Too Awful Not to See. Right?

Chris Jewett
cj083711

Well, it happened again.  We wake up this morning to the story of another mass shooting.  This time it's Virginia Beach and we will certainly be hearing stunned friends and neighbors saying "this kind of thing just doesn't happen here".  Local and national news will descend on the area for a few days trying to put a new perspective on a too common story.  Politicians from both parties will add their increasingly meaningless platitudes.  We will hear the debate of gun control vs mental health issues as though they are mutually exclusive.  Then everyone will go back to their respective corners and wait for the next time.

We'll see photos of the shooter and of the scene, video of the overwhelming police response and hear stories of the fallen and the heroes that tried to help in any way they could. 

May 31, 2019 Law enforcement personnel survey the scene. (L. Todd Spencer/Virginian-Pilot/AP)

What we won't see are what are certainly terrible images of the human toll this event has taken.  Would this help prevent further tragedies?  If people were forced to look at the carnage and destruction maybe that would start us on a path toward meaningful change.  It would be shocking and really difficult for the average person to comprehend but it would force us to address the issue.  How could anyone see what a mass killing really looks like and not be moved to action?

There is a historical precedent to support this idea.  As World War II was coming to an end, and concentration camps throughout Europe were being liberated, Allied forces would force residents in the surrounding communities to tour the liberated camps.  They were even occasionally made to bury the dead.  The idea was to prevent the population from being able to deny that these atrocities had taken place and at the same time ensure that man would never again go down such a tragic path.

Obviously, extreme care would have to be taken to not sensationalize the event.  There could be no hint of doctored or staged scenes.  The privacy of the victims and their families should be protected to the greatest extent possible.  Some type of protocol that takes into account the various applicable codes of ethical standards can be put into practice.  Maybe the release of the images could only with the consent of victims family. 

Journalism with its broad reach and multiple platforms may very well be an agent of change in addition to the traditional mission of keeping the public informed.

Problem solved.  Right? 

At the beginning of this piece, I thought I knew what conclusion I was going to reach.

Maybe not.  What if none of those higher ideals were reached?  What if, these images only serve to motivate the next shooter to finally act on the thoughts he's already having?  Does this violate the NPPA Code of Ethics principle to treat subjects with respect and dignity?  Is the potential for harm to the subject or the family just too great to justify?  It is possible that the potential for positive change is not reached and only sensationalized, manipulated images and videos find their way to social media?  As referenced from a previous statement by Nicole Smith Dahmen (and colleague) in Disaster News Network, "Social media begs us to become voyeurs as opposed to informed news consumers".

After all, the example from World War II didn't exactly prevent future wars.