True or false? : “What makes images and videos disturbing is also what makes them newsworthy.”
Food for thought: Is media sensationalism necessary?
Sensationalism is when the media intentionally presents information in a way that is intended to be shocking or exciting. Sensationalism, especially in the form of photographs and videos elicits very strong reactions from viewers. In modern times, when images and videos of violent protests and attacks are broadcast on television networks or websites many people are quick to share and repost these violent images.
“What counts as too graphic to broadcast?” and “What counts as honest reporting?” are two main questions that come to my mind when I visualise some of the images and videos which have confronted me on newspaper cover pages and television news headlines.
Is a headline or explicit explanation of what happened and how it happened not good enough to shock viewers, readers or listeners?
Furthermore, is it really necessary or even ethical to sensationalise human life and human experiences?
What impact do images have and videos have?
If I were to ask this question to a government official who is running for office he/she/they would probably say images of election related violence would incite more violence and lead to an unstable political environment.
If I were to ask people on the streets what they think about seeing images or videos of a woman or child being sexually or physically violated they would probably argue that such footage is insensitive and not suitable for public consumption.
However, when people watch footage from war torn contexts, refugees crossing the sea from one continent to another or hungry children in drought areas they are likely to feel emotional and sympathetic towards the people on the screen.
Does this therefore mean that, “what makes images and videos disturbing is also what makes them newsworthy” ?
What about human dignity?
Is it worth it to post or broadcast pictures of naked emaciated children in order to get more views, likes, shares or extra notes in the bank?
If not, what is the cost of not showing images of some people’s harsh realities and experiences?
Personal thoughts*
As I was writing this blog post a lot was going on in my mind. I just completed a paper on the state of the media in South Africa with a particular focus on the South African Broadcasting Cooperation (SABC) decision not to show footage or images of violent protests. The reasons behind this decision include; not wanting to promote the incitement of further violence, not wanting to condone violent or criminal acts during protests and protecting the citizens from being influenced by such images.
It is particularly difficult to describe what I would personally regard as a fair media which has the best interests of the citizens at heart if I support the SABC’s decision. I believe that public protests should be captured and broadcast because they reflect on some constituencies’ concerns and socioeconomic or policy related grievances. Furthermore, even if mainstream sources of the media such as the SABC, BBC, CNN, ANN7, eNCA and so forth stop broadcasting such images, citizen journalism is taking over. In a world where many rely on tweets, Facebook posts and hashtags to follow current news updates, the media would definitely be moving a step back if they stop showing what is going on in the world.
