In May of 1991, news publications all across the country were challenged with the publication of the graphic content of the year’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photos. Consisting of six shots captured by freelance photographer, Gregory Marinovich, the still clips displayed a mob savagely murdering a man suspected of being a spy and were made available by the Associated Press. Of 57 U.S. newspapers surveyed, 24 ran the gruesome detailed images of burning and stabbing.
In regards to graphic content in news media, in class we learned three questions must be asked: What do viewers need to know? How much detail is necessary for the viewers to get the essential truth of the news? And how much hard can journalists justifiably cause in the pursuit for truth?
Though this case was over two decades ago, the plight of managing graphic content in the news media is more prevalent than ever. There is a power struggle between wanting the most viewers and what may be ethical, and it is a test of the news organization to decide what is more important. But this isn’t simply black and white; according to the study, 17 of the 57 newspapers published some of the less violent images, but nonetheless published.
This struggle of graphic content is nothing new, trailing its prevalence as early as the Vietnam War. The biggest players in the increase of graphic content? Technology and minimal censorship (Cookman 132). Both technology and minimal censorship still play a major role in today’s news media, especially with such a pervasiveness in freelance photojournalism.
There are tests to determine the nature of graphic content, including the “Breakfast Test”, measuring the acceptability and offense of images. But according to Minneapolis Star Tribune photo editor during the 1991 Pulitzer image debacle, Mike Zerby, the test is aging.
“The standard line is ‘we don’t bleed on your eggs.’ But I think at this particular newspaper we’ve grown past that,” said Zerby.
And that was in 1991. Decades later, the test itself is becoming more and more irrelevant against graphic content management. But important standards still apply: Do the viewers need to know? Though I don’t outwardly campaign for graphic content, it is also to reflect the truth in the news, even if that means it is not pretty. If it will ultimately benefit society in part of the nature of its content, I do think some graphic content could be published.
But this is all in context, and in this case the nature of the images was that they were Pulitzer, and that in itself provided some magazines with justification. As one photo editor put it, “it’s no longer graphic- it’s the Pulitzer”.
At the end of the day, it’s all about balancing the public interest, personal ethics and everything in between. That’s the meaning of good journalism.
Works Cited
“Archive » A Picture of Controversy » Ethics Cases Online.” Ethics Cases Online RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
Bugeja, Michael J. Living ethics: Across media platforms. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.
Cookman, Claude. “American Photojournalism.” Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.