I'd like the panel to discuss the conflict of interest re: the New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner. Bronner's son serves in the Israeli Defense Forces and readers alerted the New...
The Neda video becomes a symbol of Iran's unrest
The gruesome death of a woman is caught on video and quickly become a symbol of Iran's protest. But networks disagreed over how much of the graphic video to be broadcast.
Transcript
A WARNING FIRST ABOUT OUR NEXT
STORY, IT CONTAINS SOME VERY
GRAPHIC VIDEO.
OFTEN A SINGLE IMAGE
SYMBOLIZING A REVOLUTION AND
THAT WAS THE CASE IN IRAN THIS
WEEK AS THE BLOODY MURDER OF
ONE IRANIAN WOMAN BECAME THE
ICONIC MOMENT OF THE UPRISING.
AS THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT'S
CRACKDOWN ON ELECTION PROTESTS
INTENSIFIED, THIS SHOCKING
VIDEO OF A DYING 27-YEAR-OLD
WOMAN GRIPPED THE WORLD.
>> IT'S HEARTBREAKING.
>> THESE 37 SECONDS OF CELL
PHONE VIDEO LAUNCHED A
NEWSROOM DEBATE.
HOW MUCH SHOULD BE BROADCAST.
>> WE MUST WARN YOU, HER
REPORT CONTAINS EXTREMELY
GRAPHIC VIDEO, IT IS
DISTURBING.
>> CNN CAUTIONED VIEWERS, BUT
AIRED THE VIDEO UNOBSCURED.
BUT THE THREE MAJOR NETWORKS
TOOK DIFFERENT APPROACHES.
>> THE HAUNTING IMAGE OF A
YOUNG WOMAN DYING IN THE
STREET HAS NOW BEEN SEEN ALL
OVER THE WORLD.
>> IT THE DEATH OF A SINGLE
IRANIAN STUDENT WHO HAS COME
TO SYMBOLIZE THE REVOLT.
>> THEY BROADCAST THE VIDEO,
EDITING AROUND THE MOST
GRAPHIC PORTIONS, CBS EVEN
FRAMED NEDA'S DEATH WITH TWO
OTHER MOMENTS, TIANANMEN SCARE
AND THE SHOOTINGS AT KENT
STATE UNIVERSITY.
>> ALL THE IMAGES TO EMERGE,
NONHAS GOTTEN MORE ATTENTION
THAN A VIDEO.
>> BUT ABC DID NOT AIR THE
VIDEO, REPORTING THE STORY
THROUGH PICTURES FROM YOU TUBE
AND FACE BOOK.
WORLD NEWS TONIGHT EXECUTIVE
PRODUCER JOHN BANNER TOLD THE
NEW YORK OBSERVER, WE DON'T
SHOW PEOPLE ON TELEVISION AT
THE MOMENT OF THEIR DEATH.
EVEN WHEN THE PICTURES SPOKE
LOUDER THAN THE VOCAL PROTESTS
OF THOUSANDS.
WITH ALL DUE PEEK THE ABC NEWS
AND JOHN BANNER, I THINK IT'S
DEAD WRONG.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU
PLAN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU
INTENTIONALLY SHOW, IT'S
SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED, IT'S
PART OF AND THIS HAPPENED TO
BE A VERY IMPORTANT STORY THAT
HAS A LOT OF OTHER LAYERS,
THERE WAS A DOCTOR WHO WAS AT
THE SCENE THOUGH TRIED TO
REVIVE HER, THEY CAUGHT THE
PERSON THEY THINK PERPETRATED
THIS CRIME, TURNS OUT IT WAS
PART OF THE MILITIA, THEY
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH
THEM.
THERE'S A LOT MORE BEHIND THIS.
IT'S NOT EVEN CLEAR THAT SHE
WAS A PROTESTER.
SUDDENLY THAT BECOMES THE
FOCUS OF IT BY EDING --
EDITING AROUND IT INSTEAD OF
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE
STORY IS, AND THEN THIS
BECOMES THE STORY.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF IMPANELS
THAT PEOPLE FIND REPULSIVE AND
I THINK LOTS OF TIMES
NEWSPAPERS MAKE AN EDITORIAL
JUDGMENT TO WITHHOLD SOME OF
THAT AND CERTAINLY IN VIDEO
THAT OCCURS, BUT THERE COMES A
TIME WHEN A PHOTO OR IMAGE IS
SO HISTORIC AND DRAMATIC AND
SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU CAN'T
EDIT IT, YOU NEED TO SHOW IT
TO HAVE, TO SHOW THE TRUE
IMPACT OF IT.
