Abu Ghraib Photos: Issues in Media Ethics - Essay Example

?Abu Ghraib Photos: Issues in Media Ethics of This paper is a conference-length case study examining a recent or historical issue of media ethics. The particular historical issue of media ethics that it will discuss is a case study Abu Ghraib Photos. This case involves media ethics and professional practice in which media practitioners leaked out information perceived to be injurious to the public. Under media ethics, there are rules and regulations that media practitioners should always use as a guide in their line of duty (Wilkins2009). However, sometimes there may be issues that media professionals may perceive differently. Holding varying opinion is a common thing in everyday life due to different ways through which people tend to interpret circumstances. The Abu Ghraib Photos case study is one such case in which different media houses and media companies hold such divergent opinions. This is especially so given that the whole circumstance was a serious issue that touched on foreign policy and incursion into a foreign country. This paper will discuss media ethics in relation to this case. Introduction While the media have the power to collect and disseminate information, the same clause that empowers them to do so also charges them with doing that in an acceptable manner. They do disseminate information under the provisions of certain rights. Indeed many constitutions of democratic societies around the world guarantee the freedom and liberty to expression of one’s opinions, views, thoughts and expression as one of the fundamentals principles. The constitution assumes that it guarantees such liberties for overall good of the society in general. A society in which no one will subject another person to what denies the person fundamental necessities as a human being. As one may notice, media are one of the watchdogs that have been actively fighting for the rights of people. Such are people whose liberties and freedom are under threat of excesses of authorities. The authorities wield considerable powers enough to infringe on people rights, for instance freedom of expression. It would also be right to observe that one of the fundamental roles of journalism in general is to furnish people with news as they happen (Crook, 2010). The nature of journalism is so close to the inquisitive Socrates pattern. A journalist will, therefore, ask the following questions and attempt to find out the answers. Who did what? Where did he/she carry out the act? When did he/she do the act? How did he/she do the act? Why did he/she act in such a direction? In addition to asking such questions, journalism and media practice may require that a journalist critique whether one can justify the behavior (Smith, 2011). All news that the media broadcast to the people should be information on matters that they deem to be of public interest. Nevertheless, the media should always do that in a manner that is fair and unbiased. Such information should also be accurate and in a decent language. Probably, the fact that Universal Declaration of Human Rights gave people the right to receive and disseminate information is a factor that has complicated the understanding of media ethics especially when it comes to responsible media practice (Wilkins2009). One will appreciate that freedom of expression is a noble provision in constitutions and the Human Rights charter. However, there is a need to apply that freedom, as guaranteed in legal documents, in a manner that will always bring harmony and peaceful co-existence amongst societies and groups of people. It is in this regard that I find it particularly appropriate to assess issues to do with media ethics by taking Abu Ghraib Photos as a case study. The Abu Ghraib Photos In the year 2004, scandalous pictures of US soldiers mistreating prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq met the world’s attention with shock and awe. The photos drew mixed reactions from the Arab world and other sections of human rights groups and organizations. The ethical concern is whether one can justify the media’s decision to include photos in their reports. This is because many people perceived that the photos were gruesome and had a higher probability of provoking hard feelings and even violence. The media also have a duty to make sure that whatever they publish or convey, as information, should not content that can result into public unrest or civil disorder (Upshaw, 2006). The stakeholders in the above case study are the media, US government, Iraqi government and Iraqi people, Iraqi soldiers, US soldiers, human rights groups, the Arab league and the United Nations. Each of these categories has some stake in the publication of the news. The above stakeholders represent different sub-cultures. The first subculture that one can notice is the culture of religious intolerance of fundamental Islamists towards Christians. For a long time, Muslims and Christians have had unresolved religious conflict that traces back to the times of Ishmael and Isaac. The fact that US soldiers (perceived to be Christians) were the ones involved in the torture case against Iraqis (Muslims) made Arab states approach the issue from a religious perspective. Many Arab states