Some of you reading this article might find
it distressing.
That’s a version of the kind of warning
that many broadcasters use to preview graphic content.
Cynics see it as a major call to action –
“Watch now!” but others, particularly parents of young children, may starting lunging
for the remote.
The shooting dead of a journalist and a
cameraman live on air on Wednesday morning in the United States put all the
editorial challenges facing newsrooms into sharp focus.
It used to be a particular test for
television news but now newspapers, radio stations, websites, apps and social
media publishers are all able to both access and publish the pictures.
The immediate question about the Virginia
shooting was what to publish but it soon became even more complicated. The
gunman Bryce Williams – a former reporter at station WDJB – had taken his own
footage and uploaded it to Twitter along with allegations about the station and
the woman reporter he had just murdered. So not only were there considerations
around taste and decency, there were also moral challenges about giving the
murderer’s own content a platform.
The debate about the rights and wrongs of
showing either the station’s footage or that of Williams immediately swung into
action on social media before professional news managers had a chance to put
out their own stories.
Some Twitterati urged their fellow Tweeters
not to circulate the station’s unedited footage with exchanges ranging from
sharp to downright abusive. The chorus of disapproval grew even louder when it
became clear that the gunman had uploaded his own videos.
Some argued that it would encourage copycat
responses while others said it would give the gunman the notoriety he was
looking for (he eventually turned the gun on himself following a police chase).
The micropublishers on social media platforms did as they saw fit depending on
their take on the censorship issue but those with a professional responsibility
to their viewers had to take a more considered view.
News managers are often asked to make
judgement calls on sensitive or graphic content. This can range from protocols
about showing medical needles going into someone’s skin to close-up shots of
decapitated bodies.
Different countries and cultures apply
different standards. Here, traditional media would not show close-ups of dead
bodies, severed limbs and body parts after an explosion, excessive blood or
anything else which might be considered offensive or disrespectful to the dead.
However, they might show a body in the distance or a body covered in a blanket.
They might even consider showing a closer shot of death in the context of war
or famine to illustrate the appalling consequences of the story they are
reporting. Essentially it becomes a judgement call for news managers and despite
these general guidelines, each one is made on a case by case basis.
A journalist’s natural instinct is to
publish rather than censor. Facts and pictures – once verified – speak for
themselves and any omissions corrupt the purity of the story. Against that,
there are boundaries of taste and decency that mitigate against unedited
content.
In the case of the Virginia shooting, CNN decided
to broadcast the unedited live footage from WDJB once every hour with a warning
ahead of it. The content was emotionally distressing but not as visually
graphic as those who chose not to view it might have imagined.
BBC, ITV, RTÉ, TV3 and independent.ie all
used footage that went to black when the shooting started while keeping the
audio running before the pictures cut back to WDJB’s studio. RTÉ did not give a
warning about distressing content on the Six One – TV3 did before its 5.30. TV3
chose to use footage from the gunman’s video on the 5.30 but RTÉ decided not
to. Independent.ie put up a slate as the shooting started saying distressing
images had been removed. The following morning some tabloid newspapers used
stills of the shooting taken from footage that the television stations hadn’t
shown.
The ethical question around showing the
footage later released by the gunman was underlined when Twitter and Facebook
blocked Williams’ account to prevent others from seeing it - although not
before many of their users had captured the content.
When social media platforms first became
established, their line was that they did not want to editorialise but inevitably
they have been drawn into that area following the uploading of ISIS beheadings
and the murder of fusilier Lee Rigby in London. Now social media businesses –
for that’s what they’ve become - have evolved extensive policies and guidelines
to protect their integrity and reputation.
When considering the suitability of
footage, context can lead to apparent double standards. Arguably the deaths of
JFK and Bobby Kennedy were more graphic in content visually than the deaths of
the two people in Virginia but few would seek to censure those images in the
context of historical documentary or analysis. Yet those same images could be
extremely shocking for a small child who might happen across them on a
television in someone’s living room.
Essentially the judgement call is made with
the viewer in mind with regard to taste and decency, censorship and also the
business risk of losing that part of the audience that might be alienated by
graphic, visceral images. Timing can be another factor, not just for graphic
images, but sexual content and language, with concerns about younger viewers
watching earlier in the day.
In the final analysis the values of the
news organisation and its relationship with its audience will prevail. Those
viewers who are determined to see everything will always find an outlet somewhere
on the web and for those who are offended by what is on the screen in front of
them, there is always the off button.
Bob Hughes
@bobhughesnews
No comments:
Post a Comment