Maybe if Americans were forced to look at the bodies of 20 young children horribly mutilated in the Sandy Hook massacre there would be more people in the streets demanding that a cowardly Congress do something to reduce the number of guns in the country.
Similarly, if the innocent victims of US airstrikes and drone attacks in the Middle East were shown daily the US would have been forced long ago to stop committing war crimes and get out.
3
Most people do not realize the impact that bombs and bullets have on a human body. The horror of 9.11 was made visually true with the coverage of that day. War and murder are true and terrible. Sometimes people need to be disturbed to not disregard violence - it is real - it is horrible - consider how you can effect change. Use a disclaimer and hide the photo if you have to -but this is really happening in our civilization. Think about how to curb the violence before it happens.
1
Nope. Rewrite the article. Admit the unthinking disinterest about bodies not white. And then announce the policy as your teaching moment's text.
The picture was good for circulation so you ran with it. Without awareness of disparate treatment.
Now challenged, you create policy guidance. A truly racially balanced decision shouldn't need a policy to get that picture spiked. Shame on you that a formal policy statement is needed. But at lease you write it. Now admit the original act was unthinking bias.
2
Real non-answer to that first question from Meghan Looram. Lara asked "What considerations went into choosing the photos in this article? Why did you decide to run the image of dead bodies?" and instead of actually spelling out the considerations that went into *this* decision we get some pablum about how the NYT thinks about these decisions overall. Not very convincing, and I wonder if the line of questioning would have been stronger if the subject of the interview wasn't a fellow NYT employee.
1
Shame on the NYT. Pictures can cause such distress. I was in Westlands when the Westgate Mall attack happened. If I had seen photos like this I am not sure what I would have said to you.
These are people with families and friends... afford them some dignity.
"...we never see the same disrespect of the dead offered to non-black bodies.” (CJ Brooklyn)
The gratuitous photo and the evasive editorial response force me to reconsider my subscription. I know you can do better.
For all the hand wringing and window dressing in your explanations, one simple fact remains. You would not show slumped white bodies if this attack had happened at Soho House. Not in a million years.
That's all I need to know about what influences your decision-making.
1
Blood soaked Americans after school shootings, 9/11 attacks or Las Vegas Mass shootings please...
I am ruling NY Times decision to publish the bloody body photograph biased.
We have solved this problem in Zimbabwe with Mugabe years ago, ban all foreign media from your country, Kenya has no news agencies in America, so I am sure they wouldn't mind to leave Kenya. Don't allow white supremacy to create the narrative of your stories, your struggles and your lives.
They still did this with black Americans, until the black communities complained about the negative narrative that overlooked white crimes and created a negative image of minorities, and you think they would care more for black Africans. lol
They are consciously and subconsciously racist, I won't waste my time trying to convince the white men to do the right thing, that ship sailed a long time ago...ban foreign media or regulate them strictly like other countries do.
These weapons of mass deception...you wouldn't believe the stories they published to the whole would about my country.
I am not offended by photos of persons who have died. In an article about death, if there is a photo, I expect that the photo may very well present an image of -- you know -- death. I have sympathy for those readers who find such photos disturbing and unsettling, and perhaps shocking. We all have (or don't have) our own life experiences regarding death. In my case, I have witnessed first-hand the deaths, some violent, of family members and of those unknown to me. I draw a distinct line between the living and the dead -- that is, for me, photos of the recently deceased are photos of mortal remains, which are far from the person whose former materiality I am seeing. The soul has departed, and the world has changed completely.
In any other country this would be a non-starter issue, death is looked in the eye; it is part of life, photo editors I've talked to for European publications for example have far less limitations on permitting graphic images of bloody violence; perhaps the reminder of wars past feeds an intellectual awareness to remember, a more mature view of what really is sacred and profane, that is life.
To enter the American mentality one will find an acute state of fantasy, a racist indulgence for a nation that has always lived under banners of territorial righteousness, conquering a continent; self-serving lies common in history to leaders across the continents, China is still actively consumed by it's own Manifest Destiny against those not Han; a genocide still underway against Uighur, and Tibetans.
In America, a certain isolation from the norms of civility thrives; bankers, generals and politicians, (most proud racists) - that supported endless massacres of the original inhabitants, numerous nations of indigenous.
In the past century, the kings of Wall Street and corporations have led a similarly ruthless, Neo-liberal attack against nature and those unable to defend themselves.
Manifest Destiny was a fabricated list of lies supporting genocide, to get on with the development of a nation isolated between the oceans.
Blood on the streets..., get over it America. Look, but with respect - and learn what life really is.
2
@friend for life
Eloquently said.
As a sign of respect to our fellow human beings, I don't think that the press should be showing dead bodies period.
And the press should also stop interviewing victims immediately after a tragedy and asking "how did you feel as your child was ripped from you arms and beaten to a bloody pulp before your eyes?" Its a form of pornography that should stop, as far as I am concerned.
All human lives have value and dignity.
2
@expat london
It's only by seeing the carnage inflicted by those for whom human life (other than their own) has no value that people can be shocked into action against the warmongers.
