The Boston Phoenix, an alternative news weekly, has published a controversial and sickening photo of journalist Daniel Pearl’s decapitated head. The Web site for the Phoenix also carries a link to another site that shows the short video of the Wall Street Journal reporter’s execution.
And that has caused a great deal of handwringing in journalism circles: Is the Boston Phoenix engaging in a public service or has it sunk to macabre voyeurism?
In an explanatory note, Phoenix Publisher Stephen M. Mindich wrote: “This is the single most gruesome, horrible, despicable and horrifying thing I’ve ever seen. The outrage I feel as an American and a Jew is almost indescribable. If there is anything that should galvanize every non-Jew hater in the world–of whatever faith, or of no faith–against the perpetrators and supporters of those who committed this unspeakable murder, it should be viewing this video.”
The blurry video shows Pearl talking about his Jewish ancestry as images of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict flash in small windows around his face. At the very end, it shows his throat being cut and a hand holding what appears to be Pearl’s head. The video was delivered to U.S. consular officials in Karachi a month after Pearl disappeared early this year.
Many news organizations have honored the Pearl family’s wishes that the video not be shown. Newspapers and television stations make decisions every day about what images are appropriate and what images would be too upsetting for many people in the broad audiences they reach.
At the same time, another organization’s decision to provide access can be defended.
The capture and execution of Daniel Pearl epitomized the inhumanity of his murderers and their inability to see Americans as anything other than potent symbols to destroy. Given its anti-American, anti-Jewish message, the video is graphic evidence of the extent to which terrorists will go to wage a propaganda war against the United States and its allies.
These are complicated issues Americans still have difficulty comprehending. That’s not to say viewing the Daniel Pearl video will resolve them. It won’t. Will most people be able to understand the depravity of Pearl’s execution by reading words on paper? Sure. Do words convey the full extent of what happened? No, they don’t. As disturbing as it is to watch, the Daniel Pearl video conveys the emotional, visceral horror, something images usually carry better than words.
This is why juries are shown graphic crime scene photographs–because a prosecutor’s words are not enough for them to fully connect with the crime.
It is why we have become intimately familiar with the Zapruder film showing John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the photo of a Viet Cong soldier being shot at point blank range and the photo of a naked 9-year-old fleeing her Vietnamese village, screaming in napalm pain.
Are 1st Amendment freedoms and journalistic value truly what ProHosters, the Virginia-based Web hosting service, had in mind when it posted the Pearl video on its site? Doubtful. For anyone worried about sickos scrounging for gruesome cyber thrills, though, the Internet has far more to offer than this.
The Boston Phoenix explained its rationale and presented the horrifying images with appropriate warnings and in context. And Internet users do have to make a handful of decisions to see the video; it will not be viewed by accident, as one might be startled by an unexpected television image or newspaper photo.
What each of us is free to resolve for ourselves is whether to view the video. There are important issues here for parents who take seriously their responsibility to monitor their children’s use of the Internet. Important issues, too, for those who think the wishes of Pearl’s family should have been the final word.
But Daniel Pearl’s death, if not publicly witnessed at the instant it happened, is of inordinate public importance. The video that demonstrates how he died should be accessible for individuals to inspect, or to ignore, as they see fit.
