Time Magazine took some heat for its cover this week, which featured a photo of a young Afghan woman whose nose and ears were chopped off as a result of a Taliban decree because she had fled her abusive in-laws. Critics alleged that the cover photo was too graphic and disturbing, especially for children to see. Hofstra University Anthropology Professor Daniel Martin Varisco stated in his blog that the cover photograph was "startling, haunting, disturbing and an unfortunate example of sensationalized news reporting."
While I believe that this situation was a close call, I think that Time made the right decision.
This issue pops up frequently in journalism. The New York Times and other media outlets were criticized for running photos of people who had jumped from the World Trade Center buildings during the 9/11 attack.
Another publicized incident took place during the War when government contractors were killed by a bomb and their dead bodies were then dragged through the streets and hung on a bridge in Fallujah. Many American newspapers declined to show the graphic photos of the charred, dead bodies hanging from the bridge, but a few of them, including the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Times, chose to show the images on their front pages. Other papers showed the graphic photos, but placed them on the inside pages. During the Iraq War, debates also arose as to whether the media should show the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos and the coffins of dead soldiers returning to the United States.
During the Winter Olympics earlier this year, media outlets were criticized for showing the video of the Georgian luger who was killed during a trial run. While it was newsworthy, many people criticized the networks for sensationalizing the story by showing the actual crash.
These media debates on showing graphic images aren't new. Matthew Brady shocked Americans by publishing his staff photographers' photos of dead bodies at the Battle of Antietam during the Civil War. During the Vietnam War, several iconic graphic photos were taken, including Kim Phuc, a crying naked young girl who was fleeing from a napalm attack, a South Vietnamese General executing a Viet Cong prisoner on a Saigon street, and dead bodies of My Lai massacre victims after they were shot. During the war in Somalia, photos and videos were shown of a dead American soldier being dragged down the street.
In addressing the issue of whether news outlets should show a photo of a man stepping over dead bodies in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake, Terry Eiler, a photojournalist and director of Ohio University's school of visual communication told Alicia Shepard of National Public Radio, "Can I run this dead body in my publication without offending, harming, hurting, or disturbing the audience? When you are looking at the scale of destruction in Haiti you can't tell that story without showing dead bodies."
That same thought process applies to Time Magazine's cover. The point of Time's article was to show that Afghan women would suffer if deals were cut with Taliban leaders. Showing the picture of the Afghan teen with her nose cut off displays the gravity of the problem.
In defending his decision to run the cover, Time's managing editor Richard Stengel said in the magazine:
[Bad] things do happen to people, and it is part of our job to confront and explain them. In the end, I felt that the image is a window into the reality of what is happening -- and what can happen -- in a war that affects and involves all of us. I would rather confront readers with the Taliban's treatment of women than ignore it. I would rather people know that reality as they make up their minds about what the U.S. and its allies should do in Afghanistan.
If a photo or video sheds light on an important issue or conveys a powerful message then it generally should be shown. Of course, there are certain exceptions, such as a beheading or a live execution.
There are certain remedies for various media outlets. Television networks often run graphic video, but state a disclaimer beforehand warning the viewers that they are about to see disturbing footage. At least that gives viewers the option of turning away or temporarily changing the channel. Newspapers and magazines can put graphic photos on the inside pages or on their website with a warning on the front page or cover.
Another factor in favor of showing the Time Magazine photo was that the woman willingly cooperated and wanted to pose for the photo to get the message out.
Some people prefer the "would it spoil someone's breakfast test?' as to whether to run graphic photos. However, the media has an obligation to bring important stories and images to the public, even if it makes them uncomfortable.
On the other hand, the mutilated woman on Time's cover is exactly representative of the barbarism we are fighting against. The man who did that to her knew what he was doing and did so with the approval of his own conscience because of his twisted primitive belief system.
Bowie said it best in 1979 about the future:
"and we're learning to live with somebody's depression
and I don't WANT to live with somebody's depression"
Sorry - keep your graphic horror to your psycho selves.
