Ethical Analysis of the Media’s Use of the Nick Berg Beheading Video
Nick Berg was decapitated by terrorists on video which was leaked to the internet. The video began with Berg bound and gagged, surrounded by five men wearing black ski masks (Bauder 1). Berg was shown bound sitting around his captors, and stated his name and where he was from. Soon after, the video showed with gruesome detail the head of Berg being cut off. After the decapitation, the terrorists who carried out the deed held Berg’s severed head up to the camera (1). According to an al-Qaida affliated groups website, the group carried out the beheading in revenge for the torture of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison by American soldiers (Connecticut Post 1). There was also a claim by the militants that they had attempted to trade Berg’s life for the release of prisoners from Abu Ghraib (Sawyer 1). Intelligence officials say there was no attempt of a trade made to them (1).
A huge ethical question immediately came up in most journalists’ minds, should we air the video? When the film was leaked to the internet, most newscasters had a big decision to make. It became obvious quickly, however, that there are certainly ethical differences between the United States media and that of overseas media outlets. The video caused an enormous uproar in the United States because it was an American citizen, so they may have felt it would be wise to be a little more sensitive on this issue.
For most American broadcasters, the decision not to air the video was an obvious one. “It’s a pretty clear call for us,” said Jon Banner, executive producer of ABC’s “World News Tonight.” “I think the viewer will understand what happened to Mr. Berg. They won’t have to sit through the graphic images” (Bauder 1). Even though broadcasters decided not to show the whole film, some still decided it was necessary to show parts of it. CNN and MSNBC broadcast still pictures of Berg bound and gagged with his captors surrounding him (Bauder 1). Most news producers seemed to be absolutely horrified by what they were seeing in the video.
The executive producer of “Nightly News”, Steve Capus had this to say about watching the video. “I saw it from start to finish and I wish I didn’t have to,” Capus said. “It’s a horrifying, sadistic act of murder that is drawn out” (1). The broadcast networks ABC, CBS and NBC all claimed they would only show the very beginning of the video, the part where Berg was still alive (1). Despite the complete refusal of broadcast television to play the video, some news editors felt the need to coach their anchors on how to deal with the situation (Murphy 1). “I talked to every one of my anchors,” said the vice president of MSNBC Phil Griffin. “I said, ‘You’re going to have to describe it in a way that captures just how horrible it is… This is something we should not sanitize when we describe it'” (1).
An even greater sign of the severity of this video was the reaction by Arab television station Al-Jazeera. A spokesperson for the Arabic station said this of the beheading video. “The news story itself is strong enough,” said Jihad Ballout. “To show the actual beheading is out of the realm of decency” (Bauder 1). One of the Arab station’s competitors showed a brief clip of the video, but not the actual beheading (1). There were other Arab outlets, however, which did not react in a similar way.
In the Arabic speaking world, the reaction to the beheading tape was different depending where a person was. Some were still so appalled by the Abu Ghraib scandal with American soldiers that they were slow to react (Karam 1). There were some newspapers in areas that completely ignored the story, as if it did not even happen. There are, however, exceptions to this story. One newspaper, Kuwait’s Al-Siyassah, ran a photo of the militants holding up the severed head of Berg (1). The two biggest Arab satellite networks, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, showed edited versions of the video. In the Al-Arabiya version, a militant is showing pulling out a knife and grabbing Berg, the actually killing is not shown (Karam 1). In Lebanon, a private station called Al Hayat-LBC showed part of the video, with the anchor apologizing to the audience by saying, “We apologize to our viewers for not showing the entire tape because of the ugliness of the scene” (1). Other countries were not so candid about showing the video of the beheading.
In Greece, there were television stations which showed only parts of the video, while some showed the entire video, obscuring the head during the execution (McDonough 1). Many other countries decided they would only show certain images of Berg before his death, kneeling on the floor with his captors around him (1). In Germany, a newspaper ran a picture of the militant holding Berg’s head up to the camera. This action drew much criticism from the German Journalists Union (1). The chairman of the union, Michael Konken said, “Naturally, newspapers have to report on this horrible act. But the human slaughter recorded in the picture does not belong in the media” (McDonough 1).
There was yet another country that took a very different approach to the airing of the Berg video and still shots. Radio stations in Iran accused the media of showing images of the Berg execution as propaganda to help the war effort (McDonough 1). They believed that this video was used to draw attention away from the scandal at Abu Ghraib. “As a result, the issue of Iraqi prisoners’ torture has been totally ignored by these media,” the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran said. “The American authorities too, have entered this news-making propaganda. These authorities have described the killing method of the American national as loathsome, and implicitly indicated that the American troops were justified to torture Iraqi prisoners” (McDonough 1).
