Were WTC Photos Necessary?

Were WTC Photos Necessary?

I expected to get mail complaining about an NU editorial decision last weekthat is, the one to run a story about the insurance implications of Janet Jacksons “wardrobe malfunction.”

No such letters were forthcoming (yet). However, we did take some hits for another, much more serious and sensitive mattermy decision to run two pictures of the World Trade Center taken shortly after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 as part of a story on the start of the trial disputing coverage for the loss.

An independent agency principal from Bakersfield, Calif., e-mailed the following: “I was again reminded of the horrible tragedy of 9/11 when I received your Feb. 9 edition. I feel the picture on your cover is insensitive to those who lost loved ones on that day. We continue to go for group grief consulting and the pain is still hard to deal with.

“Couldnt you have used something other than the plane going into the WTC? My wife lost her sister If you only knew how many people are still affected by that black day When I saw the cover picture it brought back that day to me.”

A day later, the following e-mail came in from Foxboro, Mass.: “Although I am a research analyst for the insurance industry, I write to you today as an American citizen. What were you thinking in the editing room for your Feb. 9 issue?

“Frankly, I do not need National Underwriter reminding me in such graphic detail about what happened on Sept. 11, and I am disgusted by your poor taste in pursuit of sensationalism. Yes, the terrorist attack resulted in legal and financial wrangling. However, your photographs were clear reminders of the many people who died painfully that day”

My e-mail response to each of these pained individuals, as well as to any other readers who were troubled or offended, goes as follows:

I am very sorry if our photos caused you any further grief. It is always a difficult call in journalism to balance the sensitivities of victims, their friends and families, and the general public versus the news value of the graphics we use to illustrate our articles.

The decision to run these pictures was not made callously or arbitrarily. My thinking was that in a $3.5 billion court battle over whether the World Trade Center loss was one or two separate events for insurance purposes, it helped to show that one tower had already been hit and was in flames at the time the second plane hit. This is undoubtedly what the jury in the case will be shown as the two sides make their respective cases.

Our offices are across the Hudson River from the WTC site in Hoboken, N.J. On 9/11, standing in the waterfront park up the block from where we edit this magazine, our staff saw the second plane hit and the towers fall. I commuted through that building just about every day for nearly 20 years. I still cannot believe it really happened.

Perhaps journalists seem insensitive after years of dealing with disasters, but I hope this explanation helps readers understand my editorial decision. You don't have to agree with it, of course, but please know that the photos were not used for sensationalistic purposes.

Again, my apologies and sympathy.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, February 20, 2004. Copyright 2004 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.