In the aftermath of the Boston bombings, there was the publication of many graphic photographs, including a photo of a victim who had lost his leg in the blast. There are many ethical implications of using graphic photos.
The victims’ face is showing, and thus, he can be easily identified. This identification can lead to a variety of issues, including his invasion of privacy. This image—every time it surfaces—will remind the victim of this tragedy for the rest of his life. The emotional scar alone is bad enough, but to be constantly reminded by the media is something else altogether. Additionally, this image may come up every time he is Googled, which may affect how people see and treat him.
We must also consider those who are exposed to the image, including children or those with PTSD (or, as mentioned in this article, the possibility of developing PTSD). Will they be scarred by such images? Is there any benefit to showing them such an image? Of course, that is the ethical dilemma that journalists and publications face.
Many argue that publishing graphic photographs helps us realize the gravity of the situation. Would we take issues as seriously if we didn’t see heart-wrenching photographs? Take, for example, the Haiti earthquake of 2010. Many claim that seeing images in the media motivated them to donate and help. "I'd say there were not enough images of Haiti; I would say you can never have enough," says Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Patrick Farrell. "People need to know that the suffering continues; they're suffering just living a normal life. They get slammed with four storms, and now this. It's cruel and unlucky." In cases like these, journalists may make the decision that showing graphic photos is much more important than angering their audience.
Then there’s issue of taste. "The question becomes, how many dead bodies do you show, and in what proportion do you show those as the news evolves?" asks Kenneth Irby of the Pointer Institute. "If you're still showing nothing but pictures of dead bodies in the third or fourth day of your coverage then the audience may have the right to complain." In fact, the Daily News took it upon themselves to Photoshop gore out of a photo from the Boston bombings, which brings out a whole other set of ethical issues.
I think, most importantly, it comes down to the gray are of intention. If you’re publishing a photo to garner attention or views, you’re making a wrong decision. If you’re publishing a photo because deep in your heart you feel like it is going to make a difference for parties involved, by all means, do it. Angering people comes with the territory, and not everyone is going to approve of what you do at all times. I think in cases like this, you sometimes hit publish just hoping it’ll open
someone’s eyes and spark action.
