Reporters covering the Vietnam war sent home thousands upon thousands of images and video that shocked the American public. For instance the video of General Ngoc Loan of South Vietnam killing the untried prisoner was shown on the nightly news, but it had undergone some editing. Rather than showing the part of the film where blood can be seen spewing from the victims head, the network decided to cut to black, I believe that this was in their better judgment. Have the rules of what is appropriate to publish and what isn't changed over time? More recently there was an incident in Boston where the moments before a young womens death were captured on camera and published on the front page of the paper. Was this in the papers best taste? Is it alright to show these photos, knowing that the woman died mere milliseconds after? I think that photojournalism is a great tool for informing the audience but I think that there should be some ethics to them.
While watching television the other day I was shocked at some of the images I was witnessing on the screen. Horrendous images of bodies hanging lifeless from the gallows, bodies dismembered and covered in blood stained sheets (some covering barely more than the victims face). I thought for a moment that maybe I somehow had come across a premium channel that typically has less restrictions about the material they show, but much to my surprise I was watching National Geographic! This channel is one of very few channels now a days that holds any educational value, doesn't one think that it would be best not to offend (and potentially traumatize) their younger viewers? Do these images respect the subjects of the photos? Would YOU want to see dead bodies in the newspaper while sipping your morning coffee or while flipping through the channels with your family at night?
I fully support the fourth estate, and the rights protected by the first amendment but I also think that there should be boundaries set to respect the dead and their family.
No comments:
Post a Comment