Abstract
Pictures emerging from the Middle East have been horrendous.
In the midst of the horror and heartbreak my team still have had a job to do, which has involved covering what is happening in Israel and Gaza as much as possible.
In a democratic society we trust our media to make editorial decisions about what they cover, how they cover it and what they seek to prioritise. We trust editors to make the right calls and to inform us about events in the world without fear or favour.
But sometimes there are other considerations that editors have to make beyond the accuracy of the news. They have to assess the impact of their work and the responsibilities they have to their audience - to inform but not to scare, to educate but not to traumatise. We need them to make these decisions so we are informed and that truth and media freedom is there rather than propaganda and misinformation.
This is an issue for Index too. Index typically focuses on the written word. For over 50 years we have provided a platform to publish the words of dissidents and a place to contextualise the news stories of the day, where freedom of expression is systematically undermined. But with each of these news and opinion pieces usually comes an image and my team spends hours trying to make sure that the right image is aligned with each contribution we’ve commissioned.
Every so often however the sheer horror of events leads us to debate internally what images we should expose our readers to and how we protect our staff who have to look at each and every image before we publish. And the reality is that this is an issue for every newsroom around the world on too regular a basis. They have to assess the impact of their work and the responsibilities they have to their audience. Should we publish the images of dead babies? Of women being raped? Of mutilated bodies? Every conflict leads to the same questions - what do we need to see, what do we need to know and most importantly what do we need to share?
Our last team discussion had varying views. Some said publish but with trigger warnings, so never on the front page of a publication. Others said to exercise extreme sensitivity, avoid images being used for click-bait, to consider the consent around images, especially with children. Still others said we have a moral duty to see, to look and to bear witness. My own opinion was that the last thing in the world we want to do is lead people to be desensitised from the horror of war, so images need to be used carefully and sparingly in order to inform public opinion rather than sensationalise. But there is an onus on all of us to be informed, to understand the consequences of what we are discussing and to appreciate the nuance and horror that sometimes can only be expressed by an image.
This is all the more important because there are always people who thrive off conspiracy theories and right now there are those who are seeking to deny or downplay the scale of what happened on 7 October.
Then in November I was invited to watch the collected evidence of the pogrom, to bear witness. The reports from the survivors and from those who were first responders sit with me every day. And the lies being shared online shake me to my soul. But did I need to see the images? And would it help anyone if I did? I spoke with my family, with journalists who had already seen the images and with my closest friends about what if anything I could or would add if I went to the screening of the raw images. Ultimately I decided I didn’t need to watch. I already know enough to be sickened and heartbroken. Which brings me back to how journalists should and do manage these images. Sometimes explaining them is more than sufficient. We don’t always need to see them.