« Mmm-mmm . . . DO-nuts! | Main | Fathers »
June 15, 2006
The war hits home
In a letter that will appear in tomorrow’s paper, a reader criticizes the lead photograph on today’s front page. This is the picture of Michele Dougherty crying as she watches a television news report about the death of her boyfriend, Russell Durgin, who was killed in Afghanistan. Here are excerpts from the reader’s complaint:
“Is it actually news to anyone on the planet that people are in anguish when a loved one dies, especially so young and unexpectedly? Does a newspaper really need to report the fact that his girlfriend is devastated? I wonder how the person who took that photograph, and the editor who decided to use it, would feel if they were the ones on the newspaper’s front page at the moment of their most personal and deepest pain. To me this isn’t journalism, it’s exploitation, and I’m disappointed in the Monitor. Leave the sensationalism to the tabloids. This brave young man deserved better, and so do your readers.”
I disagree with the writer, and I want to explain why and to share the circumstances of our coverage of Durgin’s death, including the photo in question.
To me, the photograph and the story brought the war on terror home in a way that nothing else to date has. I mean in no way to diminish the deaths of other soldiers, but Durgin was known not only to his loved ones and to the townspeople of Henniker and Weare but also to Monitor readers – and to some Monitor staffers.
He was one of seven lacrosse players at John Stark High School whom Monitor reporter Meg Heckman profiled three years ago, just after the war in Iraq began. All had joined the military after high school. Heckman is an alumna of John Stark. Her brother Jim was the co-captain of the lacrosse team and stayed in touch with Durgin after graduation.
Heckman spoke with Durgin again for a story on the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war, and then told her editor she felt too close to the former John Stark lacrosse players to cover them any longer.
We are working on a project on the experience of New Hampshire soldiers in the war on terror. As part of this project, reporter Chelsea Conaboy was assigned to do an update on the seven Stark men.
At the beginning of May, Conaboy spent 2½ hours interviewing Jean Durgin, Russell’s mother. Michele Dougherty, Russell's girlfriend, was present, too. This past Tuesday, Conaboy interviewed Sean Durgin, Russell’s twin brother, who is in the Air Force and expects to be deployed soon.
The next morning, Heckman called Conaboy to inform her that Russell Durgin had been killed in Afghanistan. Conaboy’s first reaction was disbelief. Then she went to work.
Not wanting to call Jean Durgin for fear that she might not yet know that her son was dead, Conaboy called the National Guard and John Stark High School seeking more information. Then her phone rang. It was Michele Dougherty, making sure the Monitor knew about Russell’s death and inviting Conaboy and a photographer to Jean Durgin’s house to cover the story.
Russell’s family was open and accommodating to Conaboy and Brian Lehmann, our photographer, and so was Dougherty. Conaboy spoke with them all, including Lester Durgin, Russell’s father. They all thought it was important that we get the story right.
Back at the Monitor, Lehmann and his editors chose the photograph of Dougherty to lead today’s paper. Because it was such a strong and personal image, Lehmann decided to call Dougherty and describe it to her before we ran it in the paper. She did not object.
This morning, Dougherty told Conaboy she appreciated the Monitor’s coverage.
I’m proud of the way our staff handled this story. Our job as journalists, even in the most horrific circumstances, is to hold up a mirror and show what really happens. The anguish that a distant war death causes on the home front is important news. To cover it is neither exploitation nor sensationalism, especially when reporters and photographers act with sensitivity and courtesy, as ours did yesterday.
I am grateful to the Durgins and to Michele Dougherty for their openness during a time of unthinkable loss. I believe they have done a public service by sharing their grief and their thoughts, including the family’s conflicting views about the war itself.
I am deeply saddened by Russell Durgin’s death – more so because the family has helped me to know him.
Posted by Mike Pride at June 15, 2006 07:12 PM
Comments
I've never understood why anyone ever invites the media to cover their personal life. Too hooked on their 15 minutes of fame, I guess. If any reporter ever barged into my private life--and especially if they ever took a picture of me in a vulnerable state like the Monitor did--they wouldn't leave without physical damage.
Posted by: Rufus at June 15, 2006 07:50 PM
From what Mike described, no reporter "barged" anywhere. People's decisions are their business, and the issue isn't whether a soldier's death and a family's grief are "news." The issue is whether the story & photograph help us to better understand the reality of life in our community and in our world.
I appreciate Mike's explanation and the way the Monitor handled the story. This kind of transparency and conscientiousness is worth a lot.
Posted by: Brendan Wolfe at June 16, 2006 12:05 PM
Mike, thank you for your excellent and in-depth description of the events and decisions leading to the publication of the photograph. It helps the average reader, including me, better understand why and where the Monitor chose to run it.
I agree with you that anguish at home caused by a distant war is news, particularly when the war is controversial, but I remain convinced it can be covered well without the use of photographs that display an individual's reaction to devastating news at their most personal and private moments.
Yes, your were invited into the home and yes you had a terrific exclusive, but the photographer must have returned with a variety of other shots that would have added visual impact to the story without displaying for the world a family's moment of grief.
The current trend in mass media to seek out and display the most private, painful or tragic aspects of human emotion I believe diminishes our respect for each other and our society.
I still recall as a communications graduate student in Boston hearing a television news reporter describe learning this firsthand. As a rookie covering a house fire in progress, he managed to located the owner at the scene. "With the camera rolling," he said, "I stuck my microphone into her face and said 'How do you feel right now?'. She turned away from the raging flames, looked me in the eye and said 'How do you think I feel, you insensitive son of a b----?'."
But that was 20 years ago, and today there are few media outlets who have learned, or are even aware, that such a level of sensitivity exists and should be applied. I urge the Monitor to continue to be an exception.
Posted by: William Harrold at June 16, 2006 01:49 PM
I would have to agree, that while it is a good explanation, the true test of a journalist should be, can they paint a picture in the minds eye without the use of a visual aid?
Death is a turbulent event in many lives. To me, it doesn't matter what shade you try to color this, it's tasteless to publish a picture of a grieving widow, friend, brother, sister, mother, father, or so on. Simply being a soldier who has died in war should be of enough interest in and of itself. Being a New Hampshire Native makes the story hit even closer to home. A picture of his girlfriend on the front page being depicted as devestated is shameful, invited or not!
Posted by: Hiram at June 16, 2006 10:00 PM
Responding to Rufus, this illustrates how we all differ. Rufus is entitled to his privacy, and when the media knocks for whatever reason, one simple "please go away" comment should be all he need say, although the media isn't always that respectful of one's privacy. (Hopefully the Monitor is.)
On the other hand, I can reiterate Mike's comments from personal knowledge, the Durgins want the public to understand the terrible price some families -- and now theirs -- have had to bear as the so-called War on Terroism grinds on. As twin-brother Sean was quoted, his (and many others) the other family members) lives will never be the same. It's a price not well understood by many Americans. I commend the Monitor on its coverage not only of this story, but also on its continuing efforts to keep Monitor readers aware of the sacrifices that are being made on a daily basis by N.H.'s many servicemen and women, and their families.
Posted by: John V. Kjellman at June 17, 2006 05:36 PM