Standards and such

I think the AP did the right thing in making the picture available since it illustrated, in the starkest terms, the reality of the story that was written. Presumably that's the point of being embedded with a unit to begin with.

The question of whether to publish the photo for editors of the various newspapers that subscribe to the AP is somewhat more complicated. Some of the factors I would grapple with in their position are as follows: Is the photo compelling? Is it, like the best photojournalism, a "good" photograph? Does it aid in telling the story? Do readers benefit?

The photo is certainly compelling, and it does aid in telling the story, but I think it fails on several other fronts. It is not a particularly good photo; the linked Pulitzer photos are, across the board, excellent shots. Artistic and aesthetic considerations are important in photojournalism because they inform some of the other factors examined above. If it just looks like a snuff still, readers are likely to be appalled by the photo and the decision to run it, rather than the circumstances being depicted.

I think in this case, some of the other photos would have served the same purpose as the photo in question. Unlike the WWII and Vietnam photos, it's hard to imagine a casualty photo from Iraq or Afghanistan swaying public opinion. With the fractured and diverse media landscape, images don't have the same impact.

As far as respecting the family's wishes, at the risk of sounding callous, this is really a secondary concern for me. It must be terribly painful to be Bernard's parents, no doubt, but sympathy should never dictate news standards. Fixating on a particular image of the soldier's death seems like missing the point. This is not to say their feelings don't matter. In deciding whether or not to run a photo this should be a consideration, but it should be toward the bottom of the list. But if it doesn't satisfy the higher priorities anyway, there is no compelling reason to risk putting someone in additional pain or pissing someone off.

Ultimately, then, I probably would not have run the photo, but not to spare anyone's feelings or because the Secretary of Defense didn't like it. It would be because it was ultimately a graphic photo without being of high enough quality to have the right kind of impact. It's just not worth it.