Graphic Images in the News: Difficult Decisions, Massive Impact

Ryan Spellman
rs344103@ohio.edu

Capturing visuals is a key component to collecting an accurate representation of news events. Descriptive text and interviews can only take the reader so far. On-the-scene visuals spark a deeper response, and can even spark entire government administrations to change policies. Case in point: photographs of a three-year-old refugee who drowned along with eleven others when their boats capsized between Turkey and Greece pressured the UK to admit 20,000 refugees fleeing the Syrian war. Without the widespread response of sympathy these pictures elicted, David Cameron may not have not been spurred to admit that, “...Britain should fulfill its moral responsibility to help those refugees just as we have done so proudly throughout our history.”

But how do photojournalists and editors know when it is appropriate to use graphic images?

Image Credit: Wesont27, CC A-SA 4.0 License

The National Press Photographers Association (NPAA)’s code of ethics states that visual journalists should:

4. Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.

The key here is “only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see”. It is no question that making such a decision is a difficult task. Let’s continue to use the case of the aforementioned photographs of the drowned Syrian refugee child for discussion. What makes their publication acceptable? Was proper consideration given?
After the fact, we can see the positive impact these photos had on both awareness and governmental policies regarding Syrian war refugees. Publishing the photographs has proven to be an important and very commendable decision. The public had “an overriding and justifiable need to see” this horrible situation. But how does one make these decisions? In large part, this is likely a careful process of weighing potential harm against the public good.

In a study conducted by the University of Oregon on the impact of these photos, we find that donations to a Swedish Red Cross campaign for Syrian refugees was 55 times greater the week following the release of the photographs. In an interview with NPR, the head researcher Paul Slovic shares that “Aylan's photo provided a window of opportunity for individuals to give and to feel [empathy] for the situation, and that is good”. One can imagine this was probably the line of thinking the photojournalist was going through. Showing an individual victim makes it easier for the public to identify with them on a personal level, as opposed to distant broad sweeping data and statements in the text of news stories.

However, showing graphic images of victims is not always in the best interest of the public. For example, in an article for the Disaster News Network Nicole Smith Dahmen points out an unintended consequence of sharing grisly images of mass shootings: the encouragement of more perpetrators. In the specific case of mass shooting, Dahmen points out there is a change in how mass shootings are covered. There is now a focus on what she calls “images of resistance”.

Image retrieved from Vox. | Image Credit: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Dahmen writes that choosing these images, as opposed to “bloodied victims,” could be the way to move people to action and not encourage more shootings. In the example of mass shootings, although certainly debatable, photos of deceased victims could be seen as unethical if they are known to encourage more shootings. This is a prime example of the importance of making good ethical decisions before publishing graphic images -- as well as how difficult of a call it can be.