These photos come in the wake of a series of attacks in eastern Damascus which killed hundreds of people. Opposition groups in Syria have claimed that a number of chemical weapons were used in neighbourhoods across the city, with the number of deaths ranging from 494 to over 1,300. It should be noted that, as of yet, there has been no independent confirmation of any such weapons being used. However, a former commander of the chemical, biological and nuclear counterterrorism unit in Britain's Ministry of Defence, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, claimed to have viewed dozens of videos posted after the attacked, concluding that "these people didn't die of conventional weapons". Should the use of chemical weapons be confirmed, it would be difficult to place the blame for the deaths of up to 1,300 people at the door of anyone other than the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, especially when considering that the government has implicitly admitted to having a stockpile of chemical weapons in its' possession. If the regime has used chemical weapons, it would contravene the cross the "red line" warning that American President Obama issued to Assad almost exactly one year to the day before images showing people feeling the effect of poisonous gas were released. It would also be the worst nerve gas attack committed by a government since Saddam Hussein's assault on Iraqi Kurds in 1988.
There has been widespread condemnation from the international community in the aftermath of this outrage. The United Nations General-Secretary, Ban Ki-Moon, urged the Syrian government to allow the UN Mission to Syria full access to conduct an investigation. The United States insisted that any found to use such weapons "must be held accountable", a view shared by the Foreign Office in London. Syria's neighbour, Turkey, unequivocally held the regime responsible for the atrocities, referring to "a ravenous group aiming at preserving their power at all costs". France was more hawkish, arguing that "a reaction of force" would be required if it were proven that the Assad regime was behind the atrocity. The Chinese government, while continuing to demand international neutrality in the Syrian civil war, also condemned the use of chemical weapons, though joining Russia in objecting to western demands for a UN investigation. For its' part, the Russian government, standing full square behind the regime, claimed that the attack was, in fact, committed by the opposition.
However, while the general public should learn about this story (and I have used the first half of this post to provide context and some information), what I want to write about isn't the atrocity itself, but to ask two key questions about the reporting of this story and others like it by the print media. In effect, the first echoes that of the Independent opinion piece mentioned at the start of this article: is it right to use a picture of dead children on a front page? No-one can argue that the use of these photos undoubtedly evokes a sense of horror in anyone that sees it; it would speak poorly of anyone who could treat such a photo with the same nonchalance as they would treat today's weather forecast.
Likewise, few would argue against the appropriateness of using these photos to illustrate the severity of the events in Damascus either: a mere newspaper report gives background and covers the facts, but it is the picture that shows the human aspect to the story. After all, saying that people died and showing that people died are very different; it's much easier to focus attention to an event when there is photographic evidence to back you up.
The question is to the appropriateness of using such photographs on the front page. I would argue that it is highly appropriate to do so. If a news story, with or without pictures, is buried deep inside a newspaper, it's very easy to ignore it. The reader might not even see the story if they are just skimming through the paper, and certainly won't see it if all they do is have a quick look at the headlines on the front page, should they have no intention of actually buying the paper. Even if they do see it, they may quickly glance past it. It's understandable. It isn't easy to read a report or look at a corresponding photo which upsets us. It isn't pleasant to start your morning knowing that innocent children were horrifically killed yesterday morning. It isn't comfortable to know that the parties responsible for these killings yesterday are free to continue killing today.
The problem is that when we aren't forced to see reports which might horrify or discomfort us, it's easy to claim genuine or feigned ignorance, and then use that ignorance to hide away from the reality of what's going on. If we aren't forced to confront the horrors of our world, we can pretend that it isn't an issue; certainly not one we need to care about. And if the general public doesn't appear to care, why would their public representatives, the people who can put pressure on offending parties, be any different? Hiding a story like this on page fourteen allows us to delude ourselves into thinking that nothing is wrong and no action needs to be taken, that no-one has committed a wrong.
But if the story and the picture is on the front page, right below the masthead, you can't ignore it: it demands your attention and forces you to face up to the reality that an atrocity was committed this week. You don't even have to buy the paper to find the story; it's right there for all the world to see. There's no hiding, no excuses. Only someone consciously determined to avoid any news could justifiably claim ignorance of this event.
The second question was posed by a comment on the social media page of the friend who drew my attention to the Independent opinion piece in the first place: is it appropriate to display such harrowing photographs on the front page, which can be seen by children here, something to consider given that newspapers are usually on the bottom shelf of newsstands. Like the first question, my answer is in the affirmative. I'm perfectly fine with children seeing images of massacred children on the front pages of newspapers. I consider it to be important for children to learn and understand that horrific crimes are committed in this day and age, that genocides are not confined to history books.
Children may find it harder to understand the insanity, the bitterness and the international discomfort caused by an internal conflict, but they are not entirely stupid. They have a wonderful sense of justice: they know when it is denied and demand to know why. They ignore the diplomatic excuses about "internal problems" this and "need for reflection and restraint" that. This desire to cut through the talk and actually demand answers for themselves is something to be welcomed, not stymied. I would argue that a refusal to at least introduce the concept that atrocities are committed in the world does little beyond encouraging a rose-tinted view that the world is fine and that anything which challenges this view should be ignored in order to keep up pretenses.
The question of whether children should see photos like those on today's papers reminds me of my own childhood. I remember watching footage of the ongoing series of wars in the former Yugoslavia and feeling a deep sense of outrage at watching children of my own age being shot at by snipers in Sarajevo and being massacred in Srebrenica. I can recall reading daily reports of yet more children being slaughtered by machetes, like cattle, in Rwanda and the immense frustration I felt towards the grave injustice committed against innocent people and the lacklustre response of the international community. I am also grateful that these events were not hidden from me. Had they so been, it would have been years before I had learned of their very existence, let alone any background which led up to them.
I can understand why people may want to protect children from the disturbing footage which covered yesterday's attacks. It isn't easy for a child to see other children gasping for air in a desperate attempt to stay alive. It's difficult to process the sight of row after row of corpses and that they were there as a direct result of someone's deliberate and methodical actions. It's problematic for a parent to try and explain to their child what is happening in as delicate a way as they can. But if the alternative is a refusal to show that wrongs are committed today, in the child's own lifetime, then I would rather have upset children in the western world than have our collective heads buried in the sand while children in the Middle East are murdered.
