The New York Times has been excoriated online for its decision to publish highly-graphic images of victims of the Nairobi terrorist attack, with many accusing ‘the paper of record’ of hypocrisy, double standards and even racism. The NYT’s article covering the attack, penned by the organization’s East Africa Bureau Chief Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, contains images of bullet-riddled bodies slumped over in a restaurant which was targeted during a lengthy siege that was still ongoing at time of publication. At least 21 people were killed, including an American and a British citizen. Also on rt.com Kenya hotel attack that killed 21 ‘revenge for Trump’s Jerusalem embassy move,’ terrorists claim We have heard from some readers upset with our publishing a photo showing victims after a brutal attack in Nairobi. We understand how painful this coverage can be, and we try to be very sensitive in how we handle both words and images in these situations. https://t.co/Qjm0qBMaF3pic.twitter.com/1sqgTnnVKW — The New York Times (@nytimes) January 15, 2019 Shortly after publication the hashtags #SomeoneTellNYTimes and #DeportKimiko began trending on Twitter, as Kenyans expressed their outrage at what they deemed was sensationalist coverage at the expense of positive stories surrounding the attack, such as ordinary Kenyans risking their lives to evacuate survivors and massive blood drives to help treat shooting victims. Many called for Freytas-Tamura to be fired or even deported altogether. #SomeoneTellNYtimes we do not need your sensationalized photos to "get the picture". We have family, friends, fellow Kenyans who have lived the nightmare of terrorism. Some are gone forever. You are a disgrace. Disrespectful. — Kambua (@Kambua) January 16, 2019 As an American in Nairobi, I've never seen pictures of bodies in the news after our numerous US school shootings. I feel just as discraced by your response as I do by your original decision to publish photos of bodies from the #RiversideAttack — Matthew Grollnek (@MatthewGrollnek) January 16, 2019 Freytas-Tamura initially directed her critics to the New York Times’ photo desk saying she had no influence over the photos selected for inclusion in the piece, before deleting the thread and republishing the NYT’s statement on the matter. The offending photos, taken by the AP’s Khalil Senosi, are still included in the NYT’s coverage as of Thursday morning, and there is still no graphic content warning. Senosi’s photo was distributed by the Associated Press (AP) and published by various outlets including the UK’s MailOnline, Daily Mirror and the Sun, in addition Germany’sBild, but the New York Times bore the brunt of Kenyan ire and international outrage. Some of the images in this article are GRUESOME! That's terribly unprofessional, irresponsible and downright inhumane, not the kind of thing I expect of a big media house like @nytimes! #RiversideAttack#RiversidedriveAttackhttps://t.co/TBpRfh2qr3 — Nyambok Nick (@iamnick254) January 15, 2019 Very disturbing images published by @GettyImages, accredited to @kabirdhanji, from the Riverside/Dusit incident. Others posted by @nytimes attributed to Khalil Senosi (for @AP) in an article by @kimidefreytas. Absolutely distasteful, disgusting and deplorable. An utter disgrace. — Fadhili Kanini (@FQanini) January 15, 2019 This photo is so powerful ,how i wish New York Times used it to publish #deportkimiko#KenyaAttackpic.twitter.com/eM9JbAcuCc — Karinga Kioi 🇰🇪 (@karingakioi) January 16, 2019 “if the refusal to publish images of dead American service members is a sign of respect, then the willingness to publish photographs of other people’s dead bodies can be read as a sign of disrespect” - ⁦@nytimes⁩It is intentional. https://t.co/5mNtdiCAci — Mūrūthi (@Ngartia) January 16, 2019 It is not the first time, and it certainly won’t be the last, that such graphic images were published in coverage of terrorist atrocities, though it has ignited discussion about the differences in coverage between Western and African victims and survivors. The tragedy in #Nairobi today does not require @nytimes sensationalized photos of bloody bullet-filled bodies slumped over laptops to be understood as horrific. We don’t show dead bloody bodies of American school children. Esp not white ones, right? #SomeoneTellNYtimes — Kristin Gilliss Moyer (@kristingilliss) January 15, 2019 No. You don't use the same approach in the world. pic.twitter.com/6tcU6Ocvhx — Mother of Drones 🌍 (@justrioba) January 16, 2019 Presumably we will be seeing photos of children in the next mass shootout in the US so we can "get a real sense of the situation" right? — Mazza (@MarionneRyan) January 15, 2019 The Times did, however, publish photos of victims and survivors of the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting in which 59 people died and 851 people were injured. Many pointed to Western media coverage of Africa in general, with some highlighting that Nairobi’s terrorist threat level is no worse than London or Paris, while others decried the lack of positive or empowering coverage of Kenya. This is the side of #Nairobi, #magicalkenya that the international media will most definitely never report. Welcome to Kenya......... pic.twitter.com/SOUJIn4IcM — Jimnah Mwangi (@JimnahAdams) January 15, 2019 Appreciatio Tweet: To the men and women who had sleepless night to ensure all 700 people Were rescued, May God bless you. To those who woke up early to feed them, May God remember you in time of need. #WeShallOvercome#KenyaUnbowedpic.twitter.com/NJVWtfULy6 — Jennifer Kaberi (@Dalithso) January 16, 2019 Hi @kimidefreytas and @nytimes in my few journalism classes, we were tought that "You are first human, then a journalist". Humans don't treat other humans as click baits.... so #deportkimiko — Jennifer Kaberi (@Dalithso) January 16, 2019 Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!