Violent Images: Content We Have To See

Kailee Missler | km199116@ohio.edu

In the light of a mass tragedy, the discussion comes about in regard to whether or not to publish images containing graphic scenes of death and violence. Dead bodies might not be the first thing someone wants to see when they are reading their morning newspaper with their coffee, but in a time where information is at one's fingertips, it's the media's responsibility to be transparent - even if it means showing their audience content they do not want to see. The public has a right to see these images, no matter how unsettling.

Granted, there should be procedures put in place to minimize harm, such as the procedures with hard news stories. But omitting pictures completely on the basis that they are too graphic is no longer a valid excuse. The Internet enables anyone to post pictures with little regulation. An individual with harmful intentions could post these images with their own information on what is being portrayed - whether that information is factual or not. If the media claims the images and presents the correct correlating information, the public is more likely to recognize these false Internet narratives.

The media's responsibility is to inform the public about what is happening locally, nationally and internationally. Not showing the true violence around the world could potentially minimize the seriousness of different events, thus deferring from the media's core value of transparency.

Not only are there issues with news outlets not publishing graphic images, but with prioritizing the coverage of certain groups compared to others. Michael Shaw, a clinical psychologist, suggests that the media may unconsciously split [disasters] into those that matter more and those that matter less." There is always a potential of this type of bias in the media and it is something journalists must work against in order to remain ethical. However, it's easy for Americans to want to view the news with a "Western gaze," but graphic images are a way for the public to grasp various international conflicts.


Children in Yemen are starving to death. There is a massive genocide occurring at this moment, and it receives very little coverage from mainstream media. And if it is mentioned, it is overlooked by a more Western news story. However, if the public saw the images of children starving on platforms that typically shy away from graphic content, it may draw more people's attention that would not have normally read the story.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/04/25/opinion/25chappatte-LN/25chappatte-tmagArticle.jpg
The New York Times

This discussion of censoring graphic images is coming to the forefront with the outbreak of tragedy around the world. In 2015, the world was flooded with information about the Syrian refugee crisis. There was debate about pictures of deceased refugees being published for the world to see. But without those images, other unaffected parts of the world would not be able to grasp the severity of the situation.

The ethical decision-making process in which images to show and on what platform is a conversation to be had. While journalists must show this content, they must do so carefully and delicately, in order to minimize harm for those affected. 


It is hard for anyone to stomach the idea of genocide and violence on innocent people - so often they tune out because they do not have to think about it. But those groups deserve to have their story recognized and told, too.