No Such Thing as Too Graphic

Recently we read the article about the photographs taken in Haiti. It talked about how before the earthquake, most of the photographs being broadcasted in the media were more censored than they were before the catastrophe happened. I feel that this has desensitized modern american’s view for what is considered to be too graphic in the media. Almost every day we here about soldiers dying in Iraq, very rarely do we see the pictures. However, more recently US ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in a violent attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya. The LA times posted a picture of his dead body being held by his captors on the front page.

This was not the only news outlet to broadcast the images. I think the point I’m trying to make is where does it stop? What is considered to be too graphic? Is there such a thing as too graphic? I can’t imagine if that was my dad’s picture of his lifeless body being broadcasted nationwide. What the family must’ve went through in just dealing with the death of their family member was enough to deal with. Disrespecting the ambassador, by printing pictures of his death is pouring salt on the wounds.

I find it disgusting and unthoughtful for newspapers to print images like the pictures of Haiti and the ambassador. I understand showing pictures of the aftermath caused by the destruction by the earthquake, but is it really necessary to show all of the dead bodies? I find it tasteless and also inhumane. This reoccurring theme needs to stop before we completely go overboard. When we post these pictures we need to be thoughtful to whom the pictures are being taken of and how they would react if they saw these pictures. I know I wouldn’t be okay with a picture of my dead body along with countless others being broadcasted across the world.

This entry was posted in World News. Bookmark the permalink.