While I certainly understand the enormity of Gadhafi's death and the liberating effect it will have on the country of Libya, there may be a point were some type of privacy should be respected. As a journalist, I fully support the free-flow of information, the exposure of any and all truths, and the presentation of relevant evidence. I also think that visual proof is often key to public understanding, but the extremely graphic pictures may not be entirely necessary. I'm somewhat torn on this issue, unable to decide whether or not I believe that news organizations should have released such explicit images of the dead dictator.
James Poniewozik of Time wrote an interesting article on the issue. Here's a little of what he had to say...
A photo of a corpse is something more than just a data point. As a human being, I’d like to think that we’re disturbed by pictures of the dead–even evil tyrants–for good reason, because we recognize something sacred about life. (Which is a separate consideration from whether someone deserves to die.) Sometimes the news should, sparingly and with consideration, show dead bodies–because news is also about conveying the enormity of events, the fact that wars and disasters are not abstract and bloodless.What do you think? These are clearly powerful images, with some level of news worthy value, but was it ethical for news organizations to show photos of Gadhafi's corpse?
Unethical? maybe not. But definitely in bad taste. As an editor, I would not feel comfortable publishing photos of a corpse for the simple fact that it's a corpse, no matter who's.
ReplyDeleteSince I like to be able to view pictures of gory dead bodies even though I did not chose to look at this particular gory dead body, I come down on the side of ethical, particularly when the picture is behind the net wall and you have to seek it out and are suitably warned before you click. But taste and ethics mix and mingle if you are talking about the front page of a newspaper or web site or a broadcast news program. I think you can make the case that bad taste - gratuitously offending a large segment of your readership/viewership with an image or a video, the kind of stuff the effect of which is more visceral than intellectual - may interfere with your audience exposing itself to your more serious thoughtful reasonable content (words, I mean. News is an act of judgment, and ethics is a function of completing your missing, connecting with your audience.
ReplyDeleteBut as for refusing to link to something that's already out there - in the case of the Khadafy material I certainly would. It is newsworthy.
When I saw the photo of Gadhafi's corpse I cringed. Definitely unethical in my opinion. On the other hand, if a multiple of news programs are releasing the photos, others would most likely follow the trend thinking it's more "ethical" as long as everyone else is doing it.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't think that it's unethical. I think it depends on the majority's view of the deceased person. Ghadafi's corpse vs. Steve Job's corpse? I think there are certain people that the majority of the public wouldn't mind seeing dead, like Osama Bin Laden (whoop whoop the public rejoiced). Even more so because we REALLY know that he is dead, instead of just being told so by a government who so rarely extends us the courtesy of truth-telling. It's peace of mind for the public, whether it's gruesome or in bad taste. And it isn't like you HAVE to see his corpse, like Robertson mentioned. I searched for it and decided to click on it, mostly because a dead body wouldn't ruin my breakfast anyways.
ReplyDelete