Nope. What a great non-apology, NYT! We've seen so much gore on American soil the last few years, with uploads of images and videos of victims of police brutality on the news, social media, etc. No one needs to use brutalized, dead Black bodies (and the traumas it elicits from mourning family and community members) as collateral in the project to gain sympathy and raise awareness for any violence enacted on us, because it never goes both ways - we never see the same disrespect of the dead offered to nonblack bodies. Everyone knows violence is a problem. We've become so desensitized to it that I think many nonblack people secretly enjoy the spectacle of it all, which only serves to reinforce anti-Blackness.
2
@CJ Before crying racism, did you bother to review the other examples of images presented by the NY Times to document other terrorist incidents, in particular, the Las Vegas shooting? Their intent is not spectacle as much as it is communicating aspects of the story that cannot be adequately conveyed by the written word alone.
My initial reaction to that graphic photo was that it was distasteful. It reduced the importance of the news and lowered the credibility of the news organization. It looked like something out of tabloid news.
High impact can be achieved by describing the horrific situation in the text. A great writer can certainly do that. An accompanied photograph showing explicit details would just be gratuitous. Photographs of dead bodies typically are shown wrapped in sheets or covered. The narrative in the article would provide sufficient details about what happened. And the descriptive text would allow the reader to use his or her imagination to form his or her own image of the scene.
In this current time when outrageous content can widely and freely spread across the Internet, we must be careful in what gets posted online. That graphic photo now lives on the Web and without any context could be used in inappropriate ways. The NY Times should resist the temptation to post explicit images that would do nothing but to grab eyeballs. A well-written news article on an important topic of the day would attract viewers and could spur serious readers to take appropriate action.
3
Seems like they have an easier time with these tough decisions when it comes to Africa and the Middle East, places where we've type casted into only war zones and not human beings who once had lives. This is the central point of sensitivity. American audiences will still look away with gorey images or dead black/brown bodies. The people who called this out were Kenyans themselves! We should take greater care in considering the true concerns of these cultures who are typically much more conservative with matters of death rather than position the American eyes important enough to violate concerns of the people we claim to care about.
3
I personally don't have a problem with your decision to put photos of dead bodies. I DO, however, have a problem with you not putting a disclaimer. I think you should at least give the readers a choice. Just put "may contain photos that may disturb some readers" or something on an article that has photos of dead bodies. Then your readers would be less outraged, but also, IMO, it's just the decent thing to do.
1
the open laptop, the half-eaten breakfast, the slumped over bodies– affected me far far more than the usual, glazed-over antiseptic number– of dead, of wounded.
these are real people with lives just like us. the picture was startling in its clarity. i applaud the Times for printing it.
10
Three valid points are made in these comments. The first involves a double standard, that we are more sensitive in our decisions to depict American and European victims of terror. If this is true, it is entirely reprehensible. A second has to do with revealing the identities of the victims. Would we publish images of murdered Americans without permission? Would we do so before families have been informed and while an incident is in progress? It is important that we confront the true consequences of human violence, but can we do so while showing respect for the dead and their traumatized loved ones? American media certainly need to place more emphasis on the humanity of those outside our familiar culture(s), but is highlighting their victimization the most appropriate way to do it? Don't we need to start with more positive reminders of our shared humanity? Finally, there is an argument for the power of images in making the abstract and distant more immediate. Certainly, when done with discretion and sensitivity to those involved this is an admirable goal. Images have an immediacy and directness that much news writing does not. However, the use of graphic images is also a double-edged sword. The line between being sensitized to suffering and becoming immune to it is a fine one. In the end, however admirable our goals, we must pursue them judiciously and without exploiting others. Looking back, does a little girl running from napalm want her suffering to become emblematic?
4
An interesting and complicated dilemma here.
As a avid reader of many and various journalistic sites, I can completely understand the tough decisions editors must and have to make. Not being Audacious enough to even feign to tell an editor how to do his of her job; but I would ask myself these basic questions before making the decision to publish:
“First do no harm.”
1. Is it kind?
2. Is it necessary?
3. Is it true?
Is it kind? Will the photograph harm the decedents family and loved ones?
Is it necessary? Can the story be told with just as much impact without depicting a dead body?
Is it true?
Great editorial and great comments and feedback to a long-standing dichotomous journalism issue.
1
Maybe with more pictures of the dead - both foreign and US - those of us safely at home would have a more realistic sense of what war really means.
Would we have fewer military incursions if the draft existed? If the middle and upper classes and the educated were conscripted, I suspect we might.
3
I am an American living abroad with close Kenyan friends. One was showing me the streaming video (we are in UAE) of the attack’s and wondering whether anyone in the US would cover the story. While I was happy to see coverage, most that I read did not mention any deaths. At least The NY Times did not gloss it over. Also the need for in depth coverage into the KDF’s role in Somalia as part of the protest by Al Shabab and Kenyan people’s feelings of anger at their government for risking the lives of so many young in Somalia.
1
I agree that it's a very difficult decision for editors to make. And there is no way to please everyone. I do believe it's important to show the effects of terrorism, gun violence, the horrors of war. Not showing it makes it too easy for the reader to look the other way, to disconnect and dismiss the pain and suffering that’s happening day in and day out in our world. I want readers to identify with the suffering of people effected by war, terrorism, gun violence, etc. Yes, the pictures are shocking and readers should be shocked. That shock is another word for REALITY. Only an informed citizen can step up to the next level of being a responsible citizen.