condemned the matter in what one may also perceive as predominantly on religious grounds more than on ethical concerns. It is a common practice in the Arab world for the majority of the population to view Western countries as infidels. Whenever leaders desire to get support from the masses, they just needs a religious coating on the matter to succeed. This is not to imply that what the US soldiers did is justifiable, but just to analyze the conflict with regard to cultures involved the whole scenario brought. I maintain that the act itself is not acceptable especially in the modern warfare where Geneva Conventions provide guidelines on how to handle prisoners of wars. Under Human Rights Charter, the document provides that no should subject another person to inhuman treatment in any way whatsoever. This charter protects everyone irrespective of one’s affiliations and doctrines. Under the Geneva conventions, the cheater provides the in which all states should conduct themselves in the event of an armed conflict. It acts as an International Humanitarian law and legal document. The United Nations plays a crucial role into seeing that all countries abide by the provisions of the document. Whenever there are incidences in which it appears that a country violates the provisions of the document, then such acts call for United Nation’s indulgence. Therefore, the U.N represents a culture of human rights protection. The stakeholders stand to gain or lose indifferent measures. The United States lost international confidence considerably especially that the torture of victims was a serious violation of human rights. Her policy on human protection also came into question as additional concerns about Guantanamo Bay prison off the Cuban coast also rose. The incident only served to increase tension and distrust with the Arab world. The media stand to gain slightly on grounds that it played its informative role, but also stands to lose on the basis that it did not observe media ethics (Smith, 2011). Such photos have a higher probability of sparking violence. The media should have omitted publishing the pictures to the public. The scenes were horrible and sensitive especially to the families and relatives of the victims. However, the Arab states probably gained by convincing larger populations of Muslims communities to hate America as a nation. Such defamatory broadcast may probably serve as a basis from which Islamist fundamentalists may convince suicide terrorists to join their anti-US groups. The United Nations stood to lose the credibility on how much it can control mighty powers from violation of human rights. The United Nations, the media and human rights groups stand to represent culture of tolerance and human right protection that US soldiers violated by torturing Iraq’s prisoners of war at Abu Ghraib facility. Since then, the matter has drawn mixed reactions and opinions amongst stakeholders in media practitioners and Human Rights Watch groups all over the world. This event had taken place during the reign of Bush as Commander in chief of American forces. The Fact of the case as it was is that adverse events occurred when US forces were occupying Iraq. That operation was in a bid to flash out Islamic terrorists. Bush administration had perceived that terrorists had refuge in Iraq under Saddam’s protection. The war itself was highly controversial given that the United Nations cautioned against it pointing lack of concrete grounds for such an incursion. United States strongly believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction though there was no evidence to support such claims. When it appeared that the United Nations was no giving a go ahead for the war, US and Britain single handedly invaded Iraq. Consequently, the second Gulf war officially broke out when U.S. and Britain forces invaded Iraq. It is during this time that the US set a prison facility in Abu Ghraib. As the war progressed, U.S. soldiers swept through Iraqi territory, occasionally arresting soldiers whom they took as prisoners of war. Abu Ghraib happened to be one of the facilities in which US soldiers kept Iraqi prisoners of war. According to Geneva conventions, the U.S had a duty to make sure that it treated all the prisoners of war with respect and care. It is from this facility that the media presented evidence of human rights violation (Jacobs, 2007). The media circulated photos over the internet showing US soldiers mistreating Iraqi soldiers that they had captured. The media (New Yorker and Washington Post) portrayed photos of naked Iraqi soldiers subjected to torture by US forces. This was in the form of having the prisoners strip off their garments. Some photos showed the US soldiers huddling the prisoners together and pausing for photos with them. In other photos, the media revealed the soldiers scaring nude Iraqi soldiers with military dogs. One of the photos showed a US soldier holding an Iraqi Soldier with a leather rope tied around his neck. The photos were gruesome. Solving this case was a tremendous challenge for the US government and the Pentagon. The US government launched an investigation into the matter since it drew a lot of public interest. No one can say for sure that the Bush administration launched the