"If It Bleeds, It Leads"

 Billy McDermott

wm017314@ohio.edu

 

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-falling-man/

Depicting truth in visual images is a commonly debated topic in the world of journalism. Viewers see things in their own ways, and are sometimes blind to the issue at hand because of the content contained in an image. It really depends on the context that one takes into consideration. Videos and images differ, but they both can lead people down a twisted thought process if taken in the wrong context or edited with malicious intent. They can be used to enlighten and allow news consumers to comprehend a situation, while also causing pain, grief and even horror. In this blog I'm going to discuss a widely-disputed ethical argument: displaying graphic images in the media. 

I believe that graphic images should not be displayed in the media. There's a difference between citizens having the right to have access to public information (Freedom of Information Act), and displaying content to the public that most would prefer not to see. The former can be digested within the confines of one's own discretion and desire, and the latter is disseminated for all to view. Here are some reasons as to why I hold this opinion: 

1.) The media has always had a saying: "If it bleeds, it leads." When displaying graphic images and videos, it has absolutely no intention other than to increase ratings and attain shock value. One can argue that there is an incentive for these things to be spread around, and that incentive would be for the media to connect emotionally to viewers. This could possibly persuade people to change views on certain issues, such as gun control, abortion or illegal immigration. I won't argue that this isn't true. Sometimes visually seeing something can put a story into a perspective that words couldn't achieve; however, there is a moral and humane limit as to how graphic these images can be. Can one truly believe that big media corporations actually care about anything other than their own benefit and political agendas? And why should the media "persuade" you what to think? (op-eds are an exception) I mean after all, the only purpose it serves is to research, and objectively report findings to inform an audience. 

2.) It can harm the victims that are affected by these situations. What is the real reason the media would release graphic content? Most likely to increase ratings and profit, and definitely not because it has any moral obligation to benefit its viewers (on the other hand, I find local news stations somewhat dedicated to serving their communities). Relatives and friends are already going through incredible hardships, so why do they have to be reminded of it in the worst way? I would be livid if a news platform decided to run images of something devastating that happened to someone close to me.  

3.) Even if printing graphic content might shock and inspire passion, studies show that it's only temporary. People will eventually go back to their normal lives. Most of them don't have time on their hands to protest or talk to lobbyists to proactively push an issue. If they aren't directly affected, they have plenty of other daily obligations to make them forget. In the end, it's only harming the people involved. I think most people understand that the world is a hard place, so why publish violent content to remind them? 

4.) Graphic content could be used inappropriately by voyeurs or people that enjoy browsing through violent things on social media or the Internet. It can also motivate people to commit similar crimes, though this isn't proven. 

5.) Children can be exposed to it, and we all know that could be scary and confusing for them. 

The media has one job to do: Report unbiased and truthful information to the citizens of our country, while practicing ethical journalism values. Unfortunately, it rarely does so.