3
In reading the NYT article the editors don’t seem to “get it” for most of the article they go on trying to justify why they put up the picture instead of address the fact that many people of whom these pics most pertain to don’t want to be depicted as such. As one woman said earlier, all we want is an apology, not the shifting blame game. I was actually really angry when Lacey said “I lived in Kenya for 5 years” as though that buys credibility to defend the decisions made on the photo.
More over I agree with many of people before me who raise a very important point, the ‘Nairobi photo’ identified victims and made that information public before families even had a chance to be notified. What I see in this picture is a trend that I have recognized in much of American media now a days, the focus has shifted much more to selling news and generating revenue because the more outrageous the story, the picture, the quote, the more clicks and views it gets which translates to more revenue.
7
Thank you for sharing information about the NYT process of selecting photos. I'm glad this conversation has brought about the creation of guidelines for consistency.
I went back and looked at the photo in question. Seeing people going about their daily life, sitting in a cafe with their computers, brings home the fact that this could happen to any one of us. I also appreciated that the angle it was taken from protected the victims identity.
As it happened, their ethnicity was also obscured. This might make it even more powerful. I could see that racial bias, unconscious or not, might cause some to dismiss a photo that was more obviously grounded in place as depicting "everyday violence" in some place far away. Choosing this photo made the event universally relatable.
3
My mother and brother were killed in Delta 191 crash in 1985. At that time, they showed images of bodies on tarmac covered by sheets and the charred fusilage in the background. I kept wondering if those shoes sticking out of the sheet were my 16 year old brother’s sneakers. The NYT photo disturbed me deeply (someone working on computer, slumped over dead). Even more so for that person’s family who will surely recognized their son, father, cousin. Images seared into the brain for a lifetime. Not acceptable.
15
Yes, it is offensive to see pictures of dead bodies. But why "protect" us from reality? The West needs a wake up call to the horror of war and violence. Show the truth -- in moderation.
8
I think it helps people understand more fully that precious lives were lost. Just seeing the words in print leaves it as abstract. Your mind doesn't realize the full impact without the visualization. Now we can see the brutality of these events. That real people going about their daily routine were senselessly killed. This should apply to any of these types of events no matter where they happen.
3
@Diane
This is how I looked at this as well. Pictures show that this is not bloodless violence. This is not an abstraction. This is not a body count report.
The victims were other people, just like me and my friends, murdered on an ordinary day when they expected to go home to family, friends, children . . .
LIFE Magazine was built on the power of the photograph. A major example of that power came when LIFE published pictures of the dead bodies, and near dead victims of the Holocaust. Those pictures would still shock today. I saw then when pretty young, and never forgot. That is one thing photos can do best : make it impossible to ignore tragedies outside of your own world..
Showing such horrors is not an insult to the people who suffered, but it is a wakeup call for everyone else.
4
What the NYT did can be equated to promoting terrorism.
There is no justifications
As a Kenya it hurts.
We are asking the government to deport NYT journalists
Let them promote racial discrimination and terrorism elsewhere not here.
1
" LACEY As a result of the concerns from our readers that this photo raised, we’re going to convene a group of people to come up with clearer guidelines. I am going to be part of that effort.
LOORAM The group of journalists Marc is referring to will draft a guide for editors who are faced with making these kinds of consequential decisions."
I hope and believe that members of this committee will be diverse. This is not an option but a must. Ideally you will want representation from your global audience. This is not a small task so please do not rush into it. Remember that every voice matters and what hurts deeply is when there is the assumption that another voice has the right to take over my voice. Remember colonialism, imperialism, and many other policies that have deeply impacted our world. Remember this when you are creating your committee. Remember this in all you do. Remember this: Diversity and Inclusion. Remember!
4
@Masika
That's right! We must have a least one person from every nation on earth on this "group of journalists". And there better be representative percentages of blacks, asians, Indians, North Poles, gays, albinos, and handicapped blind transgender people.
Although I don't normally agree with the media, in this case I understand the image and the decision to show it. The problem in the US is we are sanitized from the violence-everything is cleaned up so as not to show the so called victims in America how great they truly have it. To attest to the hopelessness in America and for a government to sell hope and change in the US is a bit disgusting if you compare it to the true hopelessness and darkness of so many other countries, although recently we are growing our collection of atrocities by the same self-involved, sick, violent victims....
How would you show a war, or evil....do you show a pretty landscape? A bunch of unhappy people-you show the violence and the horrors that are happening daily. Unless the dead bodies are fake and propped up for an agenda, I say they are part of the story and their story should be told-or don't go and cover a war-a war is not clean, sanitized, people die.
Maybe if we show evil at its best and share the truth of evil and how it works, maybe we won't be so blind to allow criminals and very bad individuals coming into our country to do bad things-maybe America won't be so naive about the threats that are out there and threatening us-maybe with a little more perspective we will be a bit more grateful for the country we live in, maybe insist on protecting her sovereignty and realizing that few of us are truly victims.
