Just a quick note to the fairly large proportion of our readers who also run weblogs. The photographs of Iraqi prisoners being humiliated and tortured are important historical documents, but the faces of those being victimised are not particularly important details. Nothing important is lost by linking to a version of the photographs in which the victims’ anonymity is preserved rather than one in which they are clearly identifiable. While some of the torture victims were extremely nasty people, many weren’t (apparently, many of them had been picked up simply by mistake), and in any case it is not good form to condemn the practice of humiliating prisoners while simultaneously disseminating pictures which increase the humiliation.
The genie is out of the bottle, obviously (thanks to quite scandalous insensitivity on the part of the world’s newspaper), but we can at least show willing ourselves. This will be doubly important, obviously, if and when the currently “secret” (and apparently much more distressing for the victims) photographs become public.
Update: When I rather loftily said above that “nothing is lost by linking to version of the photographs in which the victims’ anonymity is preserved”, I assumed that I’d be able to find such versions pretty easily, but apparently not. I’ve tried all sorts of search terms, but can’t find a single instance of publication of the photos in which anyone bothered to blur the faces. Christ. Did literally nobody stop to think about this last week? Last time I take a holiday.
{ 12 comments }
Tom T. 05.12.04 at 12:56 pm
I had the same thought, and I e-mailed a couple of people at my newspaper. The response in each case was a variant of, “Good point; maybe we should have thought of that.”
gretchen 05.12.04 at 1:54 pm
Perhaps conscientious bloggers could host blurred images themselves.
However, it seems to be a bit pointless if you are linking to articles elsewhere that do reveal faces.
ogged 05.12.04 at 5:11 pm
I’m not willing to make a strong counter-argument, but I will say that the recent picture of the man threatened by dogs owes much of its power to the look of absolute terror on his face. So, in some cases, something is lost by blurring the face.
Timothy Burke 05.12.04 at 5:18 pm
Ogged says exactly what I was thinking: to blur the face of the man threatened by dogs is to give aid and comfort to his torturers–what is written in his face is an eloquent testimony about what is being done to him. It has to be seen.
Andrew Boucher 05.12.04 at 5:19 pm
They tend to blur as a matter of course in France. Maybe try via French Google ?
taak 05.12.04 at 5:38 pm
CNN blurred out the faces when it was on the front page of their site a couple of days ago (can’t find the article).
Backword Dave 05.12.04 at 7:03 pm
There’s a fair number in hoods of course. I think that’s part of the reason the one with the dogs is so powerful.
In the now-(in)famous one with Linndie England with the cigarette in her mouth pointing to some guy’s genitals, everyone but her is in a hood and blurred around the groin area. I doubt anyone could recognise them.
Also the one with the dogs is said to have a second photograph where he is shown bleeding (presumably from a dogbite). It’s actually quite important that we know that he’s the same person, and that he was uninjured when he entered the prison.
While I see your point, remember that this was known months ago (Kevin Drum found a reference to it from March, I think). It was the photographs which have caused the outrage. And maybe they’ll get the torture stopped. I think that’s the issue right now.
Tom Doyle 05.12.04 at 9:21 pm
“While I see your point, remember that this was known months ago (Kevin Drum found a reference to it from March, I think).”
Reports of mistreatment of individuals detained by US officials have been coming out for over two years. Human Rights Watch has published this partial timeline .
“It was the photographs which have caused the outrage. And maybe they’ll get the torture stopped. I think that’s the issue right now.”
Given all the articles that have been written, many which described situations more horrifying than the photos depict, I think the photographs did cause the outrage. I agree that getting the torture-and killing- stopped is the urgent issue right now.
I also feel that faces should not be blurred, because the images of the victims, dead or alive, are more powerful with faces shown.
I’m sure you’ve seen Holocaust photos. I don’t think they would have been and/or would be as effective if the faces had been blurred.
This is not the Holocaust. But the Holocaust largely inspired the rules which the US in this case appears to have violated.
IXLNXS 05.12.04 at 11:23 pm
Blurring the face doesn’t make it personal.
Seeing the face. The fear, shock, horror, pain. These are what makes the image so soul searing as to be remembered for life.
Blurring the faces dilutes the image. Makes it cleaner. Is this really an image we want people to feel comfortable about? Don’t we want people to be shocked and repulsed by blatent acts of burtallity?
But alas. As the images become more frequent. As it becomes main stream news. What becomes of the mindset of the world? When death, and murder are televised events.
Tom Doyle 05.12.04 at 11:52 pm
“But alas. As the images become more frequent. As it becomes main stream news. What becomes of the mindset of the world? When death, and murder are televised events.”
The Bush administration has struggled to keep any images of death out of the main stream news. I don’t think the US or the world are in danger of becoming desensitized. It is bad that these things happened, but since they did, it is good that the images were televised.
Tom T. 05.13.04 at 2:04 am
To those on this thread who support showing the faces: Your points are sound, but you are overlooking the notion that we might obscure the faces on these images not for the comfort of the viewer, but for the sake of the people in the photos. To put it another way, your arguments would support publishing the faces of rape victims, but generally we don’t do that, out of deference to the victim’s dignity.
Dave F 05.13.04 at 10:45 am
Well. We do agree! Thanks for pointing me in this direction (after the Harry’s Place thread) for a rare moment of accord, double D.
The mortified reaction by a freed victim of abuse which I quoted there may be worth a glance for those who argue against Dan’s proposition.
Comments on this entry are closed.