Monday, November 12, 2007
Can a picture be worth too many words?- Journalists Decide
There are times when pictures can pose more of a controversy than a written story. This has become especially true with the war in Iraq. Since there is not a set of rules stating what images are appropriate and which are not, it is all varied. This is when the Pentagon tries to set the rules. In the article "Which words is a war photo worth? -Journalists must meet the standard" posted by Barbara Zelizer, this very problem is discussed. She talks about when it is appropriate to use war photos. "The images of the war in Iraq have drawn a sustained degree of public attention, as pundits, military and government officials, journalists and members of the public have debated the very issue of image display -- whether to show an image, where to show an image, and how to show an image."Zelizer discusses these very issues and looks at who should be responsible for making the executive decision.
A primary discussion point for the time being is the discussion over the value, or lack thereof, for those involved in the war and their families. She gave points on both sides of the argument when thinking about the betterment of those involved as well as the impact the images have had (such as times when documentation was not allowed and when the images arose after the wartime, it gave people an idea of what it was like and supplied them with a visual they would have otherwise not had). Some images were contributors to understanding historical war periods, such as the First Gulf War.
In the closing of her post, Zelizer summed up the argument best by stating; "when assessing the appropriateness of an image or the relevance of its display, we should ask which words an image stands for in times of war. For it may be that only those words that are big enough, bold enough, and direct enough can correct the nearsightedness with which images of war are displayed and consumed."I agree with her completely, the journalists themselves should be responsible. Through reading her post I found good reasons for using images and the impact they have.
A journalist should evaluate whether the picture will be effective in a positive or negative light. They need to ask themselves the questions about appropriateness and effectiveness and make the executive decision rather than allowing the government to do so as they might want to hide things that should be shown. Images help to give a visual but I agree that we need to have one set of standards, set by journalists themselves, so there is no confusion or controversy over different visuals.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I agree that journalists should evaluate if an image is appropriate to show in the article. I remember around the attacks of September 11th I constantly saw pictures of the World Trade Centers burning down and I think that was an effective way to wake Americans up and show them what was going on in terms of terrorism. However, I remember opening the newspaper and looking at zoomed in pictures of people jumping to their death out of the World Trade Center and I do not feel that this was an appropriate image to show. I thought it was cruel not only to the victim, but to the families of these people as well So I feel that there is a line that needs to be drawn when journalists determine the images that they are going to show.
I have to agree that journalist should have images from war. If they're appropiate for the readers and audience to see. It must be appropiate. On the other hand, coming from a person who has a family member or friend in war it might be to hard to take in.
The picture should be relavant to the story, and can't be graphic. It worries the relatives and friends.
Journalist sometimes do in fact need a picture to get the impact of the story. Yet images with people dying and blood gushing out is not something people want to see. Like "Bc" said with the World Trade center.
Often times, an image has more strength than an entire news story. Words can be melded together to create feelings and emotions in the reader, but images are universal. All you need to do is see it and you are moved by it. Considering the power behind images, I think it is reasonable to say that journalists have a duty to use them carefully. If the image is prudent to the article and it really shows a point you are trying to make, then I can see why you might use it. But if it is just a picture of gore and guts and serves no actual clarifying purpose, then I don't think it should be used. I don't count unnecessary gore as news worthy.
I feel that images are important to a story just as the written word is. They help with the impact of the story. Images of the war in Iraq should be available for the public to see but I agree that there should be some sensorship. There is a line when images become to grpahic to use.
I disagree. I do not think ethically that the photographs of war should be used in news stories. There should be a respect for the millions of families who have loved ones in Iraq. There will never be a standard that is exceptable to all journalists; therefore they shouldn't be used. Like I stated previously. I think it is a respect issue, and journalists have have more of it toward the families who are immediately affected by the war.
Pictures need to be chosen appropriatly in respect to the readers and families. Editors need to consider the families of the people in the picture, especially if it is a graphic war photo. War pictures are sensitive becuase they can be violent and bloody. Americans do not want to face real violence, especially when it involves the death or wounding of our own. The message gets lost in the violence of the picture. No daily newspaper should depict death or war scenes. Pictures need to be censored to avoid being offensive to the general readership and the families.
I think including images from the war into a story is an ethical thing. However, I feel that the use of images used solely to enhance the story should not be put in. Some images I have seen have helped tell the story where others are unnecessary. Many pictures now days are used to create fear or anger. I feel these kinds of images are inappropriate. By setting guidelines as to what images are acceptable and which are not is very important in telling the true story. This in the end is the journalist’s main objective.
I agree with Grecia. I feel that the public has a right to know and see what exactly is going on. However, they must be relevant to the story, and not incredibly graphic. The picture, I believe, should aid the story and not tell the story. There are families over here hoping and praying everyday that their loved ones are ok. If they're subjected to horrible images that are incredbily graphic, it just wouldn't be fair. Journalists and editors should put themselves in the shoes of the families of these people and then decide what they feel is right.
Images sometimes do tell more than the words preceding the story and for that reason they are an essential part of print media. I think that there should be some kind of cencorship to what is allowed to be printed, but only if the photo is too explicit or graphic to the youngest of readers. Although the pictures should be graphic enough to make a statement to the reader, and to literally get the clear picture across that the photo is trying to convey. Besides, a photo can speak for itself, but just like art it can take many interpretations by those viewing it.
Post a Comment