Here they are, the first awful images of oil-drenched birds from the BP oil spill disaster. CNN and CBS aired some of the most gut-wrenching pictures Thursday evening of shocked pelicans and gulls gasping for air. Meanwhile, BP is running a commercial that includes a bird sitting in what looks like a bubble bath while a worker smiles (33 seconds into the commercial).
I have no quibble with airing that video of the dying birds or publishing the images of oil-covered creatures full-color on the front page, as so many newspapers around the country did Friday. Papers from Hawaii, Alaska, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oregon and Pennsylvania were among those than ran photos of oil-covered birds on their front pages Friday. (You should be aware that some of these images, if you haven’t seen them already, are fairly disturbing.)
Learn from these images in your newsroom
I suggest that newsrooms take a few minutes to scroll through these images and talk about how they would decide to use or not use each one. Why is one image more powerful or illustrative than another? How does your proximity to the story affect the visuals you choose?
Yahoo News published the back story of the bird photos by AP photojournalist Charlie Riedel and noted that we are now seeing these images because the oil is coming ashore after weeks of being at sea.
What comes next?
How should we think about the repeated use of such pictures as the spill spreads across the Gulf Coast in the coming weeks? Let me offer some questions that might guide the decisions. You may have other thoughts, and I hope that you add them to the comment section of this post:
- What is the journalistic purpose of the image/video? What does the image tell me that I would not know without it?
- Are you sure the photos are real? I highly suspect that in the coming days, we will begin to see more “user-contributed” videos and photos of dead and dying animals. What process will you use to be certain that these images are from the BP spill and not some other incident? Have the images been toned, cropped or altered in ways that also alter the truth?
- Will you use photographs or video from BP, the government or from environmental groups? How will you explain the source of the images and the provider’s interest in getting them in front of the public?
- What is the context around this image? Does this one bird represent thousands or hundreds of thousands of birds covered with oil, or is it a fairly isolated problem? You need to explain the context every time you use these kinds of graphic photos and video.
- What is your newsroom’s policy on the use of file images and file video? If the images were newsworthy and defensible on the first day they were captured, how do you justify their repeated use? On television, using the video in teases or promotions or using them repeatedly on 24-hour news cycles may lead viewers to believe that the damage is even more widespread than it is.
- How does the emotional image of a dying animal distract our attention from even larger environmental concerns that are emerging form this spill?
- What is the tone and degree of the usage? Avoid using subjective adjectives that only add more emotion to the already emotion-laden pictures.
- Consider whether you should forewarn the audience if you use these images. Give the public some ability to choose what and how much they see. That could mean using small black and white images on the front page of a newspaper but including larger, more graphic images inside.
Wise Words
Over the years, my thinking about when and how to use graphic and disturbing images have been shaped by some of the wise folks here at Poynter. I asked them for some advice.
Sara Dickenson Quinn, Poynter visual journalism faculty
“How big should you display the image? A larger image gets more weight in the reader’s mind. Size is a way of prioritizing importance. We know from our eyetracking studies at Poynter that larger photographs and headlines attract more attention than smaller ones, and they attract the ‘primary attention.’ In other words, you see those big images first when you come to the page. It says to the audience that you think it is the most important thing on the page. …
“You should remember that photos you put online will stay there. In terms of using photos as file images, you should give dominance to the newest images. If they are illustrative of a certain point, there can be a reason to use an archival picture.”
Kenny Irby, Poynter group leader for visual journalism
“Are we just showing the birds or are we also showing the effort to save the birds? We should also show what people are doing to protect and rescue the birds. Don’t just show dying animals.
“We know that black and white harkens a nostalgic perspective. It also removes a layer of information from the image. Black and white photography has traditionally been viewed as more sophisticated and engaging. It requires the viewers to use their imagination when trying to establish comprehension of the image or event.
“Black and white images are also used as an alternative to minimize harm. In the cases where the birds are bleeding or have been injured in ways that show internal organs, black and white makes it a bit more tolerable. You don’t see the image in the same fidelity that you do in other images.
Bob Steele, one of our ethics gurus, once wrote:
On another occasion, speaking about the use of graphic images, Steele told me:
Go Deeper
NPR explored the issue of when and why to publish graphic images from the Haiti earthquake. (The story features Kenny Irby.)
Irby has outlined the three-part question you should ask before making a tough call about graphic images.
