Media coverage of the rape of a CBS News correspondent is again in question.
This time the media are being asked to consider what isn’t being shown instead of what is being written.
Lara Logan was gang raped and beaten Feb. 11 while covering a celebration-turned-mob-scene after the resignation of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. I wrote here about Logan potentially being revictimized by the media’s coverage of rape.
Now in question is CNN’s release of a photo of Logan just before the attack. The news network blurred out the faces of the men surrounding Logan, protecting them from identification. You can read more about this decision here.
I’m uncertain about whether I support the network’s decision to blur the men’s faces. I agree that those standing around Logan aren’t necessarily the people responsible for her rape. However, this may further support the argument that it wasn’t necessary to protect them from identification.
What do you think? Should the network have blurred the faces of the men standing around Logan in the photo?
Marcus Sams says
I believe it was ethical for CNN to blur the faces of the men in the photograph. Just as Joseph Schuman said in the CNN article, faces are blurred in videos and photographs constantly. CNN has worldwide distribution of its broadcasted material. CNN “may be particularly sensitive to the consequences for the men, who may have played no role in the assault.” (Schuman, 2011) There is no definite way to know if these men had any part in Logans rape. Tom Rosenstiel said, “These people could be imprisoned, beaten, killed,” Rosenstiel noted. “It’s not always clear what the role of these people is. They could be bystanders. They could be part of the mob. In a still photograph, it’s impossible to know.” If these mens faces were shown and they were identified, there is no telling what the public would do to these men who could be innocent. CNN chose to protect these mens identities by blurring the photograph. This photograph has been broadly distributed, and these mens identities have been revealed, however CNN chose to not take part in exposing their identity. CNN chose to try and protect these men. “I can’t see how you can fault somebody for being overly cautious about putting people in harm’s way,” Rosenstiel said.
Jarred J. says
In a earlier case involving the physical assault of another female reporter, the man suspected was passed down a line where an unknown number of men slapped and beat him. It is certainly understandable to see why CNN chose to blur out the faces of the men; we have our opinions about what punishment should fit such a horrendous crime, however should this [or something worse] have happen to a innocent man it would be tragic as well. To address the accusation that CNN was [tampering] “with the journalistic record without explanation, leaving it to viewers to guess whether the network intended to protect or incriminate the figures in the background”, the picture was not actually a picture of the act and the was an undetermined amount of time between the picture and act. However, many would probably ignore that fact and assume the men in the photo were guilty. Despite being in Egypt, CNN is an American company and they should try to operate int he spirit of the law; all men are innocent until proven guilty. That is guilty in a court of law, not the blogosphere or the “court of public opinion”.
S. Reid says
It is my opinion that all necessary parties must be taken into consideration when deciding on whether or not to release a photo containing clear depictions of faces. Taking that into consideration one must look at both consequences that would follow either act. If the photo should be released and “unblurred” we could rightfully assume that physical violence or slander would more than likely be inflicted against these men as people would make quick assumptions about their involvement in the reporter’s rape. If the photo is not released then these men may remain discreet and safe but the media could be criticized for not doing their job, reporting the news. I believe that blurring the photo could serve as the compromises were the photo only depicts what is necessary. What benefit would it serve the case to clearly depict these men? It seems that it would only result in negative consequences and actions taken against the men but would not advance the case any. Based upon potential outcomes the network made a wise decision in choosing to blur the photo. Anyone that wants to argue that the men should have been clearly depicted should place themselves in the photo and I am certain their decision may change.
thekrg says
I am so proud of you for overcoming your fear of the comment! Good job.
Magean De La Torre says
I find the blurring of CNN’s photograph of Lara Logan to be ethical. I think that a picture is an exploitation of all the men in the photo. We should be able to trust the justice system enough that if the case is serious enough, that they will find the criminals by any means possible. I am sure that any investigative search will be able to view the photo in its original form. Therefore, it is unnecessay for the rest of society to to see, and potentially accuse the other men in the photo. I believe that it would be unethical to put the other potentially innocent men in the picture in harm’s way. The simple fact that they are in close range right before the crime occured, those men could be physically assualted or even killed. I think that if any allegedly innocent men were to be hurled into that position, we would be just as guilty for inflicting pain on other innocent people.