The scene in Fallujah

Chris Kardish
ck230305@ohio.edu

After reading "Images of Horror from Fallujah" my curiosity led me to google. I couldn't really remember the brutal killing and subsequent hanging of these Blackwater military contractors in 2004 — well, at least I couldn't remember the photos that elicited the controversy and ethical dilemma that "Images of Horror from Fallujah" discusses. Staring at the image on my computer screen that The New York Times decided to run, with cheering Iraqis in the foreground and two charred bodies hanging from the top of a bridge, there was no doubt in my mind: they made the right decision to run this photo on their front page.

If the arguments for the photo's news value weren't enough — Iraqis celebrating the deaths of their supposed liberators and the controversial use of subcontractors — the
visceral reality it displayed removed all doubt. The horrific descriptions in news reports give the reader an incomplete understanding of what happened to these men. Words can only go so far. They can recreate scenes and deliver information with awesome clarity, but the scenes they describe and the information they provide is often an inadequate substitute for a real image. After re-reading several descriptions of this terrible event, I realized that no words could awaken my senses and stir my thoughts as well as this single image. Words allow you to maintain some semblance of detachment, but an image leaves you fully invested in a moment.

People can say that showing it on the front page was insensitive to the bereaved and that the photo's message could have been captured either by cropping out the bodies or by simply leaving it to the reporter to describe. I understand these arguments and admit they have some weight, but I consider this photo an important part of generating a lively discussion about the wisdom of a war that few questioned at the time of its authorization. Part of this comes from my belief that it is the news media's responsibility to make people uncomfortable, to report on the truths that people would rather sweep under the rug.

I don't think that respecting the right of the families of the victims to mourn in private or the importance of not disturbing countless other families as they sit down to their morning meal is a strong enough interest to justify a less gruesome presentation of the photo or no presentation at all. The scene where these men were working, the very nature of their profession, and the stark reality that this photo captures justifies the action of newspapers such as The New York Times.

Further, I think that the public dialogue about the editorializing that accompanied newspaper's decisions to run the photo was healthy and it gave a valuable window into a profession that requires tough choices every single day. I think people often forget that journalists are in fact people and are weighing various interests on a daily basis.