1. Should the media censor what it publishes, especially pictures of atrocities?
2. What information should the public know and not know? And who is to decide what information should be known or not?
3. If we do show atrocities should the dead be covered or remain nameless?
Susan Sontag in Regarding the Pain of Others questions the topic of the media's publishing of war atrocities. "The scale of war's murderousness destroys what identifies people as individuals, even as human beings," states Sontag regarding the photographs of people so mangled they don't even look like people anymore. Sontag gives many graphic accounts of certain things that had been published and how it is upsetting that one could view others who were condemned to die.One example she gives is in New York's Daily News where they published a picture of a severed hand lying in the remains after the 9/11 attack. Since the Vietnam war, war photography came under scrutiny and a censorship has begun. Censorship indited by military and by the self. Now, there are much stricter rules towards photography on battle grounds, but "there is no war without photography" observed Ernst Junger. Sontag brings up that the dead, quite possibly, should be censored because family members: a mother, father, children, and wives or husbands, could come across a gruesome photograph if they hadn't already.
"Policies about what is to be seen and not seen by the public are still being worked out," states Sontag. She talks about "boundaries of public knowledge," but why should there be boundaries? It is people's right to know what is going on in the world, however gruesome it is. I wouldn't want to be kept in the dark about things. It would be hard if it was a victim that I knew, but I would want the world to know what happened to them. It would be some sort of justice to them, at least I think it would. Who is to decide what we can and cannot see? That should be one's own choice. Many media sources have these "self-policed constraints on what is 'proper' to air." In effect then, the media is choosing what the public should know and not know.
I was extremely interested by your argument, particularly when you said "In effect then, the media is choosing what the public should know and not know." I had not thought of that when I read the piece, as it didn't really occur to me that there might be people who would want to take advantage of an ignorant population. I think it's a very interesting point, and I think I might very well agree with you.
ReplyDelete