How to Introduce Truly Disturbing Images Online

Lots of very graphic images were published online yesterday and early today of the extreme violence in Fallujah, Iraq, where several American security people were killed and their bodies mutilated by Iraqi citizens. There’s always debate about horrifying images being displayed in media. And it’s increasingly common for news websites to run photos that push the boundaries of acceptability — to publish when other media wouldn’t dare. The argument is that online you can put up a warning that something horrifying is beyond the next click; someone sensitive isn’t going to be surprised to see a disturbing photo as with newspapers and TV.

Where we might want to pay more attention on the web is in how we warn people. Case in point: Washingtonpost.com today has a photo gallery of images from Fallujah. As you click through the photos, on No. 2 you’ll see a boldface warning underneath the caption that reads: “Editor’s note: The next image contains graphic or violent content.” A similar warning introduced the whole package. However, I didn’t notice the warning. The photos were so compelling that I just ignored the captions and clicked through the images — and got to photo No. 3, which was one of the most grotesque images I recall seeing on a news website. It showed several people prodding a badly burned body with sticks. It’s the stuff of nightmares.

Here’s what I might have done differently, to account for people’s viewing patterns and the fact that many people won’t see a warning even though it’s in front of them. (I call that a fact because I’m currently immersed in an eyetracking research project of news websites that confirms this.) After photo No. 2, I would have a separate screen with nothing but a warning: click here to see the grotesque image, or click there to skip it.