Hurricane Katrina and the London Bombings Reopen the Debate on Just How Graphic Television Should Be in Reporting Such Stories

Philip M. Stone September 5, 2005

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words. But in this instance it was the words. Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard told the world via Meet the Press in these simple words, with tears streaming down his face, what Katrina was all about:

“The guy who runs this building I'm in, emergency management, he's responsible for everything.  His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, 'Are you coming, son?  Is somebody coming?'  And he said, 'Yeah, Mama, somebody's coming to get you.  Somebody's coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Wednesday.  Somebody's coming to get you on Thursday.  Somebody's coming to get you on Friday.'  And she drowned Friday night.  She drowned Friday night.“ And with that he broke down completely.

A little while later on BBC World came the pictures. US Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana gave a helicopter description of what she was seeing below in St. Bernard Parish. She said there had been 68,000 people living there and she showed that every home was under water up to its roof, above attics. She shuddered when she thought what emergency crews might find in every house once the water had receded.

She carried on in a similar vein describing heroics by sheriff’s officers in evacuating the jail in New Orleans itself and then it just became too much – with the camera focused on her she said if she heard anyone else complaining against local officials she would physically hit them, and then she just broke down into tears. How often do you see a US Senator in tears?

Television’s coverage of Katrina has shown everything ranging from politicians and government officials openly weeping, bodies floating in flooded streets, covered bodies lined up on the sidewalk to the mundane such as chairs with large round holes cut in the middle to enable toilet facilities. But there were things they didn’t show, like the rats gnawing at bodies, a family of four floating head down in their living room, or bodies that did not have their faces covered.

And how was it decided what we did and didn’t see? It’s down to a matter of “taste” and that word has always been conservatively defined under American television guidelines, but this week it was being redefined more liberally by the minute.

But there still seems to be a big difference in what US television shows of Americans suffering tragedy and the suffering experienced, for instance, by Asians in the Tsunami. Then American television showed images of grieving mothers kneeling at the their children’s bodies, and there were bodies laid out at temporary morgues and the like. Those types of pictures haven’t been seen so far for Katrina. There seems to be a different definition for “respect for the dead."  Is there one rule for something that happened outside the US and another rule for what happens to Americans in America? Probably.

American networks made specific decisions not show, for instance, such video as a head buried in trash, or corpses with their faces shown. The questions asked then and that will forever be asked is just how much is necessary to tell the story?  In truth US broadcasters “pushed the envelope” with Katrina to an extent not seen before in covering an American tragedy; emotion and anger had started to take hold of some editorial decisions. 

But those who deal with ethics questions ask what another picture of a dead body, especially a very graphic image, actually adds to a story. Where is that fine line between necessity and sensationalism?

In Europe we are used to seeing more graphic images of tragedy in our news coverage although the same questions are asked about what tells the story and what is not really necessary. And there are limits. For instance, the BBC was taken to task for showing live a man being resuscitated on the day of the London bombings, July 7.

“BBC News regrets that it broadcast live television pictures of a man being resuscitated following blasts in central London. In out attempt to provide our audiences with as much information as quickly as possible, we showed images by accident which we appreciate could have been distressing for some viewers. We will not be showing those images again,” the BBC said in a statement.

As the viewing numbers double and triple for US television’s Katrina coverage, advertisers are staying with the story. Usually on such a story advertisers do not like being associated with tragedy and for 9/11 for instance all commercials were pulled. But viewers seem to understand someone has to pay for the coverage and the advertising model is OK.

But there are advertising sensitivities on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK on the day of the London bombing ITV ran an ad in its lunchtime newscast from an insurance company showing a woman asking, “Have you made a plan for the future? If not you should do it now. The unexpected could be just around the corner and when it happens it will be too late.”

The Advertising Standards Authority told ITV – which did not argue the point and was sincerely embarrassed that it had happened – that the ad “ought not to have been shown at such a sensitive time when many people would be more aware of their own mortality.”

At least the ABC network in the US understands that. It has withdrawn promos for a new disaster-theme series. It begins with a hurricane. 

ftm Follow Up & Comments