The recent global (and nearly instant) publication of the gruesome photo of Muaammar Gadafi’s body has set off many conversations about the ethics of distributing these kinds of images.
As Reuters described it (and the aftermath of his death), “Muammar Gaddafi’s body, bloodied and half-naked on a filthy mattress in a meat locker, is the latest spoil of war hauled back to Misrata by its exuberant fighters, confident they are Libya’s fiercest revolutionaries.” A bit sensationalistic? Interesting that it’s the lead for the story, and Reuters chooses not to publish the photo here, but to describe it.
The issue of whether to publish a graphic photo has been with us as long as photography. Underlying this issue is of course the decision to take the photo in the first place, particularly while “standing idly by” watching someone suffer. Taken after his death, the Ghadafi photo does not come under this heading, but the point is worth looking at in an ethical context.
Illustrative of the ethical issues surrounding highly disturbing photographs are the incidents of self-immolation (suicide by burning one’s self) by Buddhist monks protesting the Vietnam War. Photojournalists were faced with the decision to take a dramatic photo or intervene and possibly prevent a death.

Generally journalists have not intervened in these cases. The reasoning is interesting. The thinking has often been that the journalist’s obligation is to objectively document the news, and not to be a participant in it. During Vietnam, we were still largely in the era of objective journalism (with some notable exceptions). A photojournalist might have chosen to continue taking pictures rather than intervene in order to maintain objectivity and not interfere with the outcome of a story. It’s a little like a scientist not wanting to influence the outcome of an experiment because of the way the experiment is conducted. (Understandably, some find this a very controversial philosophy.)
Once a graphic photograph, or one with the potential to offend or disturb, is available, there are many considerations in connection with its publication. A journal (online or offline, paper or web site) would consider:
- How newsworthy is the photo?
- Is the photo being published because it adds significant information to the story, or is it done to attract attention or provoke a response?
- Will anyone, such as a relative, be deeply offended by the photograph?
- Is publication of the photograph a violation of the deceased’s religious beliefs?
- Is it typical for the publication to make this kind of image available to readers?
- Will our competitors publish it and will me look uninformed for not doing so?
I suspect there are two reasons for the fascination with Ghadafi’s photo. The first is what we’ll call the “Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia” syndrome. People want proof that evildoers are dead.
In earlier times, the display of the corpse or head of a dead criminal was a big attraction, which would often go on the road, with tens of thousands of people viewing the remains (such as they are).
Here for example is a poster advertising the exhibition of the head of the Mexican bandit Joaquin Murietta, which traveled the country in a jar of alcohol. Note that tickets were $1, a princely sum in 1853, and even without adjusting for inflation, much more than people are paying today to see a picture of Ghadafi.

Another reason for the urge to display the picture of Ghadafi’s corpse is a kind of sick American pride. Whenever a Hussein, or Ghadafi, or some other depraved dictator is finally tracked down, it’s our way of saying, “Look, we got the bastard. You can run but you can’t hide.” It’s understandable that some people want to do this. When someone like this is killed, it is almost an immediate reaction from some quarters that the killing was faked, that the person didn’t really die, that some conspiracy is afoot.
What has happened today, however, defies the laws of traditional journalism. In the Web 2.0 world, we grant tangible reward (likes, pluses, comments, retweets, shares, etc.) for attracting as much attention as possible. Sometimes this attention (unfortunately) is gained by the posting of cat videos, or jokes, or news items of great interest. But other times it is captured through outrageousness, which is one of the driving forces behind the growing troll movement.
Today, traditional news outlets are faced with two sources of competition that might scoop them on a headline: other news outlets and everyone else in the world. So the professional photo editor will probably decide to go with the Ghadafi photo because he/she knows that most competitors will, and millions of Facebook and Twitter users will, so to not publish it would be to opt out of a highly visible and talked about opportunity.
Ultimately, then, the photo of Ghadafi’s grisly corpse is the new journalistic viral video, as “successful” as Rebecca Black’s Friday.
I posted a slightly different version of this piece on Quora.
Tags: Gaddafi, Qaddafi, Gathafi, Ghadafi, Kadafi, Gadafy, photojournalism, ethics, journalism, death, body