<doc-sep>An article by the New York Times on the Riverside terrorist attacks in Nairobi has provoked fury and consternation in Kenya. The article features a photograph by AP credited to the photographer Khalil Senusi showing bodies of victims of the attack slumped on chairs and covered in blood. A similar photograph has also been used by UK’s Daily Mail online with faces of the victims pixelated. Public criticism was initially directed at the author of the article, Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, who according to her Twitter handle, is the newspaper’s in-coming bureau chief for East Africa. She dismissed the criticism telling readers to direct their anger to the newspaper’s photo department, claiming that she didn’t have a say in the choice of photos that go with her articles. I find it difficult to agree with NY Times’ argument that reporting on deaths from a terrorist act can only be “realistic” with a photo of dead bodies. The newspaper eventually responded. But it didn’t apologize. Instead it justified its decision to use the photo. It acknowledged that some readers were upset by the photo. But, responders at the newspaper said, they “try to be sensitive in how they handle both words and images in such situations.” The newspaper argued further that it was important, “to give readers a clear picture of the horror of the act and this includes showing pictures that are not sensationalized but show a real sense of the situation.” It claimed to “take the same approach wherever something like this happens- balancing the need for sensitivity and respect with the mission of showing the reality of these events”. In essence, the paper is claiming that it has done nothing wrong by publishing images of the dead. The question the incident raises is: is it ethical for newspapers to publish pictures of the deceased victims of terror? Covering terror Reporting violent terrorist acts is one of the most challenging jobs for journalists. The relationship between journalism and terrorism is complex – think of the often cited argument that the media is the oxygen that feeds terrorism. This isn’t true. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that terrorist organisations are now quite adept at manipulating the media. Terror attacks no longer just target victims, they also target the public. The aim is to cause both physical and psychological harm which is achieved through the creation of shock, panic and a sense of helplessness. In fact, it can be argued that terrorist attacks are designed to incite fear much more than to cause death. To support this argument, a UNESCO report quotes a study which found that 83% of young people in a sample of 20,000 drawn from around the world cited terrorism as the main reason they were fearful of the future. Terrorists create a theatre of death and destruction. The media provides them a stage at no cost. Death and blood elicit shock. The New York Times and the Daily Mail’s decision to use that photograph plays into this strategic ritual. I find it difficult to agree with the New York Times argument that reporting about deaths from a terrorist act can only be “realistic” if accompanied by a photograph of dead bodies. This seems to be a deeply conflicted logic. Distant death, racism, and context But there is a much more fundamental issue at the heart of this decision. The coverage of “distant death”, especially in Africa, by much of the Western press remains deeply problematic. Readers of the New York Times article argued that the newspaper would not have shown bodies of victims had this attack happened in the US or Europe. The newspaper had tweeted that it treats photographs of the bodies of victims the same way everywhere. But one cannot fail to notice that no such bodies are shown of the many terror victims in the US and Europe. The newspaper’s reasoning thus becomes a fabrication, one that speaks to one world and not the other. In the recent terrorist attacks in the US the New York Times has faithfully protected the dignity of victims. Their stories have not been told with any less clarity and profundity. The New York Times and the Daily Mail’s editorial decisions reveal deeply embedded institutional practices that lay bare the racialized lens that characterizes the reporting of “distant deaths”. Emotionally removed from the pain and misery of these far off events, distant deaths are often narrated as spectacles . The victims are stripped of their dignity, becoming disposable objects of pity. Images of their bodies are seen as acceptable to the otherwise delicate sensibilities of Western audiences. The double standards aren’t accidental: they are institutionalized forms of narration of ‘the Other’. The New York Times and the Daily Mail’s use of that photograph failed journalism and dishonored the victims of the Nairobi Riverside attack. Equally problematic is the lack of context provided in the coverage of such events. Distant countries are flattened. This is particularly true of Africa where coverage by the Western press is prone to “compression”—Nairobi becomes Kenya and Kenya becomes Africa. This homogenization of space fuels the temptation to fall back on the familiar, which unfortunately is an archive of stereotypes with little relevance. This not only contributes to ignorance, it also undermines international efforts to fight terrorism. In an environment where speed and sensation drive audiences to websites the temptation to be the first to report—and to have the most dramatic pictures (however unsettling)—seduces even the most respected news organizations. Ultimately though, audiences are not presented with a balanced view of events and terrorism continues to flourish. Terror attacks must be reported. To do otherwise would be to erode important freedoms. We must guard against the desire to clamp down on free speech and access to information. This would be a triumph for terrorists. But it’s not censorship to expect the media to extend some sympathy and dignity to the