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.
Nhi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your blog and your comments. I struggle with finding a balance with what’s too graphic and the ethical implications of posting such images. Maybe I’m a product of our society – I’ve been through, and watched the events unfold from: The Challenger explosion, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Columbia Space Shuttle, Columbine massacre, 9-11 attacks, the Newton school shooting, and Boston bombings – to name a few. Have I become desensitized that graphic images don’t affect me?
If I may, I respectfully would like to counter your comment that taking a photo of a bombing victim was an invasion of his privacy. I think I cited this in my reactions, but if someone is at a public event, on a public street and they take a picture of an individual – where does privacy start? What privacy rights are we entitled to?
If you and I were on a public sidewalk, say on the UF campus, or right outside it on University Ave. and you took a photo of me – would you just have violated my privacy? Sure the circumstances are vastly different. I don’t want to sound insensitive, but I just struggle with this notion of privacy. To me that photo captures the raw nature of the bombings. It shows how everyday people can be affected, but more importantly – to me it showed the enduring human spirit. You have strangers helping victims, you have a city and a country united.
Everyone, myself included, seemed to cite PTSD as a possible side effect of viewing/watching graphic images, but I’m starting to wonder if that is even possible. Are there cases of individuals, who saw images, suffer from PTSD years later? Now, if I was the victim in the photo would I want my picture taken – no of course not. I wouldn’t want that single event to define my life.
I’m so glad you brought up the Haitian earthquake. I loved your example of the earthquake and its aftermath, and how the photos, while graphic, motivated people to donate and help send aid. Too often I think we go to the negative side and not think about the positive implications graphic images could have on society. How it could ignite compassion or shed light on a devastating story.
But you’re right – this comes down to the intentions of the source. And with the democratization of journalism/media, what is the intent of those – non-journalists posting images on their own sites? How are they contributing to the story unfolding and where do we draw the line? Should they not have the same rights as traditional journalists? Who has the right to post and who doesn’t? If you take away this right, what’s next? What’s the next right you remove?
What’s scary to think about is this – what impact will social media have on the next tragedy? Sadly, it’s not a matter of if we have one, but when we have another tragedy.
Thank you again for your post and comments – I really liked what you posted.