Publishing photographs of human tragedy
On Monday, August 31,2009 our front page should have been covered in the national colours wishing everyone the old cliché “Happy Independence”.
Instead, The Trinidad Newsday printed a shocking photograph of a baby lying at the side of the Solomon Hochoy Highway in the grass. The infant was dead.
On Tuesday 24th August, the dead body of Police Constable Jason Thomas was published on the front cover of the Trinidad Express. He was killed in an attempted robbery.
This concern about the publication of graphic photographs all started with the devastating earthquake in Haiti, as photos of dead bodies made it to the print and virtual front pages of most major news organizations.
At home, the publishing of graphic, and might I say, dead bodies, stirred a feeling within me. This feeling changed my perception of media coverage dramatically….
Does journalism and by extension, media houses see that the enormity of the earthquake’s devastation and gruesome murder being communicated without graphic photos?
Of all the atrocities, the most troubling element of graphic photographs for me was to see the image of the dead baby mentioned above.
Where’s the human decency? Where’s the sensitive, kind and compassionate journalist’?
Do we, as readers and audience want to see dead eyes staring back through the newspapers?
I strongly believe that because of their vulnerability, children, especially require extra, sensitivities in news coverage. It must be recognized that these photos resonate with those immediately connected to the deceased child as well as with general readers and viewers. Given the trauma experienced by families that lose a child, is it unethical to use a child’s face and name to explain a story?
In spite of newsroom standards that emphasize minimization of harm and increased discretion when covering moments of death, especially with children, harm reduction is often secondary to the news value of a story and the public’s right to know.
Patrice Keats, who studies traumatic stress, says that the printing of a photograph of a murdered child, such as the one of Heather Thomas’ body in the lake, can cause a family to experience “secondary wounding.” She explains: “Seeing the image would be like a re-opening of the wound…it can never really heal until the coverage stops.”
The potential trauma caused to families by printing photographs of murdered children seems to be an afterthought to community values and standards of “taste.” Families can be traumatized by media attention surrounding lost loved ones, especially children, and, as Keats pointed out, their trauma can be exacerbated by images.
Ethical codes generally acknowledge the need to minimize harm when covering victims of crime. For instance, the Radio-Television National Directors Association (RTNDA), the code, which CTV refers to, states: “Treat all subjects of news coverage with respect and dignity, showing particular compassion to victims of crime or tragedy.”
The use of photographs depicting dead children is appropriate as long as it is advancing a cause and is not merely “pandering to lurid curiosity,” which the SJP warns against. As shown in ethical codes and as stated by the directors of newsrooms themselves, both principles of minimizing harm and obligation to the public must be weighed.
In closing, there needs to be conscious restraint in the decision making process, especially when dealing with death. In the decision making process, it seems that trauma is not adequately addressed. News Media have the power to traumatize families and communities. This power must be recognized, and precautions must be considered against traumatic depictions.
These two incidents change my perceptive of 'news'. It left me with so much unanswered questions….
Does a photo depicting tragedy exploit grief or serve a legitimate news function?
Should media houses run the photo?
Do they understand and consider the potential likelihood of the images offending readers by depicting death so closely?
Is it really news?
And last but not least…
What are media houses selling with this paper, information or emotion?
Posts
6 comments:
hmm, i agree.
Many people don't buy Newsday because of alleged sensationalism
yes i agree 100% newspapers need to revise their work ethics!
also to date the most inappropriate headline picture was that of the poor dead baby lying at the side of the road. i'm happy you addressed that particular photo.keep up the good work!
I believe that this country has thrown ethics out the window in terms of selling a newspaper. it has becoming about making a profit than having some respect for the victims.
i strongly agree with this article. The country is plagued with so much unnecessary killings that the newspapers keeps it raw an too real. What else will they print, because there is nothing new and exciting any more.
Could it be that these media houses are contributing to the current crime rate? Images of death plastered across a front page have become so common place, why would a potential criminal have second thoughts about committing a murder if his/her 'wuk' will 'make papers'?
Post a Comment