Is it right to show film and photos of the dead?

trishasaffron

This issue comes up for me each time we have a global tragedy and see horrific images of the dead and dying. Watching coverage of Haiti a friend remarked that in some European countries it is forbidden to show coverage of the dead and dying as its demeaning to the dignity of the individual.

Its particularly troubling to me that we mostly get coverage of the poorest and most vulnerable in this way. I don't think our TV shows too many photos of the dead and dying in our own country. In fact we often blank out faces when doing coverage of something much less important such as obesity.

Do we consider these "others" have less right to dignity?

kpbdublin

It's a difficult one. How do you convey the horror of a situation without showing the bodies? I don't like seeing dead bodies in papers, but that is just for my own comfort. Some editors are fond of stiffs for prurient reasons, but others might feel that it gives a greater sense of what has happened.
The media probably avoid showing domestic bodies out of sensitivity to the families. Curiously though, I don't remember seeing too many pictures of bodies on 9/11. So your point may be a valid one.

OctavarIan

America are notorious for this, they rarely if ever show dead or severly wounded American soldiers. It's to instill a sense of invincibility in the country.

As for showing film and photos of the dead in general, I think it depends on the event and interest level. I wouldn't go out of my way to photograph bodies but if they helped really set the scene and tell the story I wouldn't hesitate including them. Same goes for the injured. With events such as Haiti I think it's necessary to show the impact the event had on a human level.

trishasaffron

Having followed more of the Haiti coverage over the past few days I just can't understand how the journalists can justify what they do.

From my standpoint (or sitpoint! i.e. watching tv and reading newspapers) it seems a significant number of journalists from each country in the world have made haste to Haiti (utilising scare resources of transport, food, water and attention) at the very time when the inhabitants are in dire need of humanitarian aid in the form of food, water, shelter, medical assistance and help with identifying and burying the dead.

I assume they rationalise their hotfoot journeys and their wasting of aid workers/medics time by supposing that the publicity they offer is in some way helping the situation by increasing the flow of funds. But most copped on aid workers who know the situation there (e.g. the MSF guy who was actually based in Haiti) said that money was not an issue - there is more than enough actual cash available - what is missing is transportation, logistics management etc. I think the locals would be much better off if the flights in were used to carry in aid and aid workers and if the hard pressed local medics/people digging in the rubble etc didn't have to waste time giving multiple interviews to the thousands of journalists who seem to have flocked to the site.

If they want to help maybe they could grab a shovel rather than reporting with shock and horror the banality that yes of course a natural disaster like an earthquake does indeed result in death and tragedy!:(

Kevster

I think that it is abhorrent and disrespectful, but it has crept into the news over the past few years. They rarely did it at first, but now you see a dead body 'every week'. I really find it disgusting. As part of a family who lost a young member due to a car crash, even the picture of the car in the newspaper was enough to cause immense distress. I cannot imagine what would happen if a picture of the dead relative himself was shown.

The media has become brash and arrogant. Sky News has long-since lost my respect (I've been watching it for over a decade now; I'm 26), but I'm sorry to say that even BBC News is now becoming 'iffy'.

Kevin

Soulja boy

These are scenes of great tragedy, often shocking and upsetting, and useful in reminding people of the reality of life and their responsibility to others in it.
Of course only after the watershed, if my kids saw those pictures I would raise hell.

Cadiz

Good post. I was thinking just that today.

I was also wondering if this tragedy had happened in say San Francisco or New York would newspapers and TV stations display pictures of the dead in this graphic fashion.

I think survivors of this tragedy have suffered enough without having images of their relatives semi-clothed and disfigured bodies broadcast all over the world.

The horror of the situation can be compellingly conveyed without this exploitation.

Soulja boy

Cadiz wrote: »

Good post. I was thinking just that today.

I was also wondering if this tragedy had happened in say San Francisco or New York would newspapers and TV stations display pictures of the dead in this graphic fashion.

I think survivors of this tragedy have suffered enough without having images of their relatives semi-clothed and disfigured bodies broadcast all over the world.

The horror of the situation can be compellingly conveyed without this exploitation.

Your example of San Fransisco and New York is kind of funny really. They DID show the bodies of people after September 11th AND New Orleans after hurricane Katrina.

Cadiz

Soulja boy wrote: »

Your example of San Fransisco and New York is kind of funny really. They DID show the bodies of people after September 11th AND New Orleans after hurricane Katrina.

They didn't show photographs of identifiable bodies of victims of any of these tragedies in anything like the same casual, exploitative way they have for Haiti. Not in Irish media anyway.

There are photographs in yesterday's Irish Times of the Haiti situation that would never have appeared if the earthquake was in London, New York etc.

Soulja boy

Cadiz wrote: »

They didn't show photographs of identifiable bodies of victims of any of these tragedies in anything like the same casual, exploitative way they have for Haiti. Not in Irish media anyway.

There are photographs in yesterday's Irish Times of the Haiti situation that would never have appeared if the earthquake was in London, New York etc.

9 years ago the irish media wouldn't have, its become pretty common for them to now.

Morlar

I think they should and are right to. Likewise with women who are stoned to death, people who are beheaded etc etc. So long as they are not showing the person dying but already dead then it is required to illustrate the scale of the story in my view.

HalloweenJack

I agree with it.

I think it brings home the human impact of the tragedies that have occured and if that, in turn, gets more people involved in the charity drives, then I see nothing wrong with it.

2manyconditions

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I agree with it.

I think it brings home the human impact of the tragedies that have occured and if that, in turn, gets more people involved in the charity drives, then I see nothing wrong with it.

Like as said above, I find photos of the Holcaust particularly horrible, but without those images, you would prob never realise or picture properly the severity of what millions of people went through.

Images like those of the poorhouses during the famine in Ireland are not captured and 100s of thousands died. - it brings home the reality of those situations. Puts the little things in perspective.

At least the television is somewhat sensored, the internet is a whole different set of rules

whatsonin.ie

it's happens - its real life.
Are we expected to 'pretend' its not happening.
I worked for a publication during the '90's - at the height of the war in Bosnia/Croaita/Serbia. I remember taking in a pic for PA taken in Sarajevo of a crowd of people that had taken a direct hit from a mortar - unbelievable carnage.

Two minds:
1)I though everyone should see that picture
2) it was way to graphic

(3. wasn't my call anyway - far from it)

planetX

There was a documentary recently on the boxing day tsunami. There was footage of people being swept away to their deaths, some of them must have died as they were being filmed. I found that to be really repulsive and disrespectful, to be filmed as you die. It wasn't making any point either, except that tsunamis are dangerous. I wonder if relatives were asked for consent to show that?

Run_to_da_hills

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I agree with it.

I think it brings home the human impact of the tragedies that have occured and if that, in turn, gets more people involved in the charity drives, then I see nothing wrong with it.

+1

It shows the true aspects of tragedies, war, road accidents, scumbag murders etc and that they are real life.