While it was necessary for the media to do their bit in showing the severity of the accident, i found myself asking as a viewer and as a journalist whether it was necessary to show the charred bodies lying amidst the debris. Was it necessary for news channels to air the horrific image of burnt child being carried away? What was the point of blurring the image minutes after airing it? (Many channels like NDTV and CNN IBN did this.)
Death and gore, whether we like it or not, feeds on some morbid fascination humans possess and accidents like this brings out that out among the opinion maker and seeker. Be it the Mumbai carnage, the Aarushi murder case or the Nithari serial killings, the media coverage was appalling and remains appalling. And with the pressure on to bring 'first live images' and 'exclusive images', editors and those in charge no longer seem to ask vital questions: is it necessary to show the whole body?
Or could the footage have been shown in a less traumatic way-for instance with emergency workers huddled around the charred bodies Many might argue that the footage was shown more to perhaps highlight the work being done by rescue workers. But does that truly justify showing it?
Was even the slightest thought given to how the family of the child would have felt or of viewers at large. In our attempt to 'highlight important issues' and to show 'things as they are' we are perhaps falling into the trap of 'desensitising' the larger public by sensitising events like this. How many of us truly cringed when we saw the disaster?
But then there might be instances when photographers might capture powerful and newsworthy images that might depict the anguish of events one covers-of loved ones waiting to hear tragic news or people rushing towards the spot of tragedy.. Though the emotions might be on public display, certain photographs may feel like an invasion of privacy to some readers and those photographed. And these are instances, when an editor has to take a call on how to handle these photos.
For instance, during the Gujarat riots, the image of a crying man with his hands folded touched a chord with almost every one who saw the image and the photograph managed to capture the full intensity of the carnage without actually showing the victims. However, was the photograph that was published in almost every leading newspaper today of the child necessary?Or could it have been avoided?
Then there is also the question of thinking about the family and their reactions to such disturbing photographs and footage. The mother of one of the air hostess who lost her life in the accident is yet to be informed of the tragedy. The father, for the sake of his wife's health was forced to disconnect the cable connection even as relatives tried to keep the over-zealous media out of the house. The need to get 'reaction' of family in their time of grief needs to be tamed and it depends on the self-control of the reporter in question.
Even under pressure situations, I think, one needs to place themselves in the shoes of the family before barging in on them with cameras and mikes to get that sound byte or quote. I remember an instance where i was asked to go the family of a MS student who was found murdered in the US. The family was in shock, the mother weeping uncontrollably. One Hindi channel reporter with little regard and respect to the family members thrust her mike in front of the weeping mother and asked her 'how she felt', even as the cameraman invaded the privacy of the household by getting footage of the house, of photos of the girl who lost her life etc. Where does a journalist and a cameraman or photographer draw the line?
There is also the question of how one plays the photo. Newspapers have stopped considering carefully how to play a photo once a decision is made to publish a disturbing photograph. Take for instance, today's New Indian Express and Eenadu which published gruesome photos of the tragedy on page one. Were there no less-sensationalising photos available? Was it necessary for these papers to publish these images? Was little thought given to how the families and readers would react to the photos and the rights of the victims. A better way of handling the dilemma would have been to publish a less disturbing photo in the front page with a disclaimer warning of the content of a photo in the inside pages.
We are living in a world where there seems to some sort of vulgar display of suffering, almost like a pornography of suffering. And it is at times like this one needs to exercise self-censorship. But then with TRP's ruling the roost, i really wonder if we as journalists and viewers will ever see such a day of restrained reporting.