THINK BACK TO THE VIETNAM, THE
LITTLE GIRL RUNNING NAKED
AFTER BEING ATTACKED BY NAPALM,
IT WAS A HISTORIC IMAGE THAT
IMPACTED THAT EVENT.
KENT STATE, ANOTHER CASE WHERE
THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE GROUND,
BUT IT BECAME A HISTORIC
PHOTO.
IN THIS CASE IT'S VERY
DIFFICULT TO WATCH, BUT IT
MAKES A POWERFUL STATEMENT.
>> TRUTH IS TRUTH.
AND IF WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS
OF TELLING PEOPLE THE TRUTH
ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING, THEN
WE'VE GOT TO DO IT.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT YOU
DON'T EXERCISE EDITORIAL
DISCRETION.
CAN YOU CON RAY THE TRUTH
WITHOUT SHOWING EVERY LAST
FRAME OF THE HORROR?
IT'S INTERESTING, THOUGH, THAT
YOU BRING THIS TOPIC UP,
EMILY.
BECAUSE I WONDER IF STANDARDS
ARE SHIFTING.
HOW MANY YEARS AGO WAS IT THAT
THE BOSTON PHOENIX WAS ROUNDLY
CRITICIZED, I BELIEVE ON YOUR
SHOW, I SAW THE EDITOR OF THE
GLOBE AT THE TIME, MATT STOREN,
CRITICIZING THE PHOENIX FOR
PUTTING A LONG ON ITS WEBSITE
TO THE VIDEO OF JOURNALIST
DANIEL PEARL BEING BEHEADED BY
SAVAGES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
AND THAT IMAGE, WHICH I
WATCHED, MUCH TO MY DISMAY, I
FELT WAS ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT PIECES OF
INFORMATION ABOUT THE NATURE
OF ISLAMO FASCISM AND WHAT WE
WERE UP AGAINST.
BUT MAYBE STANDARDS HAVE
BECOME A LITTLE MORE LAX, I
DON'T KNOW.
>> OBVIOUSLY THIS VIDEO NEEDED
TO BE SHOWN AND I THINK ABC
MADE THE WRONG CALL.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK
THIS VIDEO HAS ILLUSTRATED ONE
OF THE FRUSTRATING THINGS
ABOUT THE COVERAGE IN IRAN,
BECAUSE WE STILL DON'T KNOW
REALLY EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF
IMAGES LIKE THAT.
YESTERDAY I WAS FOLLOWING SOME
TWITTER FEEDS AND CAME TO AN
IMAGE THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY OF A
YOUNG IRANIAN PROTESTER WHO
FRANKLY HAD BEEN SPLIT OPEN
WITH AN A DP BY ONE OF THESE
MILITIA MEN, AT LEAST THAT'S
WHAT WE WERE TOLD.
WE DON'T KNOW.
THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A
4-YEAR-OLD PHOTO FOR ALL WE
KNOW.
I WAS A HORRIBLE IMAGE, AND IF
I WAS WHAT WE WERE TOLD IT WAS,
IT CERTAINLY TELLS US
SOMETHING IMPORTANT.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS.
AND THAT'S BEEN THE CASE WITH
A LOT OF THIS.
NOBODY'S FAULT, EXCEPT THE
REPRESSIVE FORCES IN IRAN WHO
WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE NEWS DOESN'T GET OUT.
>> THIS IS A LITTLE CLEAR E
THAN THAT.
THERE WERE EYE WITNESSS.
AND THE BBC GUY WAS RIGHT
THERE SO, THERE WERE EYE
WITNESSS.
BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY DIDN'T
KNOW WHY SHE WAS KILLED,
WHETHER SHE WAS A PROTESTER OR
NOT.
>> AND AS RECENTLY AS THIS
MORNING, NPR WAS REPORTING
THAT WE STILL DON'T REALLY
KNOW WHO SHOT HER.
>> THAT'S TRUE.
>> I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH
YOU.
I THINK THIS IS A REAL MISTAKE,
NOT ONLY ON THE PART OF ABC
WHICH MOST HEAVILY EDITED THIS
AND ONLY FREEZE FRAMES, BUT
ALSO ON THE PART OF NBC AND
CBS WHICH DID NOT SHOW IT
UNCUT.
