Gone are the days of traditional mediums like radio, television, and newspapers relaying news of world events. At least, such is the case for Millennials who use Twitter and Facebook as their news outlets.
They use these platforms to make sense of their world -- getting quick, uncensored, up-to-the-minute updates as emergencies, such as the Boston Bombings, unfold. Social media is a great way to find out information from news organizations and citizen journalists alike, but at what point are uncensored images too graphic for public consumption?
I remember sitting in my office one afternoon when I saw my Twitter timeline go from generally happy conversations of daily activities and Taylor Swift dancing vines to "My prayers go out to Boston." Within an hour, my timeline had become inundated with information about the bombings, the suspects, and graphic photos with few warnings of explicit content.
I clicked through post after post to see if there was someone I recognized, and simultaneously prayed that I didn't. One photo in particular is ingrained to memory. One of a man being pushed in a wheelchair with one leg missing, and the other blown away with the remaining bone exposed. One that I won't post because it can't be unseen.
It's sad. It's gruesome. And it could have gone without posting.
It was one thing to read of screaming, crying, running footsteps, and first responders' vehicles arriving to the scene. Boston was in a state of emergency and the attack created utter chaos. But this photo in particular was not needed to illustrate the realities of the event. It takes storytelling to another level - it haunts me.
I had ethical issues with viewing this photo because traumatic imagery can cause viewers to experience distress, anxiety, and helplessness as I did. Especially for minors, or anyone with a personal connection to the victim or event - posting this photo involves injury by exposure. A photo like this is simply too grisly and too graphic for public consumption.
More importantly, I had ethical issues for the man in the image. His consent for the photo was not given, his face was not blacked out, and his privacy was blatantly obstructed. The image was shared beyond measure and any time that he searches his name thereafter, he will be reminded back to this horrific time and place. For him, this will never go away.
I understand images are essential to storytelling, but I refuse to believe that we have become numb to graphic, traumatic images such as these. I think emergencies such as the Boston Bombings could use more sensitivity. And I believe that news organizations and people should aim to be humane and decent when using social media, not always for shock value.
Leave me with your thoughts below!
They use these platforms to make sense of their world -- getting quick, uncensored, up-to-the-minute updates as emergencies, such as the Boston Bombings, unfold. Social media is a great way to find out information from news organizations and citizen journalists alike, but at what point are uncensored images too graphic for public consumption?
I remember sitting in my office one afternoon when I saw my Twitter timeline go from generally happy conversations of daily activities and Taylor Swift dancing vines to "My prayers go out to Boston." Within an hour, my timeline had become inundated with information about the bombings, the suspects, and graphic photos with few warnings of explicit content. I clicked through post after post to see if there was someone I recognized, and simultaneously prayed that I didn't. One photo in particular is ingrained to memory. One of a man being pushed in a wheelchair with one leg missing, and the other blown away with the remaining bone exposed. One that I won't post because it can't be unseen.
It's sad. It's gruesome. And it could have gone without posting.
It was one thing to read of screaming, crying, running footsteps, and first responders' vehicles arriving to the scene. Boston was in a state of emergency and the attack created utter chaos. But this photo in particular was not needed to illustrate the realities of the event. It takes storytelling to another level - it haunts me.
I had ethical issues with viewing this photo because traumatic imagery can cause viewers to experience distress, anxiety, and helplessness as I did. Especially for minors, or anyone with a personal connection to the victim or event - posting this photo involves injury by exposure. A photo like this is simply too grisly and too graphic for public consumption.
More importantly, I had ethical issues for the man in the image. His consent for the photo was not given, his face was not blacked out, and his privacy was blatantly obstructed. The image was shared beyond measure and any time that he searches his name thereafter, he will be reminded back to this horrific time and place. For him, this will never go away.
I understand images are essential to storytelling, but I refuse to believe that we have become numb to graphic, traumatic images such as these. I think emergencies such as the Boston Bombings could use more sensitivity. And I believe that news organizations and people should aim to be humane and decent when using social media, not always for shock value.
Leave me with your thoughts below!