Don't tell me some youngster won't unintentionally see that photo and have that image haunt them forever!
But God forbid if it was a picture of a female nipple - fines galore! Magazine shut down!
We've got everything upside down.
There are some things which only soldiers or innocent bystanders are meant to see. And they usually struggle with those images for the rest of their lives. This is a magazine cover which will be on display everywhere, and was a sick editorial decision, regardless of the horror this poor girl experienced, which has been a practice in that region forever.
This was done for sales only, don't spin it any other way.
I hope she is safe.
Does anyone know?
oh yeah, they don't say anything about such atrocities to women.........
Thanks all you Muslim's I'll stick up for you too!!!
http://returngood.com/2010/07/30/times-epic-distortion-of-the-plight-of-women-in-afghanistan/
I wish the media would stop pretending we start wars to save people.
I also see it as anti religious extremism, which is fine by me. The world could use less of religious extremism of all stripes!
But the publication of the picture was not intended to foster debate on the treatment of women by stone age religious practices...no it is intended to convince Americans that our continued support of the war in Afghanistan is necessary to stop these sorts of atrocities from happening again. Of course that is pure fantasy. Honor killings occur in the US, so the idea that we will somehow change the mindset of male Afghans through a military victory is just foolish thinking. And I am totally with you on finding some way to stop religious extremism which all too often is about one man's dominance over another and a far cry from bringing us closer to God.
Blow the lid off this issue and shine a light on it. We need to do it. Can't ignore it any longer
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rawa.org/images/child_khost.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/03/19/six-civilians-killed-during-us-raid-in-afghanistan.html&usg=__5kCA0TctNmceLmAlxhgM8sEpzJk=&h=283&w=400&sz=32&hl=en&start=0&sig2=36yb_5JwAExI7IWxqndRuQ&tbnid=xTVwDS_Zujsh2M:&tbnh=119&tbnw=169&ei=NkhYTLzpGI6msQOehcyrBg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwomen%2Bkilled%2Bby%2Bu.s.%2Bsoldiers%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1242%26bih%3D702%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=293&vpy=108&dur=2632&hovh=189&hovw=267&tx=142&ty=91&page=1&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0
The US doesn't care about women in Afghanistan; it just wants to get its war on, for reasons it refuses to make clear.
http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/opinion/noor-almaleki-father-trial-honor-killing?click=main_sr
The advocacy Time has chosen to partake in would be fine if they were to be honest about the horrors inflicted on Afghani and Iraqi communities done in our name, and the limitations of what we are capable of.
They would've been far better to offer a real choice: show the bodies of bombed children, shot pregnant women on one side, and the picture they chose on the other - with a question mark in between.
But no, they chose the black and white, simplistic, right wing approach.
I'm sure Time is being toasted & cheered at Xe and the Weekly Standard.
I fall on the other side of the equation than you do. But clearly reasonable people (and those not employed by Xe or other MIC) can reach down in their brains and guts and come to differing conclusions, and I respect yours.
Certainly not dishonest as to the reality females live in - but that wasn't their point. The purpose was to say that without America'd presence, such atrocities would happen. The fact is, they're happening right now. Along with what we ourselves are doing to innocent families. The fact that 'we don't mean it' has little relevance to the actual victims.
And thank you for your pleasant and polite dissent. Ive found it very difficult finding anyone to the right of me who doesn't go all out paranoid conspiracy theory on me!
So well done you!
I apologize if I seem patronizing - but really , it truly is a breath of fresh air to have someone disagree without obvious personal anger toward anyone remotely associated with my political opinions!
On the contrary: they should be showing dead U.S and U.K soldiers, dead Afghani families, dead kids - all the victims of this disaster - not just the victims that are convenient to a certain political strategy, that may help lengthen the war, which this advocacy piece obviously is given that we aren't stopping what happened to the poor girl on the cover now. Continuing the mission will do nothing to halt further attacks on girls.