'We Have an Obligation to Show You Reality'


David McCumber, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer managing editor at the center of the storm over his paper's refusal to publish photos of two men the FBI was seeking to identify and locate as part of an investigation into possible terrorist threats to the Seattle-area ferry system, once justified his paper's publication of a photo to readers by saying the paper "did it because we have an obligation to show you reality."

The photo in question came from the Indonesian tsunami tragedy. McCumber wrote about it on the paper's website.

In order to fully inform, must we occasionally disturb? I believe so. While we are always cognizant of readers' sensibilities as we weigh such decisions, news photos carry their own truth -- they document, verify, give us the information we need to judge an event. That information is not always pleasant. I've written before of the power of the images of the dead protester at Kent State, the napalmed little girl in Vietnam. Society needs such images to be able to process its own history.

To those readers who were offended, I am sorry we caused you pain. To the rest of you, who were horrified at the tragedy but accepted our obligation to report it, thanks for your understanding.

McCumber was right, then. But this week, he allowed political correctness and a fear of offending Seattle's Muslim population keep him from running photos of two men whom he thought appeared to be Arab. Mind you, the FBI did not single out the men because they looked a certain ethnicit, but because their behavior was suspicious.

McCumber didn't want to offend people, so he didn't run the pictures.

In order to fully inform, must we occasionally disturb? I believe so. While we are always cognizant of readers' sensibilities as we weigh such decisions, news photos carry their own truth -- they document, verify, give us the information we need to judge an event.

That's what the FBI was asking the media help it to do - give readers information they could use to help the FBI "judge an event," and find out if the men represent a danger or not.

McCumber says the P-I had an "obligation" to publish the tsunami photo. But this week he denied the paper has any obligation to help law enforcement - "we get to decide what is news and what isn't," he said. But what about 'we have an obligation to show you reality'?

Reality in Seattle this week is that the FBI is so interested in finding the two mystery ferry passengers that it took the highly unusual step of releasing the photo to the public.

And yet the P-I attempted to shield the people of Seattle from that reality - by refusing to run the photos, out of a misguided sense of political correctness that took precedence over the safety of the people of Seattle.

—Bill Hobbs is author of Who Is Fred Thompson, a blog-centric look at the presidential candidate.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Typical Seattle P-I

I'm not surprised at all that the Seattle P-I would bend over backwards to try and not offend Muslims and print the photos of the men wanted by the FBI for questioning.  Now if the suspects had been "two Christian graduates of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University" then the P-I not only would've printed their pictures but they'd run daily stories to find the Christian troublemakers. 

If this thinking weren't so

If this thinking weren't so dangerous, I would laugh instead of cry.

Their inconsistencies have become absurd.  Just like Mark Steyn talks about in America Alone.  The NYT didn't publish the Mohammed cartoons because they didn't want to be insensitive.  A few days later they publish the picture of the infamous crucifix in urine.  Their lies have become so transparent.  If it were another time in history (i.e. no War on Terror) this circus would be entertaining.

Thank heaven the Seattle

Thank heaven the Seattle Times had the backbone to publish them. As noted in the item here yesterday, they got grief from the CAIR community for not "consulting" with Muslim leaders in the community before publishing the photos.

Since when do certain "leaders" have veto power over what goes in the newspaper? The Times stood its ground, saying they didn't consult the Muslims because they didn't know if the men WERE Muslim. Frankly, I think the Muslim leaders looked bad, because it was THEY who assumed the men were Middle-Eastern.

From the Times story: (My comments in brackets)

The FBI didn't take the photos of the two men to the
Arab- and Muslim-American community because the agency doesn't know if
the men are Middle Eastern, Gomez added.
"That seems potentially
prejudicial to me, and in some ways worse than simply putting [the
photos] out the way we did," Gomez said. "It is not us saying these
guys look Middle Eastern."

[Exactly right....it is the Muslim "leaders."]

Zawaideh countered: "They're not saying these men are Arabs, but insinuating they are."

[Um, how??? by NOT showing the pictures to the Arab-American "leaders"?]


She doesn't give any evidence of that insinuation

(emphasis added throughout.)

 

It's a lose-lose situation. They either consult the Muslims or not, but still get accused of prejudicial profiling. They might as well do what they know is right.

 

You're right. No win.

Imagine the outcry if they HAD "consulted," and then a day or so later a couple of Mexican dudes who are into large ferryboat design turned themselves in to the FBI, which then let them go...It's impossible to tell the origins of these men by the photos I've seen, and so far all we know is that they're curious and maybe a bit suspicious, but we DON'T yet know for sure if they're hostile.

I'm curious about the parts of boats I'm on that I can't go on/in, and that doesn't make me a threat to anyone's boat, it just makes me curious about watercraft/engines/etc.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Fear is the main reason for not publishing the photos

Fear of offending the Muslim community, fear of offending CAIR, fear of protests and of course fear of violence directed against the paper's employees.  Let's face it Fear is the reason that US papers didn't publish the Mohammad cartoons last year.

rbm

it think it is mostly fear that a good dose of reality will lead to conservative victories in the upcoming elections.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

They won't publish the Opus cartoons either

Fear, fear and more fear from our brave MSM.

What is a P-I anyway?

Could somebody tell me what exactly is a "post-intelligencer"?

I know James Taranto has defined it as "being as intelligent as a post," but perhaps we could find a couple scientific studies of how posts are becoming super intelligent due to the inexorable march of global warming (and penguins). 

<insert witty signature here>

Didn't make sense

Perhaps my last posting above didn't make much sense, but give me a break as I am working within the standards of the P-I's editorial board here.

 <insert witty signature here>

we are efforting to answer

we are efforting to answer your post-intelligencer question, perhaps it has something to do with after-smarting?

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts