What images should and should not be seen? Where are certain images acceptable and where are they not? What contexts make them acceptable and unacceptable?
To me it is a question of value. If an image conveys important info or meaning, then you should show it regardless of graphic detail. If you believe an image, song, film, whatever has something to say that other people need to hear, then share it. However, if this thing is controversial, you have to go into it prepared for conflict. The abortion protesters that hold up signs depicting aborted fetuses do this. They stand behind their beliefs knowing full well that these images will piss a lot of people off. They believe that people need to see those images even if they don't want to.
At the same time, however, they are putting these images on display without censor in a public setting where anyone could pass by and see them. Graphic image display like this needs to carry with it a certain responsibility; children in particular should be protected from having to see such things. This is because they may not fully grasp the message or purpose, and all they see is a blown-up bloody mess. They will be disturbed without the full capacity to understand why. Adults too will be disturbed, but they can put their feelings in context and take in the information appropriately. Distributors of such images have a responsibility to avoid exposing children to things they are not ready to see.
Images that are excessively graphic should be further censored when there is little social need for them. They should be restricted so that only those people seeking them out are exposed to them. Such images would include pornography, bodies being cut open for surgeries, autopsies, etc., and mass violence.
Violence and gore are rarely necessary in the media, and they should be censored more often than sex and foul language, though it's usually the other way around. I can think of many violent images I've seen that disturbed me and still stick with me, but there are few cases of exposure to language or sex that have left marks on my psyche. The ones that are there are from cases when sex and language were combined with violence. The only situation I can think of in which gore is necessary-- when the general public needs to be exposed to it-- is when someone (a government, the mafia, whoever) is trying to cover up some tragedy they've committed. Gory images in this case would serve as proof and as a call to action, a call for positive change.
Such images should, whenever possible, be presented after a warning that the material is in fact awful. But sometimes that is not even enough. There are some websites like bestgore.com that are devoted to depicting the most gruesome images possible for the sake of the gruesomeness alone. There is no social statement that I know of. It's simply "Dude, how sick is that?" Many of the images are worse than anything I'd imagine on my own, but it isn't the images that disturb me the most. What bothers me is that there are people in this world with the motivation to create such a site/sight, that there is a big enough market of interested viewers to keep it going.
And even if images or stories do seem important, the media has the responsibility to censor them if they are likely to do more harm than good. Suicide, for instance, is a very tricky topic to cover. Presenting it one way, with lots of details of the act itself and a tone void of sympathy often adopted by news anchors, can make it appear that you're disrespecting the dead, which will likely upset friends and family of the deceased. Presenting it another way, with emotion and investigation of the subject's motivations, can glorify and sympathize with the act of suicide, which can in turn inspire an audience with suicidal thoughts to move one step closer toward suicidal action. Any coverage of a suicide must be kept free from a value judgment, positive or negative. In most cases, it's probably best to cover such events minimally, as it should rarely be the business of anyone other than those involved directly.
At the same time, coverage of a suicide could be possibly used to prevent future suicides. It's all a matter of how responsibly it's done, how well the possible results have been thought out and prepared for. The story of the suicide could have a positive effect potentially, but I can think of no situation in which it would be necessary to distribute visuals of suicides. All that would do is disturb, sicken, and inspire fear.
Stories and information should almost never be fully censored, but they should be distributed responsibly, keeping in mind the effects they will produce. We have freedom of speech and freedom of press, of course, but there is still a social responsibility that goes with these freedoms. With that in mind, information should always be available to those who seek it. Images, on the other hand, are not always necessary. They have a greater potential to disturb and produce negativity. And while you can choose whether you will read an article or listen to a story, you cannot always avoid seeing an image. It's just there. It hits you. It registers.
No comments:
Post a Comment