Should graphic images be shown to the public?

[nickmak]

Hi,

The question above 'Should graphic images be shown to the public?' is a question that I had selected for my presentation. It deals with the problems of knowledge and bias etc. Basically I'm asking if censorship should be stronger with graphic pictures, especially of those in the Iraq War and the recent Tsunami.

I would like as many of you to help me visualise the different points of view regarding this topic. I'll need it rather urgently as it is for my assessed presentation for my final year exams.

Thank you in advance to all who reply! :sweatsm:

Best regards,
Nick

 

[Zplus]

Hi,

The question above 'Should graphic images be shown to the public?' is a question that I had selected for my presentation. It deals with the problems of knowledge and bias etc. Basically I'm asking if censorship should be stronger with graphic pictures, especially of those in the Iraq War and the recent Tsunami.

I would like as many of you to help me visualise the different points of view regarding this topic. I'll need it rather urgently as it is for my assessed presentation for my final year exams.

Thank you in advance to all who reply! :sweatsm:

Best regards,
Nick

It will depend on the society. How well it tolerates these shots. For example, some european countries are quite ok with graphic images, including some of the tsunami ones... If those appeared in straits times, I am sure you will get some folks who cannot take it to complain.

 

[Ian]

It's a question asked by editors, photographers, videographers etc on a daily basis and the answer is always the same "It depends on the exact circumstances, the political leaning of the news organisation, it's intended goal (political and or social), regional laws (censorship by government) and the local sensibilities of the target audience.

Most in tune news organisations, regardless of medium do not like to receieve distraught phone calls from large numbers of their target audience who have just barfed up breakfast, dinner etc because some extremely graphic images were displayed at an innapropriate time for their sensitive stomachs.

With that said, it also has to be remembered that editorial impositions placed on news services by their owners do have far more impact on the honest reporting of events than the general public are aware of as it's open discussion is a not generally encouraged by the mass media as a whole, for fairly obvious reasons. A couple of excellent media barrons worth studying are Murdoch, Conrad Black and the Maxwells to see how editorial stances imposed by the proprietor has a massive effect on the world political and social scene.

As for the reporting of the whole truth, well that's a can of worms as few journalists and reporters have the guts to tell it all without fear or favour lest their career be shortned in a variety of methods ranging from being sacked to a number of more terminal solutions that have been applied by various governments and organisations over the years.

 

[waileong]

if there is a purpose to it. Remember famous pictures/stories such as the dragging and mutilation of American soldier's courses through Mogadishu in 1993, how it caused the US to withdraw from Somalia.

It shouldn't if there is no purpose to it. It's kind of like porn vs artistic films. Porn has nudity and sex with no storyline, artistic films have nudity and sex for a purpose. If you just want to show how gory your picture is, but there is no real reason to show gore, then you shouldn't show it.

Should and should not are value-system questions, can and cannot are practical questions. If your viewers/readers cannot tolerate gore and you stand to lose viewership/readership by showing gore, then the answer is clear.