3
@Steven How about showing the evil and violence that happens here to the people who live here? Violence and killing don't just happen "over there." They happen here every day and they are just as evil and horrific as anything that happens in a foreign country.
You are right in saying that in the USA we get a 'sanitized' version of the news. Perhaps we shouldn't. But, if so, that non-sanitized news should include all anything that we would show from someplace else.
Remember, the United States is a very violent nation, and with very little reason for being one.
6
We are no strangers in seeing the truth and reality of violence elsewhere. There is rarely news coverage or Africa and the Middle East that doesn't involve grotesque images of dead people. This coverage satisfies the self centered nature of America, who shows this as a "at least it's not that bad here" promo rather than with true care and concern. We have become desensitized to the pain of others " over there"
1
The world looks up to the NYT as the standard bearer of ethical journalism — across the world. In that context, it is disheartening to see that not only are double standards maintained at NYT, but actively promoted. I'm sorry but this article does nothing to alleviate the primary contention of Kenyans: that the NYT has one standard for what would be considered the "others", and another standard for what would be considered "our own".
What would be appropriate now would be for the NYT to say we made a mistake, and we will do better next time. That is all that is expected, and it's remarkable how the editors at the NYT cannot understand this simple fact. When the entire world —not your mother, uncle, brother, sister, wife, grandparent — berates you, it means you have made a mistake and you need to retrospect.
7
You have not addressed the possibility of someone getting to know about their loved one's demise from your publications.
Your article was released while the siege was still ongoing and families had not even known about the fate of their loved ones.
There is no tough call here, respect the dead, respect their families and at the very least let them know about their loss in a dignified manner.
I still do appeal that you pull down that photo.
11
New York Times is always attacking Trump for his ways but I tell you...this is a Trump Class Act. Giving vague responses and examples while the images are forever etched and stored online.
Shame on you New York Times.
4
During WW2,Korea,Vietnam,and other conflicts pictures of victims were commonplace.
We have become a coddled society.coddled
As a war veteran and 25 year law enforcement officer,I got used to it,but even as a little kid in Brooklyn in the mid 40's-60's,I saw my share then.
Sanitizing really bad things is not a constructive approach.
1
@joe yeah Korea Vietnam, but on American soil, how many domestic and foreign attacks have you had since 2011, several, in fact all of them are domestic. Bombs, mass shootings etc, what we are saying how come we never see bodies of dead americans? 9/11? was a terror a ttack there was dead bodies, but they were not displayed on your front pages, why does america feel that the violence in other countries can only be understood by the gory pictures and Americans dont need to see those pictures.
3
You made a decision to use gory images when reporting about the Nairobi attack. Since then you have all been turning the knife in our wound with the diatribe explanations from your heartless editors. Please spare us and allow us to heal. Stop this regurgitation..
9
Really guys, you just said a photo editor in NewYork is more suited than your own journalist in Nairobi to capture the reality of the terror attack.
That is what i figured when you say your own journalist in Nairobi was not consulted by your photo editors in NewYork when they decided which photos to publish. Yet somehow your photo editor has the ability to capture the reality of what happened. I bet that photo editor has never been to Kenya.
It is like a drone operator in Nevada claiming he has more experience in war than a marine serving in Afghanistan.
8
@Michael That's how newspapers work. The reporters in the field send their content to an editor (located somewhere else) and the editor determines what is/is not published. The NY Times is not a Facebook wall containing unfiltered, random posts by contributors.
1
The reasons you advance for showing dead bodies of Africans after the atrocity in Kenya are disingenuous. How many dead bodies of Americans have you shown from school shootings, the Las Vegas massacre, or from the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria? Your international reporting is, I am afraid, generally shallow when it is not deplorable.
11
It is not necessary to delve into justifications as to the reasons for running a gory photo of dead bodies in the NY Times while the attack at #14Riverside was ongoing. It was insensitive to us Kenyans, and the world, for obvious reasons.
All that was needed was for you to pull it down and apologize. Instead your editorial team insists on prolonging our agony with justifications, going to the extent of trying to shield Kimiko so she appears blameless, yet she is the incoming Bureau Chief for the region. I guess we expected a higher level of professionalism. She asked Kenyans to go after the picture. Did that, and more #DeportKimiko.
#NYTimes When we needed you as an ally, you joined the terrorists to kick us while we were down.
9
Yes, the images are gruesome but it's reality and people should be made aware of it. If you report that simply that x number of people died without images it all sounds very sanitary and your readers don't get the full import and horror of what actually happened. They may say, "that's too bad". As a former first responder, I've seen a lot worse and the reality really hits you in the gut as you see the people who will never walk in the front door again and hug their families.
1
Is this some sort of a joke. If this had any meaning at all I would be seeing photos of terror attacks in Paris, Manchester, London, Belgium, Netherlands, Russia, Nice, Calais and the mass shootings and terror attacks in the United states. You wouldn't have to go to the archives to fetch some obscure photos that might be offensive. You would just produce the photos of yesterday's terror attack in Syria in which four servicemen died from a suicide bomber.