In America, coverage of the story was complete, but coverage of the actual video was scarce. The video was readily available on the internet; however, it was not seen on national television. One of the most respected hosts of the video online was the Associated Press Television News, which distributed the video to 500 subscribers worldwide (Bauder 1). The video distributed by the Associated Press Television News came with a printed warning before the start of the video that read, “Warning! Man is beheaded on camera, extremely graphic footage” (1). Sandy MacIntyre, the Associated Press Television News’s head of news said their subscribers demand as much news footage as possible. The Associated Press Television News believes that if they give their subscribers as much information as they can, the individual stations can decide what they should air on their own (Bauder 1).
With the lack of airtime given to the Berg beheading video, some teachers in public schools took it upon themselves to show their students what revenge can really look like (France 1). Teachers in California, Texas and Washington played the Berg video in their class rooms, deciding to make the opposite ethical decision made by the broadcast networks (1). An English teacher in California said showing the video in class displayed that atrocities are happening on both sides of the Iraq war, and this was proof. While some students reportedly fainted when they saw the video, others believed their teachers were doing them a good service (Sanchez 1). A student at a California high school, Stephanie Juszli defended her teacher’s decision saying, “I don’t think he should be getting into trouble. He felt there was something happening in the world that we needed to know about. We’re involved in a war and that’s something that involves us” (Sanchez 1). There are investigations going on in many other states over teachers playing the Berg video in their classrooms (France 1).
When television stations attempt to make a decision to run a controversial video like the Berg beheading, there are no real rules associated with the decision making (Johnson 4). “It’s not the kind of thing you open up your journalism book to Page 43 and go down a list and see what fits,” said Fox News programmer Kevin Magee (4). While most coverage of the video was basically the same, some news stations went further than others. Some news stations felt like because of the video’s availability on the internet, they didn’t really need to cover it as in depth (4). Still, some broadcasters feel the decisions they face aren’t so clear cut. “Every call we make regarding any story is a serious one,” said Jon Banner of World News Tonight on ABC. “But anything of this nature is a difficult call. We have to be sensitive to the viewers and at the same time be responsible and present what are, in essence, horrific acts occurring” (Johnson 4).
With all of the news organizations avoiding playing video clips of the Berg video, one broadcaster took a big chance. Radio and television broadcaster Sean Hannity made the decision to air the full audio of the beheading tape (Saturday Today). Hannity caught criticism from many different news organizations who believed that he was wrong in airing the audio.
Bok’s Model
According to Bok’s model for ethical decision making, people must have empathy for people involved in making ethical decisions and that maintaining social trust is a fundamental goal (Patterson 4). Bok’s model requires three steps to come to a final conclusion about the correct ethical decision in specific matter. The first step is to consult your conscience about the action.
It is obvious that the beheading of Nick Berg brought about a complete uproar in the United States about the war in Iraq. The news of this beheading brings up a very difficult ethical dilemma about how much, if any, of a man’s gruesome death should be shown on television or broadcast over the radio. Journalists have a responsibility to report what the news is and to do that with the highest amount of truth. When a situation like a beheading comes around, there is the issue of deciding how much truth should be shown when the images that gruesome. The biggest problem with broadcasting any image of Berg’s beheading is the harm it could potentially do to the country. The United States is immersed in a war, seeing images of the horrible murder of a United States civilian is potentially very damaging to a country already hurt by war.
So many people in the media who have been around for a long time were extremely disturbed by this footage, which shows how severe it really is. The video could be emotionally damaging to people not used to seeing graphic images, especially children. Also, if the video was shown while someone who knew Nick Berg was watching, they could potentially be more emotionally disturbed.
What is more difficult about this decision is the fact that the media at this time was showing images of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, which was hurting the United States credibility. When Nick Berg was beheaded, it almost gave people a “they deserved the torture” mentality. If they news never broke about Berg getting beheaded, the people of the United States would have never known the atrocities that were occurring on both sides of the war.
If the news never mentioned the video at all, some may argue that Berg’s family would have felt like nobody cared that their son got killed. The story of Nick Berg is a touching one, as he voluntarily went overseas to help restore communications in Iraq after the main fighting was over. When he was kidnapped, there was very little news coverage of the fact that he was kidnapped. The news frenzy only occurred after he was brutally murdered on film.
