But now I want to think
through a case study about the ethical use of imagery—when is an image too
much?
Last year we had one very extreme example of the
use of imagery to shock in a TV
news.
While we can see here that
the image in question has been blocked form viewers, the story itself has been
told in the context of discussing the rise of the Islamic State or ISIS
political group in Iraq and also, more abstractly of what the Australian
government should do about ‘home grown terrorists’.
Is this the best way to
tell that story?
On one hand, yes. It is an
explosive image that shows the negative effects of this kind of radicalism.
On the other hand, no. How
does it impact on the debate and discussion about what the government should do
about Australian-born people who flee to fight foreign wars and then want to
return home. Does it just inflame people’s emotions?
The use of imagery for
news and information has always been complex.
We have amazingly iconic
pictures that have impacted on the way events have played out.
You might know this
picture that raised the plight of conditions during the war in Sudan.
Or did it? The public
outrage caused by this image was so intense that it caused the photographer to
retreat from public life. The photographer later committed suicide, though this
was never formally linked to the impact of the image on his life.
You may remember this
story about The Falling Man. Watch this documentary.
Consider the following:
·
Take yourself back to the
first day of the attacks. As an editor, would you publish the videos of people
falling to show the horror of 9/11?
·
What are the guidelines
that you can think of to guide your decision as to when to use shocking videos
and images?
No comments:
Post a Comment