22 November 2008
Saddam’s execution images – free media or moral decay?
26 April 2007
Commentary by Todd Symons: Te Waha Nui Online
 |
|
The excessive demand for gruesome video footage such as the execution of ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein raises many questions about censorship, the ethics of death and the rise of citizen journalism.
.
The execution of Saddam Hussein in December 2006 was covered in depth by media outlets worldwide. But it seems the mainstream coverage wasn’t graphic enough for more than 16 million people who have viewed the unedited video footage of his hanging on one website alone.
According to Google Videos, on March 29 the footage had been viewed 16,550,039 times since it was posted on its site.
The first images the world saw of the execution were heavily edited official video footage released by the Iraqi government.
Most mainstream media, including New Zealand television, stations played this footage, showing Saddam Hussein having a rope placed around his neck in preparation for the execution.
Within hours a video of the whole execution - apparently illegally captured on a cell phone - appeared on the internet.
It was then picked up in an edited form by many international media outlets.
Ethics of death and citizen journalism
The excessive demand for such footage raises many questions about censorship, the ethics of death and the rise of citizen journalism.
On one hand the huge demand for the video online suggests that it is in the public interest to see the full, unedited version and so perhaps it should have been shown complete on television.
But on the other hand journalists are bound by codes of ethics and so perhaps they were protecting citizens from seeing something horrific and disturbing.
Prior to the execution of Saddam Hussein, Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute advised news media: “There's a good chance some … in the audience … will be offended by some of the graphic pictures, video and details of Saddam’s execution.
“But in this case the profound newsworthiness of the event and the history behind it carry such great weight that journalists should not undermine their truth telling.”
He seems to advocate a position that newsworthiness overrides any codes of ethics or thought for “human decency,” and that even though people may be offended by the images the world needs to see them.
This view appears to have been backed to some extent by New Zealand news media.
However, most New Zealand media seemed to show restraint in their coverage of the execution.
Only the noose view
A TV3 spokesman told Radio New Zealand that the channel would “only broadcast the noose being put around Saddam’s neck but not the actual hanging.”
This seems to be how most New Zealand media – television and print – treated the issue.
However they did make it clear that unedited version of the footage was available on the internet on websites such as YouTube and Google Videos.
So in a sense, the New Zealand media did censor the images they broadcast, or printed of Saddam’s execution, but in doing so also provided enough information so the public could easily find the unedited footage online.
By comparison it seems overseas newspapers showed less constraint. In the UK it seems the same papers who printed graphic images of Saddam’s execution also printed editorials slamming the public interest in the event.
“Our human civilisation has sunk so low that capital punishment has become the best show in town. The fact that this time the rope cut down a known tyrant’s life makes it and us no better,” says Yasmen Alibhaibrown in The Independent.
This brings into question the idea of celebrity status. Would newspapers have printed pictures of the hanging of any member of the public? Or is it only because of the high profile of Saddam Hussein that his execution was treated in this way?
Execution photos
When veteran photojournalist Ricardo Ferro was asked by Kenny Irby of the Poynter Institute if he would print photos of the execution, he responded saying: “Would you run Mussolini hanging, or Christ at the cross? Of course I would -- the question is where and how big.”
Steele advised that news organizations “use the tools of ‘placement,’ ‘proportion’ and ‘tone’ to decide how to play photos, video and details of the execution.”
It is not clear whether the huge demand for the video footage online proves a demand for traditional media to provide graphic images of death, or whether is just shows that there is group of people in society who chose to watch the video after learning (from media) that it existed.
However what this does highlight is the rise of civilian journalism and as the Nelson Mail put it, “the power of the new technology”.
An editorial in the Mail says with the help of cell-phone technology the execution “quickly became the most watched public hanging of all time”.
Anthony Moretti of Media Ethics Magazine says “the practice of this kind of citizen journalism certainly is not illegal, provided the citizen journalist does not break any laws in gathering potential news material.”
However the footage was captured secretly and illegally and according to the EMPU code, journalists must “use fair and honest means to obtain news, pictures, films, tapes and documents”.
‘Videographer for a day’
Moretti says “a member of the public can be a videographer for a day, but asking him or her to understand the nuances of journalism is not possible”.
He suggests that when deciding to use footage from a citizen journalist the news editor must find out if the material submitted meets the ethical and legal standards required of material gathered by employees.
The footage of the execution seems in this case to be unethical footage because it was captured illegally.
However Howard Finberg of the Poynter Institute says: “We cannot hide the images from readers/users/viewers. Editors should also consider being very transparent with the issue of official vs. unofficial -- leaked -- images. Let the reader/user know what you know.”
In an editorial, Stephen Glover of The Independent says: “There are plenty of images which papers choose not to run for reasons of taste. In this case newspaper executives presumably thought that television news and internet were carrying these pictures, and did not want to be left behind.
“One has to make a decision to access the internet," says Glover. "Television images are fleeting, and there are often warnings about images that are going to be shown. By contrast, newspapers hang about the house. Those editors who showed restraint were right.”
He seems to advocate the position that the public should have the freedom to access the uncensored images of an execution, but that this needs to be a choice and so perhaps the internet is better place for this to occur than a newspaper.
Tracey Barnett in the New Zealand Herald asks whether the internet age – where watching a suicide bombing (or the hanging of a tyrant) is only a mouse click away – is “the dawning of a completely free press or the beginning of abandonment of moral decency?”
She says we have “news editors of good taste in the mainstream media to protect us in plastic wrap” and that you “must choose where you find your version of reality - even if it's only a mouse click away.”
Perhaps it is just human curiosity that compels so many people to go beyond the mass media coverage of an event like an execution.
As the Nelson Mail put it: “Technology has evolved, but the primitive instincts that drew the masses to village squares when the gallows or Madame Guillotine were in action have not.”
Todd Symons is a student journalist in AUT’s School of Communication Studies. This article was an ethics assignment in the Public Affairs Reporting paper.
Links:
- Bob Steele – Poynter Institute
- Kenny Irby – Poynter Institute
- Anthony Moretti
Cellphone Journalists: A Growing Trend and its challenges - Broadcasting Standards Authority
- NZ Press Council