This is just a veiled attempt to cover your racism and western imperialism that even in times of tragedy you must come on top as the do good white knights.
7
The BBC doesn't always get it right but they seem to be more consistent. Their policy is that "Images portraying dead or dying humans" can only be used "with special care and with editorial justification." "In practice, it means photos of the dead and dying are used extremely rarely".
I would hate to be the one to make such decisions on this but I believe that the NY Times made the wrong call this time.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-46889822
8
Remember Emmett Till. It was not until his mother forced us to see the impacts of racial violence that we began to truly acknowledge the problem. We need to see the impacts of terrorism and gun violence. I have told my family: if I am injured or killed by gun violence I want the crime scene photos distributed as widely as possible.
2
As a former journalist I applaud the paper for running the photograph in question.
That photo explains more about what happened than any 1,000 word article could. It illustrates the surprise of the attack and the helplessness of the victims.
There's no further discussion warranted IMO. Great reporting and coverage.
5
Seriously, you keep giving the same senseless explanation. How hard is to to sympathize with the victims, how hard is it to be rensponsible your actions, how hard is it to apologize and pull diwn the image? You have a worldwide platform but what are you doing with it? Kenyans do not need or want you to disband you business what we want is for you to respect people wether dead or alive...This is not journalism it's terror, you do not have to wield a gun to terrorize people..all you need is a platform and images,.....proved by you through you r actions. I hope and pray that none of you will ever be forced to be in such a situations as the terrorist victims were in.
2
Im pro pictures. No matter how graphic. Its time the weak and whiney American public faces reality of the true horrors of life for the millions of non-Americans round the world. Plus making sure we see domestic atrocities in full color!
Im sick of the coddling too many Americans demand from journalism. Sick of how we fear everything that isnt sanitized, or blurred to the point of the absurd.
Maybe if Americans saw the realities of what a mass shooting looks like, what a suicide bomber does to people and property, and how millions of nonAmericans face terror on a daily basis, saw the results of state sponsored starvation...maybe more Americans would stop being so cold hearted to those who seek refuge here. Maybe stop whining about their first world complaints.
Maybe stop being so distrusting of "others", that this WH, and too many Repubs, and Alt-right groups stoke their fears over...
Reality has a way of breaking down prejudices.
1
Going by statistics in the US, there is bound to be mass shooting in the US this week. Confirm what you are saying by publishing American dead bodies in an effort to get Republicans to support gun regulation. Better still, you can publish photos of the American service men who died in Syria a few days ago. In any case more American soldiers have died in combat in your many wars since Sept 11 than Kenyan victims in all terror attacks.
4
Do you show the bodies of school mass shootings? Well? Why not?
4
This is an unfortunate and pathetic explanation of the bias in your reporting. Two things you continue to do wrong: (1) You've moved the gory photos to a 'less prominent position' in the article (as if that softens the goriness); and (2) You have the audacity to use the photo of one of the victim's burial in this article! Talk about adding insult to injury!
Please note it is not lost on us that you have failed to meet your photo publication 'standards' by not using the same critieria you used in Nairobi as you have in your lastest article from Syria. We don't see gory photos of the US soliders killed in the terrorist attack!
Your explanation may work for your US readers, however, as by international standards, you have failed on all standards of journalism ethics!
6
There were two photos credited with "ending the Vietnam War," or more precisely, photos that prevented the public from averting their gaze. When you looked away, the photos could not be unseen.
We often use that notion jokingly—"now that I've seen that, it can't be unseen"—as I did myself the other day in a comment about a shirt covered with fleshy likenesses of Trump. We use the phrase in that offhand way to mean that one's poise and sense of personal tidiness are offended; yuck. But it's mere disgust. I don't have much of a memory of that shirt after a few days.
The two Vietnam photos penetrated to the souls of many Americans. They could not be unseen. Our inner gaze could not be averted.
Last year, the Times had a story about one: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/world/asia/vietnam-execution-photo.html
The other was of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, the naked child fleeing napalm. I was a teen when I saw it, and to all those who call photos of the aftermath of violence "dehumanizing," I would say that I had never thought about what it means to be human as I did then. The girl in that photo was the most human person I had ever seen. The tormented subjects of the two photos were not white Westerners, but they were fellow human beings.
If you experience images as "violence porn," that's your reaction. Your feelings of shame or fear are yours. I agree with commenter Trisha Morey: to bear the full vulnerable humanity of others, you are forced to confront your own.
2
I am not sure what is ethical here. There is an aspect of photojournalism and reporting that is inherently exploitative, even ghoulish, going after the sensational . Some is violence porn. It simply IS part of the game. Even at the Times.
But the Times failed to give a spirited argument FOR showing the mayhem and personal harm that results from war and terrorists. Remember the photos of Pham Duc, the Vietnamese girl running naked after being hit by napalm. Was that an invasion of her privacy? Absolutely. Might it have played a huge role in getting Americans to understand the tragedy of Nam? I think so.
The bodies slumped at tables make it clear what this is: people slaughtered as they go about normal daily activities. I don't feel that it was a gratuitous decision to run it - and I think it could help bridge thousands of miles of distance between the readers and the victims' families.
