In 2005 the Associated Press won the Pulitzer Prize for News Photography with several graphic and controversial pictures of the Iraq war. There were pictures of dead bodies, pictures of slain and dismembered corpses, and pictures of executions as they happened. This did not sit well with many Americans who were upset by the explicit level of detail showed in these photos and then published in newspapers across the country. The Pulitzer Prize only added fuel to the fire.
I would argue though that condemning these pictures for showing the way things are is like Nero fiddling while Rome burns. The idea that graphic images shouldn’t be shown is contradictory to the very core of journalism whose mission is to inform the masses. It is the job of news outlets to be in the action and report what is going on for the people at home. To attempt to soften the reality of what is happening would be to do a great disservice to anyone relying on the media for truthful objective information.
While the assignment asks for an analysis based on “a photograph” and I started by specifically mentioning a series, I would argue that the ethics of graphic photos in the news is based on more of a Kantalonian principle of universal norms than on an individual analysis of each piece of work. It is from this perspective that I purpose that no photograph be censored from release to the public strictly because it is too graphic in nature. Some people argue that a graphic picture needs to have more news value to be released but I would counter that as long as it has as much value as any other picture in the publication it passes the test. Granted, photos shouldn’t be published strictly for shock factor, but if they are of a significant news event, then they don’t’ need to be any better or worse to get in the paper.
The United States is made up entirely of a decision making body that needs to be informed about the real consequences of what they vote on. This country isn’t able to inform a select few people and let them make the decisions – as a democracy every single one of our citizens needs to be as informed as possible and if that means they must endure graphic pictures than so be it. As a country I think we suffer from the illusion of separation between what we vote on and what actually happens. We would be very angry if the President didn’t go to the World Trade Towers or take a tour of Iraq simply because he (or she in the future) didn’t want to see what was going on. How then do we, as the people that pick the president, justify being in favor of censoring or giving warning for graphic images?
Graphic, explicit photographs make an impression on people which is precisely the reason that some people don’t want to see them. They don’t want to know that people are being slain in the middle of a crowded highway. They don’t want to know that people are being executed on a city street in Siagon. And they certainly don’t want to know that the fire escape outside their window could fail and send them falling several stories to the street below. These are not realities that some people want to be confronted with, but it is a reality they should be aware of which is why all three of the above mentioned photos won the Pulitzer Prize.
Pictures are said to be worth a thousand words which is really just a metaphor for saying they can be very powerful and tell the viewer a lot about the subject. This is exactly what journalism is supposed to do. If a photograph is able to tell the story of the war in Iraq then publish it. If the emotion of a distraught parent at Columbine or the elation of a person being pulled off a roof in New Orleans can’t be described by even the best writer, show a photograph.
Its not the media’s job to decide what we as the public can and can’t handle. We deserve to see the pictures for the sake of being better informed, both simply for our own benefit, and because ultimately the public is responsible for making the decisions of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment