfied almost no one.
We have heard from some readers upset with our publishing a photo showing victims after a brutal attack in Nairobi. We understand how painful this coverage can be, and we try to be very sensitive in how we handle both words and images in these situations. https://t.co/Qjm0qBMaF3 pic.twitter.com/1sqgTnnVKW
— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 15, 2019
The claim that the Times would take the same approach to killings anywhere in the world drew particular scorn.
Showing images of the dead is sensational & disrespectful. If the same had occurred in the U.S., you would never show images of the victims. This is an ethical violation & double standard with complete disregard for these victims & families. Pls take these images down ASAP!
— Pia Basu (@Pia_Basu) January 15, 2019
Writing in Bright magazine, managing editor Hassan Ghedi Santur pointed out that the German tabloid Bild used the same photos. But Bild decided to pixilate the images to make them less offensive.
Poynter’s Tom Jones argued that the Times made the right decision.
If we’re going to consume news, we have to accept that there will be times when the news and how it is told is disturbing. Sadly, this is one of those times. The Times needs to respect its readers — not by holding back information, but by presenting it to them.
He, too, faced pushback on social media. Here’s just one of many tweets attacking Jones’ conclusion.
You guys don’t seem to get it. Show us a situation like this in American city or European city where the paper has had to face this so called “hard choices”. This is BS and you know it. The decent thing to do is apologize and take down the photos.
— Sam Gitonga (@KimwakiKinare) January 16, 2019
The criticism is heart-felt but not entirely accurate. American media did publish graphic images of the carnage that resulted from the 2013 Boston marathon bombing. Even the New York Times used a photo of a woman covered in blood after the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.
Deciding to use these types of images or video is, in fact, a difficult choice and it should be. As Jones points out, news organizations don’t have blanket policies because each case needs to be decided on its merits. The Times used the Nairobi photo because, as the company statement said, “it is important to give our readers a clear picture of the horror of an attack like this.”
I’d argue that where the Times went wrong, and where so many news organizations have slipped up in similar circumstances, was in failing to explain their decisions to use graphic images or video in the moment. Instead, they tried to justify it after the fact, in the face of angry blowback. Small wonder that many readers and viewers weren’t mollified by the explanations or disclaimers.
At a minimum, stories that contain disturbing content should be clearly flagged so readers and viewers know what’s coming and can opt out. But just issuing a disclaimer or a warning that “what you’re about to see may be upsetting” doesn’t go far enough. In my view, newsrooms should add their reasons for using that content before it’s seen, either in the intro to a TV story or in an eye-catching box online or in print. And they should acknowledge that critics may well have good reasons for disagreeing with the decision.
Failing to explain decision making merely feeds the perception that journalists are arrogant and disconnected, that we “don’t get it.” With trust in journalism at a low ebb, it’s crucial that newsrooms work harder to be transparent about why they do what they do.
