Sites handle Saddam’s sons’ photos differently

Most major news sites published warnings and forced viewers to click through to see the graphic photos of Saddam’s dead sons. BBC News Online, CBSNews.com and Foxnews.com all published the photos as lead art on their cover. The New York Times linked directly to the photos from the cover but gave no warnings, and also put the photos directly on the story with no warning. Nearly every site published the photos. What was the right approach? Should sites have published warnings and forced readers to click to see the graphic images? Post your comments in our discussion area.

The Christian Science Monitor didn’t run the photos online or in print. “Often, when you have to put those warnings up, it’s a real question of whether you need to do it at all,” Karla Vallance, managing editor the Web site for The Christian Science Monitor told The Associated Press.

Related CyberJournalist.net headline: “Slate warns readers of explicit slide show”

And click for a more complete list of which sites ran the photos and which ones didn’t…


Most major news sites published warnings and forced viewers to click through to see the graphic photos of Saddam’s dead sons. BBC News Online, CBSNews.com and Foxnews.com all published the photos as lead art on their cover. The New York Times linked directly to the photos from the cover but gave no warnings, and also put the photos directly on the story with no warning. Nearly every site published the photos. What was the right approach? Should sites have published warnings and forced readers to click to see the graphic images? Post your comments in our discussion area.

Related CyberJournalist.net headline: “Slate warns readers of explicit slide show”

Here’s a list of what major news Web sites published the photos of the bodies of Saddam’s sons, and where, that Steve Yelvington posted to Poynter’s Online News e-mail list (with a few additions)

Used on home page
CBS News
Providence Journal
BBC News
The Telegraph, UK
The Guardian, UK
The Times, UK
The Independent, UK
El Mundo, Spain
El Pais, Spain
Die Welt, Germany
Al Jazeera
AP’s Custom Wire service
Boston Herald

Used inside
MSNBC.com
CNN.com
ABCNews.com
FoxNews
USA Today
NYTimes.com
WashingtonPost.com
LATimes.com
ChicagoTribune.com
SFGate.com
SeattleTimes.com
StarTribune.com
All KnightRidder network sites
All Morris communications sites
NJ.com
NOLA.com
Dallas Morning News
AJC.com
Le Figaro
Jerusalem Post

No photos
Christian Science Monitor
International Herald Tribune
Boston Globe

July 24, 2003 by
Filed Under: General News

COMMENTS

  • Rebecca

    I think it’s appropriate to post warnings, and I’m surprised that some sites didn’t. Not everyone wants to see those pictures, and people should certainly have a choice. And because children are viewing these sites, I think there’s almost a duty to give a warning before showing explicit pictures of dead people.
    On a side note, I think news organizations should always be very skeptical and cautious when the U.S. government gives them information to publish. In this case, I think the pictures were newsworthy. But the media must question what the government’s motives are in releasing these pictures — after all, we haven’t seen similar pictures of dead Iraqi or U.S. or British soldiers, or dead Iraqi civilians. So while I think publishing these photos is the right thing to do, news organizations should also explore and write about what the government’s agenda in publicizing these photos, and give people fair warning before inflicting gory pictures on them.

  • Martin Burack

    There was no useful purpose in publishing the photos of the dead men, in print, or on TV, or on a web site (especially on the home page). It was very unprofessional.
    Martin Burack

  • Kay

    I think it is highly appropriate to post warnings I firmly believe that there is no reason to have posted the photos in the first place.

    The citizens of the world are exposed to way to much graphic violence already. Our youth are hardened by the sight of it, and as a consequence violence is on the rise.

    Good, the sons are dead, it is time that the media *and* internet sites stop posting autopsy photos, pictures of the dead, et al!!! This race to see who can post the most graphicly accurate pictures must stop. Instead, go back to accurate reporting, with the use of proper English (or what ever language is being used)

    Show some positive news instead!!

    Good for the Christian Science Monitor, International Herald Tribune and Boston Globe who didn’t subject their readers to those photos!

  • Cody

    I can’t believe anyone in the news business could say there is no purpose behind publishing the photos. The death of Saddam’s sons is only the biggest news of the year. Instead let’s run more photos of celebrities kissing celebrities because that is WAY more important. Come on people. We are in the news business. I applaud all those news outlets who didn’t let those with rose coloured glasses dictate what is news and what isn’t. It’s about time.

  • Cristina C.

    I haven’t seen any of the photos, and I don’t intend to. Perhaps because of this, people might not take my opinion seriously, but I know that publishing photos of Saddam’s sons is useless, because it’s not like we see them and think, “oh! what they say is true! they ARE dead!” My point is that we don’t need to see those pictures for confirmation of their death. Or if that’s not the reason, what is? Is it so that we can solicit Americans to say, “GO, AMERICA!!!” ?