investigation out of ethical concerns about US policy or out of wanting to appear to be doing something about the issue. Nevertheless, the fact that the administration responded to the matter was an acknowledgement that something awful was happening. It was also an indication that they were willing to promote ethical behavior by taking an appropriate action. After ordering a full investigation into the matter, the US government tried and convicted one of the perpetrators by the name Charles Graner in connection with the highly aired and publicized images of Torture (Smith, 2011). The Pentagon also looked into the state of affairs the Abu Ghraib prison facility as a response into the matter. Other credible alternatives that the US government could have made would be shutting down the entire facility and releasing the prisoners of war unconditionally. This is because the soldiers had violated the rights of prisoners by subjecting them to actions that are akin to human degradation. The Bush administration also ought to have compensated the victims of abuse. It would have been ethical for the US administration to make an official apology for the Iraqi people. It should have also apologized to the Arab community who interpreted the whole incidence with religious connotations. The US government should have made it clear that there was nothing religious about the incidence. It should have also considered giving an assurance that will deal with future occurrences extremely strictly. To summarize this case, one can observe that the ethical choices made concerning this matter were quite different largely. To begin with, I think it is permissible that the media reported on the Abu Ghraib issue. I also appreciate that the media played their informative role and protection of human rights. Nevertheless, I question the manner in which the media blatantly published photos perceived to be injurious to a section of the public. The photos had a higher probability of stirring emotions of hatred and anger amongst the public. I, therefore, find it nor permissible that the media acted in such direction. Professionalism would require that the media assess possible outcomes any information before making such information public. Other media companies ought not to have run into a frenzy to disseminate the information alongside the photos. The fact that other media companies like the CBS had published the photos was not a signal for them also to publish(Crook, 2010). This area puts the freedom that the law entrust the media with into test. I maintain that the publication of the photos were unethical. This is because such information can so easily endanger the public (Rich, 2009). Ethical practice calls for publication that promotes tolerance amongst members of the larger society. As professionals, media practitioners also have a duty to exercise their freedom with restraint, discrimination of information and balancing. This helps to make sure that the media operates in a way that upholds duties and ethics of the larger society (Gordon et al., 2011). It, therefore, appears that the media decided to publish the information so that they could expose and bring to an end human rights violation in military prisons. Nevertheless, I think that such photos should not have accompanied the news. The media should have censored the photos for the sake of the public. Media professionals should observe media ethics. Such ethics involve honesty, fairness, and duty not to expose people to any form of danger. Media ethics also include observation of general acceptable standards of decency (Wilkins2009). I have learnt from this case that media is not all about receiving information and disseminating it. Very many things come in before making a broadcast. Some of such issues are cultural issues, religious matters and the overall effect on the harmony of the society. Media practitioners have a duty to analyze and evaluate the effect that a broadcast may have on the public. The most salient thing is to consider the interest the public. Media professionalism will be one in which practitioner are sensitive to the feelings of the public about any item of news (Smith, 2011). Practitioners have a duty to make moral decisions in their everyday life. As a media professional, I will be more ethical in my practice by analyzing possible outcomes of situations before rushing to make a publication. This does not imply that I will withhold critical information from the public but that I will be cautious how to go about it. Reference Crook, T. (2010). Comparative media law and ethics. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Gordon, D., Kittross, M.J., Merrill, C.J. and Babcock, W. (2011). Controversies in Media Ethics. New York: Routledge. Jacobs, K. (2007). Netporn: DIY web culture and sexual politics. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Rich, C. (2009). Writing and Reporting News: A Coaching Method. New Jersey: Cengage Learning. Smith, R. (2011). Ethics in Journalism. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Upshaw, J. and Davie, W. (2006). Principles of electronic media. New Jersey: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. Wilkins, L. (2009). The handbook of mass media ethics. New York: Taylor and Francis. Read More