Response Essay 1

In today's world that we live in, it is becoming ever present that the media is being granted more and more freedom when it comes to what it can and cannot show in papers and on TV. But this great responsibility comes with the duty to decide what pictures could potentially be too gruesome for the public eye. My take on disturbing images is that yes they should be shown, only after a panel specially appointed by the newspaper or TV Station that they are working for has approved the image as publicly safe and taken into account what most people feelings may be. the editor then must have the final say in whether or not it gets run. Sounds kind of like Congress when you look at it, but hopefully the editor in question will have the trust in his panel that they would not put too bad of an image on there. if these images are simply too good to not be shown, then there should be a disclaimer or advertisement somewhere in the paper that should state, " To see more images about this event, please visit our website, WARNING: Images are of a graphic nature" Some papers have already followed the trend of piggybacking their online papers and TV stations with their main publications with rapid success, an example of convergence. That way the paper or station would get their hits in the web world as well. People in today's society don't like to be over exposed to dangerous world events, the statement "ignorance is bliss" comes to mind when describing people in this fashion. Unfortunately others in this world choose to look at these images and demand that they be shown, regardless of who's lives they are hurting or emotional wounds they are opening up. In the article from the Poynter Online Database, I do agree with the post that states, "Journalists have a duty to help the public wrestle with tough societal issues and thorny national policy questions. Photographic images of important events and places help accomplish that goal." To a certain extent this is true, but there needs to be a line drawn in the sand that says how detailed these pictures can be. the pictures of the Tsunami victims, especially children, should not be shown to the public on the front page of a newspaper with the grieving mother right there. Ethics come into question here about the whole showing photographs discussion. The second Poynter Online Article raises the question about the debate with the appropriately dubbed cereal test the editors go through to censor images. The article states that, "Most respondents described gut feelings, though, telling them when that reality was too gruesome for publication. Many journalists invoked the so-called "cereal test," newsroom slang for a simple question: Would I want my family to see this photo at the breakfast table tomorrow morning?" I completely agree with this statement, would you want your families looking at gruesome images at the breakfast table? Wally Rayl is true in stating that not being able to face reality in this nation is a problem, but the question isn't truly about facing reality, it's about ethics. These problems of ethics vs. reality will continue to rage on for years and years until the censorship is ended completely or increased like it used to be, with the latter not likely to happen ever again. In the end, the responsibility should remain with the papers and stations to censor pictures and video for the public, with disclaimers pointing out where to find the disturbing images online with proper security.