The two differing sides of this argument boil down to the sheer brutality of this particular video. Journalists have a responsibility to report the news as accurately as possible, even if that involves gruesome images. At the same time, releasing the images could be potentially damaging to the community and to the country. The country is very emotionally involved in the war, and seeing images like this could hurt a lot of people.
Hannity agreed to sit down and talk with Lester Holt of NBC’s Saturday Today. The following is a transcript from the interview with Lester Holt.
Mr. SEAN HANNITY (Aired Audio of Nick Berg’s Death on Radio Show): Lester, good to see you again.
HOLT: I understand it was actually run by another host without a warning. You put a warning out.
Mr. HANNITY: I put a warning out and a disclaimer out. I’m not in the bu – business of censoring, but I – I gave people a long countdown – actually two hours before I – I did it, and I gave them a 10-second countdown, and I told them it was not for children to hear. I – it – it is probably the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen in my life, to be honest. I – and I’m also convinced, Lester, that if every American saw this video, I think it would have the same impact on them that 9/11 did in terms of the absolute evil and hatred and – and vitriol and insanity and madness that we’re dealing with, I think…
HOLT: But – but you – you…
Mr. HANNITY: …in – in terms of an enemy.
HOLT: …but you played the audio on your radio show.
Mr. HANNITY: Yes.
HOLT: Of course, you do the show on Fox…
Mr. HANNITY: Yes.
HOLT: …who didn’t show it.
Mr. HANNITY: Did not show it.
HOLT: Fox didn’t show it. NBC hasn’t shown it.
Mr. HANNITY: Yeah.
HOLT: Do you think that was the proper decision?
Mr. HANNITY: You know, these are – these are difficult decisions. I mean, we make decisions about, do we show the – the
planes hitting the towers? Do we make decisions – when people were jumping from the towers? The – the – the people that were mutilated and hanging from the bridge…
HOLT: Are we acting…
Mr. HANNITY: I saw a lot of news outlets…
HOLT: Are we acting too much as gatekeepers?
Mr. HANNITY: Well…
HOLT: Because that was a big issue, as well, the – the contractors in Fallujah and now this.
Mr. HANNITY: It’s a – it’s a very fine line, it’s a difficult decision. I tend to – to side with the idea that people can make a choice,
although – even though I know this would have an – an impact on the minds of every American, I would not recommend you watch this video. And – and you had mentioned, I saw the video, you saw the video.
HOLT: I saw the video.
Mr. HANNITY: These – this…
HOLT: And – and – but one of the questions that came to mind – as – as horrified as I was, wondered, am I being arrogant as a journalist?***(as spoken).
Mr. HANNITY: I – I…
HOLT: I’ve seen it, but I’m not going to share it with the audience who – because the next question, of course, is, well, am I showing – is this the video that would give people a different idea of what – what forces are facing?
Mr. HANNITY: Within 12 hours, most people in the news media had the video, you’re absolutely right. And – and I – I tend to think – I would not want children – this ca – this issue in San Diego, the captive audience of children without parental permission is outrageous to me. The idea that you give some people choices and you don’t censor it. I did it also in light of for three weeks now – we’re heading into the third week with the pictures. Everyone’s tells – telling us we needed to put out the pictures of the prison abuse scandal, and I felt that those pictures were never put in context. We lost over 700 soldiers that have gotten rid of genocide and tyranny in – in Iraq, and they are bringing hope and – and for the first time opportunity, and they’re building infrastructures, schools…
HOLT: You know the argument. The argument is we’re better than that.
Mr. HANNITY: The argu – well, we are better than that. And, frankly, ev – every American was appalled by it, but we’re literally talking about 10 to 12 people out of so – 150,000 troops that are there doing a lot of good work. And I felt it wasn’t put in context. And I thought there was a lot of politicizing of the event with – with politicians racing to the cameras, with selective outrage and not putting it in its proper context.The only thing I would want Americans to take out of this tragedy – and my – my thoughts and prayers go out to the Berg family, is that there is an enemy and there literally are millions of them that believe that they are doing God’s will as they were screaming and invoking God’s name as they were killing this young, innocent American. And it is heart-wrenching.
We’ve got to know the nature of this. They hate America. They hate what we stand for. They hate liberty. And they think they’re doing God’s will, and it will be rewarded in heaven when they destroy us. That is something I think we all have to come to grips with, and – and I think the president in that context has had a lot of moral clarity in dealing with this enemy…
HOLT: All right.
(Saturday Today).
