Study: Media Self-Censored on Iraq

By Joe Strupp, Editor & Publisher. Posted March 18, 2005.

Many media outlets self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion because of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content, according to a survey of more than 200 journalists by American University's School of Communications.

The study, released Friday, also determined that "vigorous discussions" about what and where to publish information and images were conducted at media outlets and, in many cases, journalists posted material online that did not make it to print.

One of the most significant findings was "the amount of editing that went into content after it was gathered but before it was published," the study stated. Of those who reported from Iraq, 15 percent said that on one or more occasions their organizations edited material for publication and they did not believe the final version accurately represented the story.

Of those involved in war coverage who were in newsrooms and not in Iraq, 20 percent said material was edited for reasons other than basic style and length.

Some 42 percent of those polled said they were discouraged from showing photographic images of dead Americans, while 17 percent said they were prohibited. Journalists were also discouraged from showing pictures of hostages, according to 36 percent of respondents, while only 3 percent reported being prohibited from showing them.

American University professors M.J. Bear and Jane Hall conducted the survey of 210 journalists from the United States and other countries, who completed the anonymous, online questionnaire in September and October 2004.

The study surveyed reporters, photographers, producers, and managers involved in their organization's coverage of Iraq. News personnel were e-mailed a link to the online survey; only those who completed all questions were counted in the results.

Some 35 percent of respondents, 73 people, reported being in Iraq or in a surrounding country during the war and its aftermath. About half that group said they were embedded with the U.S. military during all or part of their coverage.

Nearly one-third of news outlets used their Web sites to disseminate materials that were not first published or broadcast elsewhere by the organization, the survey said. In most cases, the Web sites were used not to run material censored from print but to take advantage of the virtually limitless space the Net offers for photographic essays, extended interviews, and behind-the-scenes reporter accounts.

Although the questions covered events from the beginning of the war through September 2004 – the first 15 months of the occupation – it focused primarily on decision-making during major events such as the release of the Abu Ghraib prison photographs and the images showing the deaths of four American contractors in Fallujah.

Respondents said several incidents sparked newsroom debates concerning the impact of publishing graphic photographs or detailed information about death and torture. In most instances, news managers self-censored coverage by choosing to run less-graphic images or putting details inside the paper and not on front pages.

The survey also included dozens of comments from respondents, offering specific incidents of censorship or lengthy discussions about coverage.

"As with any death, we tried to make sure the pictures were as 'tasteful' as possible – not much blood or gore," one anonymous respondent wrote. "We ran a front page picture of the four dead contractors in Fallujah, for instance, but from a greater distance than some newspapers, so the bodies were not immediately distinct as corpses. Even so, we drew a large amount of criticism from readers."

Wrote another: "We published a press release issued by the kidnappers of American Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia, which included images of his beheading. It was hotly debated in the newsroom and resulted in dozens of e-mails, letters and phone calls from readers around the country; surprisingly, all but a handful approved of our use of the images, we published an editor's note on Page 1 warning readers of the images on an inside page. The photos were run in black-and-white, far smaller than actual size."

Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »