Reporting on tragedies is, to say the very least, a tough job. On top of that, having to portray tragedies in an ethical light poses its own issue.
When I think about the news I saw and read about both the NIU and Virginia Tech shootings, images of victims, some bloody, being carried by police or on stretchers with bandages around their limbs pop into mind. In some photos, the faces of these victims are seen clearly and most likely recognizable to their family and friends. Did papers need to publish these photos? The Los Angeles Times, Alabama's Press-Register and New Mexico's Daily Lobo are just a few that did. Is reading something along the lines of "five dead at school shooting" not as believable as seeing a scene of the tragedy? Do we really need to see to believe?
I found an interesting read online that explains the use of photos portraying "Victims of Violence." Although one of the sources, Ombudsman George Beveridge, argues that written words are unable to convey the emotions evoked through photos, does the shock factor outweigh the negative effects on those personally involved? Beveridge defended his paper's decision to publish gruesome photos of killed U.S. servicemen who had attempted to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980; their bodies were "char-red." He argues that as long as the photo is accurate, it is OK to publish.
The Society of Professional Journalism's Code of Ethics states that journalists should, yes, seek truth, but should also minimize harm. I'm sure family members and friends of the victims pictured in the school shooting were harmed when they saw a photo of their loved one in the middle of the tragedy. In times like these, where immediate contact with victims are nearly impossible, the first news received about loved ones may have been captured in a published photo. There is harm caused here. When I view these images, I feel the sadness and hurt of the tragedy; I can't imagine what it must be like to personally know these individuals. I mean all I can relate to is the fact that we're all students on a campus pursuing some sort of degree. These photos serve to put us in the scene of the tragedy by showing the real, raw truth of the event, but is doing so ethical? Do these pictures serve a greater purpose?
I can't decide...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, such photos should not appear in daily newspapers. I've been to websites where, before viewing photos of this nature, you are first redirected to a warning that tells you the photos you are about to view are of a violent or sensitive nature. This is fine, since it gives the viewer the option.
ReplyDeleteNewspapers, unfortunately, can't give readers this option. Daily papers are an outlet that the community depends upon. Many people read every day, and should not have violent photos forced on them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that newspapers should protect an individual's right to privacy, bloodied or not.
ReplyDeleteIn news editing class last year, we were given a series of photos of a man who committed suicide. They were obscene... and made me feel horrible and nauseous. In that case, I don't think any publication should print them - no matter how strong of a statement they'd make.