victims. This must be the case in death as much as in life. Sensationalism comes in many forms. The New York Times and the Daily Mail’s use of that photograph was one of them. These newspapers failed journalism. More tragically they dishonored the victims of the Nairobi Riverside attack. George Ogola, Reader in Journalism, University of Central Lancashire This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Read next: What the New York Times should have considered before putting the bodies of African migrants on its front page Sign up to the Quartz Africa Weekly Brief here for news and analysis on African business, tech and innovation in your inbox<doc-sep>Abdalla Dahir and Feisal Ahmed were so close that they were almost always together. “If you couldn’t reach Abdalla, you called Feisal, and if you couldn’t reach Feisal, you called Abdalla,” said a mutual friend, Abdulahi Mohammed. “They even used to joke that they will one day die together.” That sentiment became a prophecy on Tuesday. The two men, who worked for a London-based development company with offices in Nairobi, Kenya, were killed while having lunch on a restaurant terrace in a luxury hotel and office complex stormed by Shabab militants. Kenya’s police chief, Joseph Boinnet, said Wednesday night that the fatalities had risen to 21 from 14, with six additional bodies retrieved from the attack site and the death of a police officer from injuries. The victims included an American and a British national.<doc-sep>
“Some of the images in this article are GRUESOME!” Baz Ratner / Reuters People in Kenya are angry at the New York Times for publishing a graphic photo of victims in the Nairobi hotel complex attack, in which 14 people died. The photo, which was distributed by the Associated Press news agency, showed two victims with multiple bullet wounds slumped over their tables in a restaurant. Including the photo, which did not come with a graphic image warning, has been called “distasteful, disgusting and deplorable,” and was a major talking point on Twitter in Kenya on Wednesday. Very disturbing images published by @GettyImages, accredited to @kabirdhanji, from the Riverside/Dusit incident. Others posted by @nytimes attributed to Khalil Senosi (for @AP) in an article by @kimidefreytas. Absolutely distasteful, disgusting and deplorable. An utter disgrace. Some of the images in this article are GRUESOME! That's terribly unprofessional, irresponsible and downright inhumane, not the kind of thing I expect of a big media house like @nytimes! #RiversideAttack #RiversidedriveAttack https://t.co/TBpRfh2qr3 @nytimes We are complaining about the one showing dead people. It is insensitive & does not add value to the story. The only purpose is to glorify a Terrorist bullet. Unfortunately, by an outlet we consider to be a global example of fine journalism. Show pictures of human triumph! @LarryMadowo The @nytimes offices in Nairobi should be shut down or relocated to Somalia or just shut down completely. How can NYT publish such images! This is unacceptable #KenyaAttack This photo is so powerful ,how i wish New York Times used it to publish #deportkimiko #KenyaAttack In the wake of the criticism the media council of Kenya called for the NYT to make a formal apology and remove the photographs from the article (as of Jan. 17 the images were still live in the piece online). In a letter to the NYT, chief executive David Omwoyo Omwoyo said the publication's choice of photographs was in "bad taste, disrespectful to the victims...in addition to being unprofessional." @mediacouncilk today officially wrote a protest note to @nytimes over it's coverage of #riversideattack Should the images not be removed, the letter continued, the accreditation for the NYT correspondent in Kenya could be revoked. At one point, people believed an account with the handle @NYTPHOTO had been suspended as a result of the criticism, but this is not an official Times account, and was in fact suspended years ago. In response to the online criticism, the Times issued a statement addressing the controversy and defending the use of the picture. “We understand how painful this coverage can be, and we try to be very sensitive in how we handle both words and images in these situations,” the statement said. “But we also believe it is important to give our readers a clear picture of the horror of an attack like this. This includes showing pictures that are not sensationalized but that give a real sense of the situation.” We have heard from some readers upset with our publishing a photo showing victims after a brutal attack in Nairobi. We understand how painful this coverage can be, and we try to be very sensitive in how we handle both words and images in these situations. https://t.co/Qjm0qBMaF3 But the statement was met with a negative response, and a lot of people began sharing an op-ed published from the Times in August 2018 about publishing images of dead bodies. “if the refusal to publish images of dead American service members is a sign of respect, then the willingness to publish photographs of other people’s dead bodies can be read as a sign of disrespect” - ⁦@nytimes⁩ It is intentional. https://t.co/5mNtdiCAci The Times has published photos of shooting victims in the US, such as in the Las Vegas shooting from 2017. A lot of people in Kenya also focused their criticism on Times reporter Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, who had the only byline on the article with the gruesome photo. In a series of tweets, she directed people to the Times photo desk, as she had no influence over the images used to illustrate the piece. As criticism around the coverage intensified, there was also a hashtag calling for de Freytas-Tamura to be deported. BBC Africa business editor Larry Madowo also criticized the Times for focusing on the fact that the complex that came under attack housed foreign companies. This complex probably has more Kenyan companies than foreign ones.