I remember the first time I ever saw a dead body. I was about four years old and was with my family at my great-grandmother’s funeral. I was too young to know what was going on, why everyone was so solemn. I remember going up to the casket with my mother, though, and I remember even today how my great-grandmother looked lying there.
Growing up the only times I ever saw anyone deceased was during funerals. When I did see dead bodies, it was always with respect that they were displayed. And almost always pictures of the deceased when alive were around the funeral home so the person’s life could be celebrated.
With the occurring war, it seems all I see is dead bodies these days. As an avid reader of many forms of news, I can’t help but be assaulted daily by slews of photos of dead bodies. Just last week the New York Times had the main picture on its front page as a dead Iraqi soldier lying face up on the ground.
Will my children’s first viewing of a dead body be of a stranger in a violent death on some foreign street? Or are we going to do something about this?
For photojournalists and news editors, there are no specific standards for what is and is not acceptable for print or broadcast. The issue of whether or not to show dead bodies and violent scenes is one that has been debated for many years, and this debate will no doubt occur for years to come. Some editors use what is called the “breakfast test” to determine if photos are suitable for print, asking themselves if viewers will be able to eat breakfast and look at the photos at the same time. I don’t know about anyone else, but I have a hard time keeping my breakfast down when all I see are the faces of the dead in newspapers’ front-page photos.
Some might say the use of gruesome photos is warranted and nothing will be changed unless the horrors of the world are brought out into the public view. I agree that the media should make the world’s problems accessible to those who don’t realize that not everyone lives in peace. But at what expense are we to do this?
If every objectable photo printed was done so with the intention of eliciting responses from people that would make them want to change the world for the better, than the printing of these photos certainly would be warranted. But let’s face it, even in a world where many strive for journalistic excellence, many still choose photos that will garner them and their papers the most money.
And who’s to say only the sight of dead bodies is what will elicit an emotional response from viewers? Maybe in these times where violence reigns on the screen and on the page more violence is needed to grab viewers’ attention. But why must there be so much disrespect?
The MSNBC Web site features a photo that deals with the casualties that have occurred during the war. It is of two Iraqi men and one boy, and they are holding their noses. The caption explains they are covering their noses from the putrid smell of the dead bodies from a fight for a city. None of the bodies actually were shown, and again maybe it’s just me, but this photo affected me without disrespecting all those who died in that fight.
I completely believe in the first amendment and, therefore, believe nothing should be censored if it is truthful. A journalist’s main duty is to report the truth. However, I think the truth of this war, and any other violent event, can be told without putting the blank stares of the dead all over newspapers and televisions.