Arthur Solomon
Arthur Solomon

Some time ago, I called an editor friend and began the conversation by saying, “Hello, God, are you free for lunch today?” His answer was, “What’s this God business?” “Well,” I responded, “to individuals in my business your decision to publish or not to publish can change a person’s career.”

I recalled that conversation when news reports stated that President Trump had decided to bomb Syria because he was overcome with grief after seeing the suffering of children who were gassed. This brought to mind the debate among news outlets a few years ago regarding whether to publish or televise footage of the beheading of ISIS victims.

In actuality, the question of publishing or televising gruesome incidents in our time is new. For years it was a settled question. After the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War, television has shown the suffering of Japanese bombing victims numerous times. The inhumane conditions of the German death camps were frequently televised. During the Vietnam war, a famous AP photo showed the chief of the national police firing his pistol into the head of a Viet Cong officer on a Saigon street.

There’s no doubt that seeing those incidents in print pubs or on TV are disturbing. But it was the ISIS beheading photos that caused a national debate among journalists, some in favor of publishing and others not. Those in favor of publishing felt that the horrors of beheadings must be made public. Those against were concerned that it would be too disturbing to individuals.

For years, ever since World War I and continuing today, Hollywood and TV have depicted the sufferings of soldiers on the battlefield and prisoners in the German death camps during the Holocaust. That’s fine up to a point, in my opinion, and documentaries on the subject of war are necessary to remind us of the brutality of it. But studios making countless millions from the tragedies are a bridge too far for me. The fact that it’s fiction doesn’t mean the scenes aren't disturbing.

ISIS beheading footage upset a family member who disagreed with me when I said it must be made public. If I was the deciding editor about the decision to publish or not, I would publish. That’s because war is horrific, although sometimes necessary, and I believe the atrocities that happen must not be hidden.

For several years before joining the PR business, I was a reporter and editor. As a young reporter, I was assigned to cover an explosion along the Brooklyn docks that killed 10 people and injured hundreds more. There was a discussion weather a photo of the dead bodies should be published, even though the dead were all covered with blankets. The discussion of publishing gruesome photos is not just limited to war and no doubt goes back to the early days of photo journalism.

If it was my decision, as long as photos accurately add to the story, I would always vote to publish, because I’m a firm believer in not letting the sensitivities of editors decide what will upset their readers. Unfortunately, too often published photos sometime deflect from the facts of the accompanying story. Also, sometimes photos are akin to editorials posing as news pictures. And that is a problem.

As for Donald Trump’s ordering the bombing: I believe he was correct. Evil must be met with force, but it’s his reasoning that puzzles me. His administration gives mixed messages. One day it’s that Assad must go, another day it’s that the U.S. doesn’t want regime change.

Trump owes the American public a more detailed explanation. And he should provide it himself and not let “alternative facts” spokespeople like Kellyanne Conway be the messenger, as she was on Fox’s “Media Buzz” telecast on April 9, where host Howard Kurtz essentially provides a platform for GOP spokespeople.

***

Arthur Solomon was a senior VP at Burson-Marsteller. He now is a contributor to public relations and sports business publications, consults on PR projects and was on the Seoul Peace Prize nominating committee. He can be reached at [email protected]