Edit: Jon Stewart recently gave some great reasons to why these photos should be released, and he changed my opinion. Yet, I still think working through ethical tools may possibly still lead you in the direction of not running the photos.
His most compelling arguement is that we can only make educated decision on war if we see what it actually is. Therefore, the bin Laden images as well as images of injuries and death on both sides should be shown. This arguement could be compelling enough to pass ethical tools we've used in class.
Reasons to release the photo I find invalid: 1.) Because of a public want to know out of morbid curiosity or to say 'Ha! Got ya f***er!'. 2.) To settle conspiracy theories....because conspiracy nuts are, well, conspiracy nuts.
Reasons to release the photo I find valid: 1.) As Stewart stated, we need to see war to make educated decisions on it.
Reasons to not release the photo I find invalid: 1.) It's too gruesome. That's total B.S. Look at what we watch on TV every day. Crime dramas show gore and gruesome images daily. Our culture has become adapted to seeing gruesome images - we can handle it.
Reasons to not release the photo I find valid: 1.) Does releasing the photo honestly serve a greater good, or is it, again, just morbid curiosity; 2.) It could put lives at risk.
Jon Stewart's stance
Original post: It is very possible many editors across the world will soon face issues that we have discussed in class when they ponder whether to print the three photos the United States government possesses of Osama bin Laden’s death (if they are released that is). The main ethical issues relate to running a gruesome image, or releasing something that may be of national concern.
According to CNN, a US official acknowledged three photos. The first photo is the most recognizable with a clear view of Osama’s face and wounds. The second is of his burial at see before the body was concealed. There are also photos of the raid itself.
For starters, if the government decides to release the images, there likely wouldn’t be any national concern at stake. This means the image wouldn’t provoke a retaliation of any kind from terrorists. So, the main ethical debate would be whether or not the images are appropriate for print.
Photojournalists should not shy away from telling important truths, but they must also consider when an image is too distasteful to be printed. In this case, the first image appears to be unfit for publication. It is apparently excessively gruesome. Considering there is no evil being prevented by running these images, it isn’t entirely necessary to run a gruesome image. This is more of a public want-to-know basis, not a public need-to-know.
The other two images seem less gruesome, and possibly acceptable for publication. If I were an editor, I’d consider running those images on the basis of there being such a public demand to see them, and that they wouldn‘t be offensive to the majority. Aristotle’s golden mean would be applicable here. Editors can either run all of the images (even the most gruesome ones), not run any of them, or choose the ones in the middle ground that are not so offensive. I believe the middle choice would be the best option here.
http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/03/even-more-on-the-photos/?hpt=T1
The middle choice is probably the most ethically acceptable, but in a case like there, where a world terrorist leader has been killed, I feel as though the public would want and need to see the picture. I understand where you're coming from, and in any other situation I would completely agree. But when people compare this day to where they were on 9/11, I feel like that picture can be show. Even if it didn't appear in publication, you know you can find it everywhere online.
ReplyDelete