I am wary of the offer to establish rules 'by committee.' It might serve the purpose of appearing to check off all of the right interests, and represent every stakeholder.
It's hard: certainly any way to avoid inflicting more pain on survivors is to be considered, as long photos chosen make readers a) pay attention, and 2) get a gut level feel of the horror.
2
This is the second time that your editors are responding to this complaint, and you have failed in both accounts.
When given a chance to site cases where you have applied similar standards in the west. The only cases that you can site are 2012/before or in Vegas attack (gay communiy/minority) or Yemen/Syria (no surprises here). Considering the number recent of mass shootings in the US or attacks in Paris/ Brussels/ London, this is not representative. This seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
When you say, " we will try" or "a discussion worth having", there is no way for your African audiences to give their input or to enforce. It is therefore understandable for them to ask their government to do something about your staffers.
We can only hope that in future, your editors will choose to act right.
16
Your point is a fair one and I do think we need to ask whether white readers, editors, and photographers are consciously or unconsciously bringing bias to their depictions and reactions to photographs that show violence against people of color. One correction: the Las Vegas mass shooting occured at a country music festival and was likely not a gate crime. The Pulse nightclub shooting in Miami was a hate crime, and patrons were targeted because of their identities.
The New York Times already knows that it was disrespectful. In is own story https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/magazine/media-bodies-censorship.html that says correctly that: "if the refusal to publish images of dead American service members is a sign of respect, then the willingness to publish photographs of other people’s dead bodies can be read as a sign of disrespect." This is a simple truth . I think the New York Times disrespect of Kenya is borne out of a racist worldview that has no place in modern society.
The Times could have posted many other photos but it chose the one that dehumanizes.
We shall revisit this.
21
@Mwangi
The US media do not publish images of dead service personnel, but it's not out of respect, but because such images would turn the people away from the government's war policies.
That was the government's motivation for complete censorship of images of American dead in WWII, the motivation for "embedding" journalists in the Afghan and Iraqi invasions, and the motivation today.
All what Kenyans were asking is that you remove that ONE offending photograph.
"In this situation, we did not promote the photo on our social media accounts because it was so disturbing. As we listened to our readers’ concerns about the photo, we also decided to move the image to a less prominent position in the article."
True respect for your readers would have been to remove the photo, not demote it to a lower position.....
Or are you saying you don't expect your readers to read the whole article?
Thank you and God bless
11
The New York Times really kicked us when we were down! You published these gory photos during the attack! No justification whatsoever can make it right!
7
It’s clear there are no written guidelines on posting picture of the dead in your News Articles.
It’s clear the Kenyan public and other decent human beings, including some in your news room want you to apologize and remove the offending and terror broadcasting pictures.
It’s clear you are running round in circles fishing for historical cases where you made the same mistakes to justify the current situation and cover for your staff.
The terror attack in Kenya was an indirect attack of your Country. We are bearing the brunt of being your ally. How ironic that you vehemently promote the very cowards the world is trying to beat.
If you are the big boy/girl in the world of journalism, show compassion, apologize and retract unconditionally. We don’t need lectures on how their individual journalists “balance thoughts” before publishing pictures of the dead. An institution of your calibre should know better.
19
@Paul,
Extremely well stated. All that Kenyans have demanded for is respect for our dead (and especially their families).
@nyt have really gotten this one wrong with the silly (and frankly condescending) protracted explanations without taking down the photo ... which still remains in the article.
3
Take it down. It is extremely insensitive to the victims’ families and adds nothing to the story. The NYT would be sued if that picture was of white people in the US whose families had not yet been notified. Comparing it to the starving child in Yemen is not the same thing.
14
The publication of these photos was offensive and completely unnecessary. But instead of taking responsibility, @NYTimes doubles down, gives excuses AND blames others ("Let me first say that editors in New York made the decision on which images to publish with the story. Our reporter did not have any input into this decision.").
Very disappointed. @NYTimes is usually one of my main go to media outlets.
6
I’m sorry, but we NEED investigative journaling like this. I am an online advocate for the LGBTI refugees in Nairobi. I write advocacy letters to try to promote individual extremely high risk cases in order to get their cases moved and to create accountability for these refugees. Many of them have died the most horrific deaths you can imagine. The reason refugee programs and donations for these programs are dying is BECAUSE no one sees the truth. If you cannot handle the truth DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Don’t CENSOR it so you can be comfortable in your blissful ignorance. The media is the one thing with the power to raise the profile of awareness for refugees and victims of these hate crimes. Let’s not be entitled jerks here. I commend the NYT for being brave enough to report the truth and for trying to raise the profile on this issue. Thank you so much!
27
@Trisha Morey - Trisha you are comparing two very different situations. Terror is a worldwide phenomenon everyone knows and appreciates its effects you can't honestly claim that the will to fight terror is waning.
On the other hand LGBTI rights are considered immoral and unAfrican (sadly) and those cases need to be properly highlighted as Western governments continue to ignore such situations in Africa for the purposes of competing with China for trade and other commercial ventures.
