Who decides what's good and what's bad?
As a part of my course at the Asian College of Journalism, Chennai, we have had several discussions on sensationalism by newspapers and mainly news channels. We have discussed at length on how the broadcast medium is insensitive in the coverage of tragedies. The tsunami reports are recent examples.
I would like to point out a photograph from the blasts that shocked Delhi yesterday. The explosions killed more than 50 people. [Sorry, each source gives me different death figures]. A terrible tragedy and an even terrible coverage:
Please click on the following link:
Serial blasts kill 70 persons in Delhi
I was shocked or rather disgusted to see the photograph on the front page of a respected paper like The Hindu. Where have the media’s ethics gone? I understand that what happened yesterday was pathetic. It is impossible to imagine the pain suffered by this injured man and his family. But, I think this photo is highly voyeuristic. It’s not the man’s condition but the insensitive use of his condition that makes me sick in the pit of my stomach.
It would be unfair to raise fingers only at The Hindu. In fact, I hope today’s picture is only a rare occurrence in the newspaper’s history. TV channels do it even more.
Like asking a tsunami victim who has lost his family to the sea… “How do you feel?” OR
Debating to decide with whom a woman should stay- her first husband [a prisoner of war in Pakistan] or her second husband whose child she is expecting? OR
Repeatedly showing the body of a suicide bomber explode.
I understand that it’s the TRPs that matter to news channels today and this kind of sensationalism attracts viewers. And I know that as a broadcast journalist, I will have to endure the struggle between commercial concerns and my ethics every single working day.
I would like to point out a photograph from the blasts that shocked Delhi yesterday. The explosions killed more than 50 people. [Sorry, each source gives me different death figures]. A terrible tragedy and an even terrible coverage:
Please click on the following link:
Serial blasts kill 70 persons in Delhi
I was shocked or rather disgusted to see the photograph on the front page of a respected paper like The Hindu. Where have the media’s ethics gone? I understand that what happened yesterday was pathetic. It is impossible to imagine the pain suffered by this injured man and his family. But, I think this photo is highly voyeuristic. It’s not the man’s condition but the insensitive use of his condition that makes me sick in the pit of my stomach.
It would be unfair to raise fingers only at The Hindu. In fact, I hope today’s picture is only a rare occurrence in the newspaper’s history. TV channels do it even more.
Like asking a tsunami victim who has lost his family to the sea… “How do you feel?” OR
Debating to decide with whom a woman should stay- her first husband [a prisoner of war in Pakistan] or her second husband whose child she is expecting? OR
Repeatedly showing the body of a suicide bomber explode.
I understand that it’s the TRPs that matter to news channels today and this kind of sensationalism attracts viewers. And I know that as a broadcast journalist, I will have to endure the struggle between commercial concerns and my ethics every single working day.
posted by Jemima at 2:58 AM
3 Comments:
Good article, except for one point... You could have written your article without showing the picture itself!
1. If this picture is so disgusting, why link to it ? I don't really understand this... If you find something disgusting, you don't want other people to see it, correct? it's like giving crack cocaine to people and telling them "see how bad and addictive it is"... So why are you writing about it, knowing that MORE people will eventually see it? It is a way of playing the game of sensationalism... and thus, it spoils the rest of your argument.
2. I am sure that 100% of the readers of your article have clicked on the link to see the picture. In a way, you were teasing us readers, using this picture... And that's quite shady...
3. The picture is not a problem in itself. Showing this picture on TV is not a problem indeed. After all, this is just a fact, an evidence. We live in a bad, bad world, without ethics and sensitivity. If you want to show the world the way it is, you have to show it raw. What's wrong is simply the way people look at this picture, and the way they interpret it - more precisely what they try to find in it. We have nothing to say about this picture in particular. It could have been another one. What's wrong is simply that people are not educated to look at the news reports from the right angle. Castrating the journalists or blaming them is not the solution.
To conclude, voyeurism is not exhibitionist : if you want to blame voyeurism in today's TV or press, blame the voyeurs - the watchers and readers. Not the journalists.
All I want to say about this issue is that any media should put a warning on its report saying that the following pictures/video is highly disturbing to watch and give the viewer the option to make the decision whether the indiviual wants to see it or not.
I must agree that showing such graphic pictures hurts the sentimentalities of the family and friends related to that person and I personally believe that in such critical situations the emotions of the people involved should be respected.
Item 3 comment by anonymous saying that we live in a 'bad bad world without ethics and senstivity' and hence everything is OK is a very pessimistic view of the world. I have found 99% of the people I have met in my life to be very nice people and there is no reason as to why a person should paint such a macabre picture of the world in general. Terrorism is carried out by a very view percentage of the population of the whole world and they are very SICK people.
About my point 3:
It is a bad bad world, unless you're living in a fairy-tale or you have unicorns for pets. But, I did not say everything is "OK" because of that. My point is, it's the media's job to cover all that goes on in this world and it's very fair to show details of any prevailing
situation, whether good or bad. People suffer - we must show their suffering.
About pessimism, what I gather from the post is that the author herself has a very pessimistic attitude towards the details I mentioned above. I will have to believe that she is a voyeuse because she looks for perversion in reality. Voyeurism is a perversion coming from the act of watching a sexual intercourse (or anything subjected to a perversion). Images cannot be "voyeuristic" - only the viewer's point of view is (in this case, the author's).
It is also pessimistic to portray journalists as perverts. It is their job to show this world unadulterated.
You say that there should be warnings... Jemima's article contained a warning, and I am sure however, that 100% of the readers followed the link to check the picture. Warnings are teasers, and transform a simple picture into a show. Saying that a picture is "disturbing" is : negating its reality AND putting the reader/viewer in the wrong attitude to understand and interpret what's coming - making them expect entertainment.
To sum up my point: there's nothing pervert or disgusting in bare facts. Journalists must show the bare facts, to portray the world as it is. The only perversion we should worry about comes from uneducated readers, viewers or commenters.
Post a Comment
<< Home