The news media uses photographs to strengthen the emotional message of articles. Sometimes, the stories are too aggressive or violent to use photos as an expressive way to reach audiences. There’s an ethical dilemma that makes it immoral to have photographs of murder scenes or criminal scenarios as a vivid reminder of the previous day’s events in the next morning papers. Whether society agrees or disagrees with this ethical issue, a journalist will be the one deciding on what material will be published. In this report, I will analyze the Standard Gravure issue, the choices the journalist had when reporting and why. I agree with this issue but, I will discuss the effect of the decision on the individuals involved and on the community in general. Finally, relevant laws may apply if it was a different situation and how legal implications affected the journalist’s decision.
During the Standard Gravure shooting, a disgruntled former pressman on disability for mental illness walked into a printing plant with an AK-47 wounding 13 and killing 7 before turning the gun on him. When reporting an issue like this, C. Thomas Hardin, the photo and graphics editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal had a choice of portraying the horror captured with an image of a “dead victim lying on his back at the bottom of the stairs, his arms spread out and his body partially resting on a track used to move large rolls of paper.” Hardin also had the choice of capturing other segments of the shooting spree like photographing bystanders’ grieving and personal witnesses’ facial expressions however, there was no other way of directly expressing the horrific distress caused at the murder scene. It was Hardin’s responsibility to carry out on to the public the story of what really happened in the plant; some of the closest relatives to victims of such issues disagree with the media publishing photographs directly resembling a chaotic murder scene.
I agree with the journalist’s decision on publishing that specific photograph because the public must know with detail how and why these situations occur in real life. In order to educate the public on how terrifying and socially immoral a 30 minute shooting spree can be, the news media cannot simply misrepresent the core meaning of a bloody scenery by demonstrating a photo of two victims’ relatives sobbing and crying. The photo of the two victims’ relatives crying only shows the grievance and emotional position of distress however, it does not show how the massacre really turned out to be. Once a photograph like this reaches the public, the viewer is able to distinguish how horrific it is; so emotionally touching that it can make a difference on how much more importance the public gives to such issue. According to Robin Hughes (2011) Hardin clarified that the picture was published because it awakens the public as to why legislation on automatic weapons is so relevant to society. Hardin said, “Coupled with national debate on automatic weapons, the use of the photo was validated.” Therefore, in order to make public the outcome of legally allowing the public possession of automatic weapons, photographs of wraths like these open eyes anywhere in the world.
The effect of the decision on the individuals involved and on the community in general could be measured by the 500 complaints the news media received along with one lawsuit filed against Louisville Courier-Journal which was won by this same newspaper company. There was no doubt the community was upset because it was a very vividly reminder of what took place in the plant during the shooting spree. How else the public would have been aware of such shocking images if it was not for that photograph? If Hardin would have opted to address this ethical decision with a different choice of photograph, per say a photo that depicts a bloody wounded victim receiving paramedic help. Then the message of horrifying situations and legal automatic weapons for the public would have been almost as shocking but, with the same intention.
According to Hanusch, F. (2008) the debate on how media represent death has been at the heart of the argument that death in Western societies has, in the late twentieth century, been absent from public discourse and only present in private form. This is a controversial issue that the public will address according to cultural and ethical beliefs depending on the location in the planet however; in the Standard Gravure case it is very obvious that the public rather maintain death in a private form. On a different note, 500 complaints can only represent a group of people that were reached by the victims but are not representing the mentality of how a major part of society should truly be in regards to being aware of availability of automatic weapons and the awful act of murder.
Moreover, according to Joyce, D. (2008) the use made of photography by non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) alongside with courts and tribunals is highly ideological to boost the legitimacy of public justice initiatives and assist in any public relations. “At times professional photographers have collaborated in such forms of advocacy, but they remain bound by their own professional codes of conduct and independent forms of practice.” In many cases, independent forms of practice and professional codes of conduct collide in the way that any public law of justice is reprehended from knowing the issue’s realm. In the case of Hardin, there was an ultimate decision to communicate emotions captured so there could be some sort of social awakening in many areas of the spectrum that allow for so many controversial discussions to arise. In other words, the bottom line decision of publishing such a horrific photograph came from the public role of managing ethical standards throughout society and in fact, it had such effect.
There are relevant and primordial laws that influenced the Hardin’s decision of publishing the photo. According to Joyce, D. there could be a situation where an image’s production is itself a human rights abuse, rather than an act of human rights witnessing and testimony. Hardin was not producing an image to abuse human rights in fact, Hardin was defending human rights. According to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people. The photograph’s publishing is not a discouragement but a responsibility as an organ of society. The Universal Declaration also explains that every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the people of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
The only legal implication was the lawsuit against Louisville Courier-Journal; the family of the victim whose photo was taken once dead, is alleging that the newspaper intentionally and recklessly inflicted mental distress on the family and that publication of the photo was an invasion of their privacy. On the other hand, the photo did what it was intended to, showing the reality of what assault weapons are capable of and adding on, if a less graphic photograph would have been shown instead, then it would not have been as effective. As community members, the family must accept this was a very tragic situation as much as it was public and, even though death could be a private topic, the person inflicted was affected by a public issue which is gun violence. If it would have been a suicide situation, the photographer had no right to show a man hanging by the neck then, it would have been a violation of privacy and the news media would have deliberately and intentionally inflicted mental distress. Finally, because this is a public issue that affected the public in general, a piece of reality must be shown to have society react to gun violence, not the photographers publishing for social justice awakening.
At last, the dilemma of illustrating articles with photos that create such controversy was discussed. If the photo captures the true meaning of the outcome of the criminal intent that links it to another public issue then, it is up to the newspaper’s notion to make a decision on whether publishing it or not. The journalist took the right choice of, by publishing with a photo, make gun violence so important even among those who were not directly affected. The legal implications allowed understanding how human rights were protecting the news media entity and how it ultimately had a responsibility on carrying out that message.
References
Hanusch, F. (2008). Graphic death in the news media: present or absent?. Mortality, 13(4), 301-317. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Joyce, D. (2010). Photography and the Image-Making of International Justice. Law & Humanities, 4(2), 229-249. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hughes, Robin. (2011) “A photo that had to be used” Anatomy of a newspaper’s decision. Retrieved April 25, 2011 from Indiana University.
N.A. (2011) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved April 25, 2011 from www.un.org
No comments:
Post a Comment