My critic of the NYT decision is specific to this situation it is not an attack on everything the paper does. I do appreciate the role it plays but at the same time the paper and its editors are not infallible
1
@Trisha Morey No one is asking or arguing for censorship. How would not publishing the 1 or 2 gory photographs obscure the effects of violence? Would the images of weapon-toting individuals, flaming vehicles and death/injury statistics make debates over security and terrorism bloodless?
@Trisha Morey we are not barring the @NYTimes from reporting the truth. First of all what is the "truth" here? that we were attacked by terrorists? that terrorists killed and hurt people? there's no hiding those facts it's widely known. What we are against is the insensitive nature of publishing such pictures when the families of the victims had not even known the fate of their loved ones.
some literally found out they lost their loved ones through social media.
Secondly the fact that you can compare the LGBTI to terrorism makes this an ignorant claim. On on hand you have a minority group whose voices need to be heard and sufferings brought to light so that the perpetrators are brought to justice. They do need the exposure from journalists and advocate such as yourself and I commend you for that. On the other hand what point and advocating does terrorism and the victims of this heinous act need through the exposure of the deceased on a publication? The only truth here is the truth that has been longstanding, and that is; terrorism is a global threat that has evil people that choose no race to attack nor social status. And the people who already do not know this and need graphic disturbing images to understand this are the ones who are ignorant.
1
Hi, thanks for trying to address this issue. But I have to admit this was lacking, missed several points, and at best was vague at answering any of the pressing questions most of the questions raised by communities close to this story, showing nothing but a disconnect from the people making decisions in your newsrooms from the people raising concerns and grievances.
First, nothing in this article explicitly described or mentions any of the "difficult decisions" you make and "difficult conversions" you have while selecting published photographs. What makes a photograph "central to the news story" that it accompanies? How would not publishing the 1 or 2 gory photographs obscure the effects of violence? Would the images of weapon-toting individuals, flaming vehicles and death/injury statistics make debates over security and terrorism bloodless? As for the people in your newsroom who felt that you shouldn't have the "Nairobi photo", what were their views & arguments?
There are so many identifiable features to someone’s photograph other than their face. Time of day, location & known whereabouts, clothing & personal belongings. Imagine opening an article about an ongoing situation, recognising your son’s clothes & personal belongings at a place where he was going to meet a business partner on the same day. And funny enough, he’s not picking up his phone.
I have a second comment on this article comment section expressing more concerns not addressed in this article.
7
I saw the picture in the original article (which, sadly, still remains inside the story, even if deeper inside) and wondered what the value of that particular picture was. In the same story, there were other pictures (in one, I could identify a high school classmate of mine standing and holding one of the victims) which adequately conveyed the mayhem that took place. The picture of dead bodies slumped in a restaurant added zero value to the final story.
But, even with NYT's many explanations and excuses, the fact of the matter is that it has touched an extremely raw nerve among Kenyans. The links you provide in this story to "prove" that NYT does not necessarily discriminate do not show any identifiable features of the victims and, to be honest, with the exception of the Las Vegas lady which only shows her from the back, are blurry and difficult to make out. The picture of the 14 Riverside attack was quite clear.
So instead of only complaining, allow me to make some suggestions on NYT could potentially change:
- Never ever publish photos of the dead if their faces are visible (if I could identify my classmate standing on the outside, it is quite possible that someone who could have identified the poor dead people slumped in their chairs in the restaurant)
- Pictures of the destruction and mayhem already convey a message. If a picture of the dead must be published, do it after 24 hours with time to think through
- Smell test: if it feels wrong, it probably is.
Best regards
15
"LOORAM We do endeavor to apply the same rules to our choice of images from attacks in any part of the world. But these are weighty decisions, considered on a case-by-case basis by individuals'
Meaghan Looram you contradict yourself when you say you "apply the same rules to our choice of images from attacks" and in the same breath you say "but these are... considered on a case-by-case basis"
If you apply the same rules to your choice of images then it shouldn't be on a case-by-case basis. All images that meet those rules should be published wether the attacks happened in the U.S., Europe or Africa.
And what do you mean by you "endeavor" to apply the same rules? Endeavor means to try hard. Apparently you don't try hard enough when the images of the dying are in Western countries. Apparently those same rules don't apply to those cases.
The images shown of attack victims in the west are pictures identifying them while they were alive. Album of archived pictures if you will.
So it will be better for you to issue an apology to the families of the victims rather than try to justify bias.
5
Thank you for not sanitizing the truth. Growing up in the 60s and 70s it was common for TV and Print news to show disturbing pictures to make it clear to the human psyche what is truly happening.
This all changed when the military decided it was bad press, so the news organizations were forced to embed journalists where they could be better controlled and out went the images.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
30
More than anything else, I want a healthy recovery for the cruelly bereaved loved ones from a depth of shock and grief that I hope never to endure. I hate the carnage inflicted before the photos, but welcome the disturbing photo coverage by the New York Times (or any publisher of equivalent credibility) afterwards. This is because social justice and transparency (through civil society, including balanced journalism) work best when intimate with each other.
2
@Paul We're not talking about photos of what the US military does or what is done to it in other countries. This issue is not about our military. These are photos of civilians in an African country whose images were used gratuitously. The same images would not be used from an attack here.
@DaveD
What you say may be correct.
