<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Included in full as original requires
registration:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-warfilm1apr01,1,6351626.story?coll=la-home-headlines">http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/la-fg-warfilm1apr01,1,6351626.story?coll=la-home-headlines</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<H4>NEWS ANALYSIS</H4>
<H1><FONT size=3>Media Are Torn Over the Images</FONT></H1>
<H2><FONT size=3>Gruesome footage from Fallouja forces decisions on taste and
the public's right to know.</FONT></H2>By James Gerstenzang and Elizabeth
Jensen<BR>Times Staff Writers<BR><BR>April 1, 2004<BR><BR>WASHINGTON — Every war
or disaster contains moments that become defining images: a napalmed girl or a
gun to the head in Vietnam, the body of a U.S. soldier dragged through a
Somalian street.<BR><BR>It is not clear whether the 80 seconds of video
Wednesday showing images of charred American bodies being beaten and dangled
from the steelwork of a bridge over the Euphrates River will come to define the
war in Iraq.<BR><BR>But once again, broadcasters and news executives were torn
between a question of taste and the demand to give viewers and readers
information that could affect the course of history.<BR><BR>"War is a horrible
thing. It is about killing," ABC News "Nightline" Executive Producer Leroy
Sievers said in an unusual message to the program's e-mail subscribers
discussing the issues posed by Wednesday's killings. "If we try to avoid showing
pictures of bodies, if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to
go to war again."<BR><BR>On "Nightline," images were shown of the bodies hanging
from the bridge, but several other, even more graphic close-up images were
omitted.<BR><BR>The video from Fallouja on Wednesday was so graphic, so
horrific, that several U.S. television networks held back showing it, wrestling
through the day with just how much to use on their news programs.<BR><BR>Some TV
and newspaper websites, including that of the Los Angeles Times, offered video
from Associated Press of the grisly killings of four American contractors in
Iraq, warning visitors that it contained "graphic, violent images."<BR><BR>The
events Wednesday — and the responses they provoked — were bluntly reminiscent of
the downing of a Black Hawk helicopter in Somalia in 1993, followed by upsetting
images of a slain American soldier being dragged through the streets of
Mogadishu, the capital.<BR><BR>That incident eventually led to a change in U.S.
policy. It was not clear Wednesday whether the graphic video of the deaths of
American civilians would alter public opinion or the prosecution of the war in
Iraq. But that possibility confronted policymakers and news executives across
the country.<BR><BR>White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said that with
such attacks, "the enemies of freedom, the enemies of the Iraqi people, are
trying to shake our will, but they cannot. We will not be
intimidated."<BR><BR>But recognizing the effect that such images have had in the
past, he urged caution and told reporters, "I hope everybody acts responsibly in
their coverage."<BR><BR>The decisions could have a political impact. While
showing the images could erode support for the war, not showing them could have
an opposite effect.<BR><BR>Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based
Project for Excellence in Journalism, said that networks' "sanitization of war
may have helped the administration prosecute the war" a year ago.<BR><BR>During
the height of the war, few pictures of slain American soldiers were shown and
news photographers were not allowed at places where they could shoot images of
coffins being shipped home.<BR><BR>The pictures from Wednesday's attack,
Rosenstiel said, could anger viewers or "engender disenchantment about the
war."<BR><BR>The administration should be acutely concerned about the impact of
images of atrocity against Americans, said Gordon Adams, a former Clinton
administration official.<BR><BR>"Pictures like this are megaphones," Adams said.
"They are megaphones about being an American and being in Iraq. The security
situation in Iraq has not been solved. The policy has ended up making targets of
Americans, and this brings that home."<BR><BR>Mark Gearan, director of
communications in the Clinton White House at the time of the Black Hawk tragedy,
recalled Wednesday how that episode forced a change in policy.<BR><BR>"It was
among the darkest days that the president had, because of the sense of
responsibility of having involved U.S. forces and the horror of what happened,"
said Gearan, president of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva,
N.Y.<BR><BR>Soon after, the United States abandoned its military mission in
Somalia.<BR><BR>During the Vietnam War, Associated Press photographs of a Viet
Cong guerrilla being executed on a Saigon street and of a naked girl burned by
napalm became two of the lasting images of that war.<BR><BR>But with a
generation of experience, news executives Wednesday found the decision-making no
easier.<BR><BR>Los Angeles Times Editor John S. Carroll said that after
considerable debate, "we decided not to use one of the grotesque photographs on
Page 1. Instead, we chose to convey the nature of the event by means of
headlines and a photo that is not so distressing.<BR><BR>"We also decided to run
one of the many photos of the bodies inside the paper," he said. This, Carroll
added, gave readers a choice about how graphic a portrayal they would
see.<BR><BR>Initially, several networks decided, in the words of a Fox News
Channel spokesman, that the video was "too graphic to show on television." But
as the day wore on, some began using some of the more graphic images, even
showing the blackened, barely recognizable bodies hanging from the
bridge.<BR><BR>"It's impossible to tell the story without using some of the
footage, but we will use it judiciously," said Jim Murphy, executive producer of
"CBS Evening News."<BR><BR>Murphy said some of the video was "unbelievably
gruesome," and added, "I don't see what purpose there is to showing
that."<BR><BR>CBS was sent reeling earlier this year by a public uproar over its
Superbowl halftime broadcast, in which pop star Janet Jackson bared a
breast.<BR><BR>On Wednesday, the network's news program electronically blurred
some of the most gruesome images from Fallouja and a reporter said in a
voice-over that the images were "so horrid, we chose not to show you" the worst
of them.<BR><BR>ABC also blurred images of bodies in its evening news broadcast.
A spokesman said the network reviewed the video "frame by frame to decide what
can be used."<BR><BR>At NBC, news executives said they tried to balance the
obligation to present the news with the need to "be sensitive to our
viewers."<BR><BR>"My feeling is we can convey the horrors of this despicable act
without showing overly graphic footage," said Steve Capus, executive producer of
"NBC Nightly News."<BR><BR>"We don't have to show a tight shot of a body on
fire."<BR><BR>CNN began airing increasingly graphic footage as the day wore on
and as the story became more familiar to Americans who had had a chance to view
the video online. A spokeswoman said the network delayed airing more graphic
images earlier in the day to "give the U.S. authorities time to contact the next
of kin."<BR><BR>Whether news executives made the proper decisions may take years
of perspective to determine.<BR><BR>But the real effect of the images on
Americans could be felt just months from now.<BR><BR>"These are the kinds of
pictures that will linger," said John Schulz, dean of Boston University's
College of Communications and a former faculty member at the National War
College.<BR><BR>"They'll be there in November when people go to
vote."<BR><BR>*<BR><BR><I>Gerstenzang reported from Washington and Jensen from
New York.<BR><BR></I></DIV></BODY></HTML>