Response Essay #1

After reading the articles provided, I believe that disturbing images are a necessary evil. I completely agree with the author, Pitts, that “challenging images sometimes describe reality in a way that words can’t”. I believe that for the most part disturbing images should be published. There are certain boundaries that should never be crossed, but those boundaries are very narrow and minimal. Only the most disturbing and graphic images that would be detrimental to a third party, related or not to the subject pictured, should never be published. I don’t believe that there should be laws to regulate the publication of disturbing images. Reporters and editors should have enough morality to know what is appropriate to publish, what might need special permission, and what should never be seen by the public.

I believe that people should be exposed to these disturbing images in order to convey the magnitude of a world issue. Sometimes words alone are just not enough. Reading a description of a catastrophe and seeing it for yourself on the front page of a news paper produce two completely different reactions. As McBride said, “It’s impossible to tell a story about death and destruction on the scale of the tsunami without showing some pictures that include death and destruction”. As I said above, I do however believe that there are certain things that never need to be shown to convey a story to the reader. One of these fine lines that I believe should never be crossed is pictures of dead children that are close enough to see faces and specific details. I found the picture of the tsunami victims and their mother the most disturbing of the images. I think it is a very powerful image but I believe that other photos can convey the same message without showing dead bodies of children. The tsunami picture that we saw in class is a perfect example of this. In the photo you still get death and destruction you just don’t have to bare the sight of dead children while drinking your morning coffee. I believe photos of dead children, especially ones showing faces, is one of the few types of images that should be censored by editors and their morals.

I do agree with Wally Rayl’s statement that “Not being able to face reality is a major problem in our society today.” If we are willing to support a war or a cause we need to be willing to accept and view the consequences. I believe that pictures, such as the flag draped coffins, show the consequences of our actions in going to war. The public can hear about casualties and what’s going on overseas, but seeing a picture of the coffins evokes a whole new emotion and shows the magnitude and the costs of us being at war. I believe that by supporting a cause, the supporters in essence sign an unwritten contract that they are willing to accept and therefore view the consequences of something they are supporting. In that same light, I agree with author Robert Steele in saying, “Journalists have a duty to help the public wrestle with tough societal issues and thorny national policy questions.” I interpret this to mean that it is the responsibility of the journalists to not only show disturbing photos to the readers supporting a cause, but also to readers that are indecisive about a cause. The public should have full access to all of the facts when fulfilling their civic duty or deciding what causes they would like support.

I do believe that there are certain images that should be censored by news organizations. In the APME survey article, Kelly McBride said “Dead bodies are one thing, bloated, decaying bodies are another.” I completely agree with this statement. If a reporter thinks that an image could possibly cause the reader to lose their breakfast because of the amount of blood and gore, then generally that is an image that does not belong in the newspaper. Nine times out of ten there is a less gory image that is just as powerful and will convey the same emotion without the risk of the reader getting sick. Another line that I believe should not be crossed is publishing photos of dead children, especially close up. This is one of those fine lines that there are many substitutes for. You can have an equally powerful image that is not as zoomed in or is of an over all disaster showing adults and children and still convey death and destruction. I believe the final thing that should be censored are photos of dead soldiers. These photos should be seen by the public, especially in national publications, but I do not believe that they should be seen without the permission of the family. I agree with the quote from Kathryn Martin that for someone who was close to the deceased soldier to see a picture of their loved one in publications day after day makes it harder for the family and friends to heal. If the family agrees to the printing of a photo there should be no objections to publishing it. On the other hand, if no face is visible in the photo or the body is not identifiable, the news organizations should not need permission to publish it.

In conclusion, I believe that disturbing images are something that the public needs to see but there are certain exceptions that should never be allowed in publications. Without disturbing images the public could not make fully informed decisions and they would not feel connected to issues across the globe. We need these images in our lives to convey the true impact of event and forever ingrain them in history. After all, if we did not publish disturbing images we would have never seen all of those photos that have changed the world.