On Wednesday, the Los Angeles Times published two controversial photos. In the grand scheme of things, a newspaper makes thousands of photos public without any hitch, but these two photos are different.
Both pictures were graphic images of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan posing with corpses and dismembered body parts, smiling and laughing for the camera.
The Los Angeles Times should be commended for bringing this issue to light, even in the face of certain criticism.
Military officials strongly objected to publishing the photos. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the media that the pictures could incite violence after they were made public, because insurgents in Afghanistan would take the photos and use them as anti-American propaganda.
Ever since the invention of photographs, the issue of publishing disturbing images has been a major talking point in the world of journalism. When Osama Bin Laden died, news outlets were chomping at the bit for President Obama to release a photo of Bin Laden's body, confirming his death.
Obama rightly decided that putting the pictures out to publish was a bad idea. A few months later, the revolution in Lybia killed its dictator, Muammar al-Gaddafi. Again, the dilemma arose. The images were already public, and papers were tasked with the question of whether or not to put the images in their issues.
Some did, like the UK paper The Guardian, and some didn't. Both sides had good reasoning.
Yet how can that be?
The answer is that nothing is black and white. In all of these situations, the images transcend from snuff to important topics. The Los Angeles Times was right to publish the photos for many reasons, even though what it put out was graphic.
Firstly, a major part of the issue is the fact that the photo exists. Not only does improperly handling the remains of enemies break military regulations, but the soldiers also broke rules by taking pictures with the remains for unofficial purposes.
In essence, the photos are a big part of the wrongdoing, and a story about soldiers posing improperly with dead bodies wouldn't be complete without the actual pictures. Nobody can make a judgment about the content of a photo without actually looking at it.
Also, the LA Times showed a measure of restraint by showing only two of the 18 photos. According to the paper, the remaining 16 were even more extreme than the published two. By not giving out every picture, they show that they're not simply going for shock factor, but trying to accurately report a story.
Critics also contend that if a photo was going to be published, that it shouldn't have been on the front page. That way, at least people who didn't want to see it wouldn't have to look at the image.
The front-page picture, however, was fairly tame and wasn't bloody or gory. It was a soldier laughing in the foreground, with a dead body in the background, and the hand of a deceased insurgent on the soldier's shoulder.
The Internet has changed everything - the media included. In the past, the only people with access to these photos would have been the people of Los Angeles. Now, every person in the world can look, and traditional media has a hard time keeping up.
Every day, papers around the country are facing the problem of publishing offensive content, and we applaud theLos Angeles Times for showing the proper amount of restraint coupled with a fervent dedication to putting out the truth.