But rather than censor what is being shown it would be better to expand coverage to include the results of the war crimes of the US government.
Photos showing what humans are responsible for doing and allowing, especially what the U.S. is doing in its citizens' name, should be made available, with a warning to the reader not to view them if s/he doesn't want to see them.
8
If the Times posted more graphic photos of the carnage associated with mass shootings, even those in schools, the public , and even the NRA, could no longer ignore the full effect of these tragedies. For starters, why not show the scenes after the bodies have been removed? You are protecting citizens from reality and reality must be accepted before one can truly address our issues.
47
This still shows that the views of the subjects (or their kin and societies) were hardly considered and if so, deemed secondary to whatever drives US political discourse or worse still, the organisation's bottom line.
How the terrorists would would use the fact that such photos get posted in a site of NYT repute also seems to have been treated lightly.
It is also hard to believe that the reporters on the ground had no part in the decision process unless of course it is shown how the photos got to the editors. Those in Nairobi had to have decided what to send over and as such are just as complicit.
4
I think you’ve done a lot of explaining. In all fairness you’ve gone to great deal to make us understand . But once again all we needed was an apology. It was very white/(thought of being superior ) of you to keep shifting who we should blame. Glad your changing your policies to be fair to everyone(all countries) .
4
As an American in France, I am aware, like many others around the world, that America has a certain reputation. Our violent international involvements, the massive numbers of dead from our international arms sales and our daily shootings at home all are reported internationally. Our press avoids all graphic images. We do not see those classrooms strewn with bodies. We do not see the "Raytheon" tag on the bomb fragment next to the dead child in Sudan. We do not see the results when American-trained armed thugs slaughter villagers in Afghanistan. We never saw those photos of the Mi Lai massacre. Maybe we should see the results. It could make a few of us wonder about where we are as a country.
30
@Frankster thank you for this.
1
@Frankster,
I second that.
The NYT keeps emphasizing that the reporter did not have any input into this decision - but if the goal really is to respect the Kenyan audience as much as the American audience, why not include local reporters on photo decisions, particularly on sensitive topics? Experienced local staff should be able to flag what might be likely to come across as needlessly cruel or inconsistent.
6
@Mark Yes, clearly editors here have great difficulty doing this.
I believe people need to see the results of our constant meddling in other countries. This photo did not identify anyone, nor was it even close to being gory, by our modern cinematic standards. The Times does a great job of balancing the readers exposure to violent images, an occasional disturbing photo is to be expected in real life. My condolences to those affected by this most recent carnage.
2
@Fred Rodgers
I personally knew one person in one of the photos so I am pretty sure that some random Kenyan somewhere may have known the identify of some of those dead people in the photos.
But you may not fully understand the grief and annoyance by Kenyans on why NYT decided to publish a photo of the dead when there were more than 1000 photos of the carnage (which included pictures of the wounded but not dead) that they could have chosen to use instead.
Also, Kenyans have been asking NYT why it is that they would not use a similar photo if the dead were Americans. As an example, this story (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/world/middleeast/isis-attack-syria-troops.html) also ran this week. Notice how there are no photos of the dead Americans? The video is graphic and shows the moment the suicide bomber detonated his bomb but not a single photo of a dead American is included. There's a reason why NYT chose to not post such photos and Kenyans are simply asking for the same respect for their dead. It adds zero value to the story.
We appreciate your kind condolences. I was not directly affected but know about 10 families that were and hence it is a very dear issue to me.
10
This has been my reaction to coverage of violent news for many years. OK to show dead and dying people in other cultures, not OK in the U.S. and other Western nations. I have never understood it.
Some administrations even prevented us from seeing flag-draped coffins of Americans coming home from our wars.
If it is dehumanizing to American audiences to show our fellows dead or dying, it's dehumanizing to show anyone. And the issue of access in other countries and not here seems quite rationalized.
38
@Susan Sorry, but I disagree with this. School shooting images have been published here, the Boston bombing... this has nothing to do with “we don’t show images of Americans” (my foot we don’t). This has to do with privilege - the privilege to ignore these things because Americans have cushy little lives and cushy little realities that they don’t like broken with the realities of the hardships of other nations. I am Native American and I am LGBTI. I have seen plenty of deaths involving both of the marginalized groups that I belong to. People need to SEE what is actually happening, or they do nothing but ignore it so they can go on living in blissful ignorance. If those images bother you, get up off your hind quarters, write protest letters, write politicians, write letters to the editor... help raise the profile on this matter, but don’t give those willing to be proactive against injustice guff for doing something about it because the reality of it disrupts your comfort level. Those images bother you? GOOD. I hope they haunt every single person who sees it, until it creates such an uproar, that something gets done. I stand in solidarity with the New York Time, with the victims in Nairobi and with any victim who needs the profile raised against injustice. All my relations.
18
@Trisha Morey We don't need foreign press, through a vile picture, to tell us that the terrorism is demonic. It haunts every single innocent soul by just reading the ordeal in the news. You think it was justified for NYT to publish that picture whilst the attack was still on-going?
6
I've lived in Kenya, Yemen, Iraq and South Sudan and couldn't agree more.
1