THERE IS A CERTAIN TRUTH OF
WAR, OF CONFLICT, AND TO BE
HONEST, ON ANY OF THESETATIONS
ON ANY NIGHT YOU CAN HE
BLOODIER IMAGES ON CSI MIAMI,
ON GRAY'S ANATOMY.
ON E. R., THERE'S BLOOD ALL
OVER THE PLACE.
PEOPLE'S HEARTS BEING OPENED
UP.
SO THE NOTION THAT THE VIEWERS
OF ABC, NBC AND CBS CANNOT
HANDLE BLOOD IS RIDICULOUS.
>> I WAS AT ABC WHEN THE
SOLDIER WAS DRAGGED THROUGH
THE STREETS, THAT HORRIBLE
SCENE IN MOGADISHU, IT WAS A
NAKED GUY BEING DRAGGED
THROUGH THE STREETS, YOU COULD
SEE EVERYTHING.
I SAID THIS IS WHAT THEY DID
TO THE GUY
>> IN THE ARAB WORLD THIS IS
BEING PLAYED ON SATELLITE
STATIONS UNCUT AND BEING SHOWN
IN IRAN OVER THE PROTEST OVER
THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT, BUT
IT'S STILL BEING CAUGHT ON
SATELLITE IN IRAN AND THAT IS
WHY PART OF THE REASON THESE
PROTESTS ARE BEING FUELED.
SO IF WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND
WHY THE IRANIANS ARE SO UPSET,
WHY PEOPLE ARE OUT IN THE
STREETS PROTESTING, I FEEL
LIKE WE SHOULD SEE, JUST AS
YOU SAID IN TERMS OF VIETNAM,
AND I THINK OF THE OTHER
PICTURE TOO WITH THE BOY
CRINGING ABOUT TO BE SHOT,
HAVE YOU TO SEE WHAT'S GOING
ON IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHY
PEOPLE ARE SO UPSET.
>> ALL RIGHT.
AGREED.






Comments
This evening's piece reminded me of some research I did on broadcast ethics and local news. I interviewed a local network affiliate anchor who explained that there was an important ethical distinction between showing the faces of local people dying or dead and showing the same images of someone thousands of miles away was somehow okay. During the interview the justification was that local people and relatives would be upset if their son or daughter was shown in local news. In today's news media is it still true that the news media need not be concerned that a relative of Neda being upset as these images are posted around the world? I would suggest there is a moral problem with the ethical justification of distance. It is either okay to show graphic images local and international or it is okay to show neither. Otherwise some observers may conclude that a life (as portrayed by the images) in a foreign country is somehow worth less than a local life because it was okay to show a dying foreigner. As you said on the program it would not be okay to show a Boston native in similar circumstances.. I find this question of ethics at a distance interesting now as I did twenty years ago when I first heard it.
This evening's piece reminded me of some research I did on broadcast ethics and local news. I interviewed a local network affiliate anchor who explained that there was an important ethical distinction between showing the faces of local people dying or dead and showing the same images of someone thousands of miles away was somehow okay. During the interview the justification was that local people and relatives would be upset if their son or daughter was shown in local news. In today's news media is it still true that the news media need not be concerned that a relative of Neda being upset as these images are posted around the world? I would suggest there is a moral problem with the ethical justification of distance. It is either okay to show graphic images local and international or it is okay to show neither. Otherwise some observers may conclude that a life (as portrayed by the images) in a foreign country is somehow worth less than a local life because it was okay to show a dying foreigner. As you said on the program it would not be okay to show a Boston native in similar circumstances.. I find this question of ethics at a distance interesting now as I did twenty years ago when I first heard it.
I was struck by ABC's contention that they "don't show the moment of a person's death" and wondered if they've ever shown the Zapruder film. John Keller echoed my own thoughts vis a vis the hypocrisy most all of them have shown by showing the Neda video, but being holier-than-thou with regard to the Daniel Pearle video. Like John Keller, I went to the Phoenix at the time and followed their link to the video. I ever meet a similar end, I want all Americans to watch it, to better understand what we're up against.
Hi Jim
ST: Customers / Citizens Complaining
Gee I feel like JoeS with my next comment, or maybe Jon.
The real problem for the news outlets isn't ethics it is customer and citizen complaints.
Get an Obit wrong, or a sports event and there is Hell to Pay. Like Dante The first Hell is the TIME it takes just listening to the abuse from your customers.
In a perfect world, which I would like, you are correct.