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!
Hey Tiffani,
ReplyDeleteLike you, I am completely shocked with what exactly people are posting on social media. There was no way that I could subject anyone that viewed my blog post to a horrific sight. I'm really "sensitive" when it comes to seeing disturbing images because I feel such compassion for the people who are there going through it and realize their physical injuries are just the beginning because they are going to have to cope with their mental wounds. Having images exposing your darkest moments for the world to see is nothing short of terrifying. The physical wounds can heal, but how can someone heal emotionally when we are sharing their images--just like the man in the wheelchair!? That's something that I wish I never had to see. If I had children, I would hope that would be an image that they would not have ingrained in their minds either. Obviously we want to consume our news so quickly and in real time but are we willing to trade seeing unedited graphic images for the pure quickness? The million dollar question is how can we get people to be more sensitive on social media while still delivering the same message in real time (just with altered content)?
Now, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but aren't there cases where a case could be made for using these pictures beyond just shock value. My blog post features a harrowing case of a woman and child falling to their death from a rickety fire escape. The picture gained national attention, and within a year, a federal law had been passed mandating tighter fire escape safety codes.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to make the case that seeing these Boston bombing photos would or could have anything like the same benefit. But who gets to say which pictures will and which won't? An even better example might be someone in a famine zone taking a picture of a person starving to death. If that person has food, wouldn't it be better to put down your camera and extend the person's life by even a few days? Or can that photo be used to drive donations to UNICEF and save a hundred other people?
In the old days, a photographer would be just one link in the decision-making process: He or she would take the shots, and then a series of editors and designers (for newspapers/magazines) or producers and editors (for broadcast) would help decide what was fit for public consumption. Those layers are largely gone now, at least within the realm of social media. So the question -- or at least a question -- now becomes whether you and I and all of our fellow tweeters/posters/linkers can be trusted to do the right thing with these images. Yes, the photographer has an obligation to be ethical. But that's just the beginning.
Hi Megan, thanks for commenting. I think it all boils down to raising awareness of the consequences with shocking imagery. It's sad that we have to remind fellow humans about humanity, but Alicia's post did a really great job at posing several theories that could help editors and other social media users about posting graphic content. She mentioned the Golden Mean, which means that "if there is a more tasteful and less offensive to convey the same message, that would be the ethical option." I'm sure editors and photojournalists take this into consideration daily, but a reminder to be sensitive even in a world that moves (almost) too quickly couldn't hurt.
ReplyDeleteHi Eric, I love that you provoke me to consider these dilemmas in a different light. You're absolutely right to say that photos can bring effective and much needed change. Strong imagery is important to educate, cause us to self-reflect our own values, and even move us to action. As I mentioned to Megan a lot of this comes down to awareness. You mentioned layers being removed from news organizations because of social media, and unfortunately, so has the formal training and education along with it. I'm not sure how to spread awareness on such a mass scale about the effects of using particular images, but I think that'd be a step in the right direction.