Social Media and Picture Ethics

Steven Hernández
sh082214@ohio.edu

It is no surprise that social media sites like twitter are leading the charge in online journalism. As more individuals are turning to their phones for news, sites like Facebook and Twitter are top destinations to find the latest news.

While online sources have given the masses the opportunity to spread stories and images that would otherwise be difficult by a since journalist to do, there are still ethical questions that should be asked with the kind of content that is allowed on social media.

Furthermore, online platforms are perfect for the spread of misinformation and the misuse of images, and further the debate of how controversial an online image should get before it has to be addressed—or in extreme cases, perhaps taken down.

Taking pictures of graphic or controversial events and publishing them in one way or the other is nothing new; photojournalists have been taking pictures of the disturbing for years. From the controversial Abu Ghraib prison abuse photographs to images of the Hindenburg disaster in 1937, publications are not shy of showing the public shocking imagery.

But the difference between a publication and a single individual online is a long list of editors and individuals that approve an image before releasing it.

Gary Knight, the co-founder of the VII Photo Agency, said in an article for Nieman Reports that there is a fine line between taking a photo and spreading it.

"If you're performing that role as a photographer or journalist...I think you need to record those things," he said. "But I don't think that they need to be published."

These long periods of peer review give editors and producers ample time to discuss important factors, such as the worth of the image to the story, how it relates to the newsroom's values and ethics, and how its audience will react to a particular image. They may even have time to discuss when and where it appears on their newspaper or website. Individuals, however, have no such constraint.

Unlike these institutions, most online users have no one stopping them from posting graphic content. The responsibility now falls into the hands of the ethics of a single person, which can lead to a wide variety of interesting scenarios.

One example includes Brennan Gilmore's video of a vehicle-ramming attack during the Charlottesville, Virginia protests. Gilmore said in an interview with PBS that he filmed the event on his phone and, after handing the video over to the police, he decided to post the video on Twitter, where it received widespread attention and news coverage shortly after.

As of late September, 2017, Brennan Gilmore's tweet has over 90,000 retweets.
(via Twitter)

As some people say the image as an impactful way to describe the graphic nature of the protests, others may argue that the internet allows for images that are too graphic to go viral. After all, Gilmore's video depicts a car running over dozens of civilians—it is highly unlikely that any similar depiction would be a rare find on television or newspapers.

Regardless of the complete nature of the video, Gilmore's decision to post the images was brought about by his understanding of human ethics and responsibility, more so than any understanding of media ethics.

Even though most online users do not have experience in the newsroom, many of them still do good by being relayers of information that other people may not have access to.

However, not all images are posted under any ethical beliefs, and tend to spread information that is not only wrong, but potentially harmful. Such is the case for the fake photos of the Rohingya people during the ongoing Myanmar conflict.

The false image was posted as a response to the Associated Press
(via Twitter)

As part of the growing rivalry between the Buddhist and Muslim populations in Myanmar's Rakhine region, the Buddhist majority turned to spreading false images labeling the region's Rohingya Muslims as "terrorists."

The photo used to describe the Rohingya Muslims is actually soldiers from Bangladesh fighting in their independence war in 1971, but that has not stopped the tweet's circulation.

Those who intend to have these images spread do not consult and ethical guidelines: all that matters to them is that his image is spread and the Rohingya Muslims are defamed on a global scale. Since these users have complete control over their social media, they can promote this image as much as they want.

These images are also simply things that specific people want to hear. Many Burmese that are against the Rohingya Muslims will look at these tweets as moral justification for hatred and ongoing violence, as well as reinforce their misconceptions about the minority group in their country.

So, with these two examples of using images online, it is clear that moral intentions run the gamut from the benign to the outright wrong and unfair. So what is there any good medium?

Some social platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, have begun to hide images behind warnings of their graphic nature, so as to draw a line between general and mature content. Facebook has also taken additional steps to ban the monetization of violence, pornography, drugs, and hate posts on their social networking site.

Others, however, believe that these sites have acted too slowly on addressing controversial posts on their sites, especially Twitter, as it has slowly gained a reputation of a long timetable for any sort of action of removal

Pictures and images will continue to be an integral part to journalism and storytelling. As the role of social media with journalism continues to develop, websites will find ways to allow users to share their unique content while still preserving the ethics and morals that make journalism a true tool for the people.