COMMENT Having been in New York since last Wednesday, I have only seen American coverage of the terrible events of last week, which has actually been quite good and highly detailed. Naturally enough, there is the inevitable 'What does this mean for the New York transit system?' analysis but in general, there has been good balance in the reporting.
What struck me, though, was the compelling use of video taken from mobile phones. I'm sure I'm not the first and certainly won't be the last to note this phenomenon but it does give rise to a number of thoughts.
Just as blogs have made serious inroads into traditional written media (news, comment, analysis and satire), the mobile phone seems set to usurp some of the traditional role of camera crews. In fact phones will be legitimised far more quickly than blogs as the content they offer will be used on the traditional (and trusted) broadcast media. How it is happening is obvious - most people have a phone which they carry with them, and increasing numbers have video (or at least picture) capability, so somebody is bound to be on the spot of almost any incident. Whether it is desirable, however, is another question.
Like blogs, who will attest to the accuracy and veracity of the pictures? Will such blanket coverage help or hinder our understanding of events such as the bombings last week? Will it afford us an unequalled opportunity to get closer to what it was actually like? And do we really want to? Will it give us more information or is it just voyeurism?
Many have already called for less graphic coverage of incidents from around the world, noting that many saw events like the Gulf War as little more than a video game to watch in the bar; surely those objections will only escalate if we are to start seeing dead or injured bodies minutes after an incident.
Up to now, news managers have used their discretion (and sometimes Photoshop) in this respect - but how long will it be before the pressure to shock anew will lead to unedited and unexpurgated pictures? And what would it mean with regard to the rights of the victims or their families?
I suspect that this issue will be one which we will be grappling with in the very near future. I only hope that some form of sense prevails.
Recent blogs:
Comments
There is 1 comment. Join the discussion
1. Martin Lukes
We need to see more dead bodies - it is precisely because so many people here treated both Gulf Wars as nothing more than a video game and preferred to talk about "bunker busters" and "smart bombs" than "instant death and maiming" that terrorism happens.
We the viewers and you the media were only too happy to avoid any realisation that bombs mean lives are changed forever. That's what bombs are for, theirs and ours. And we do it a lot more, to a lot more people, more often. Let's wake up. If you cover bombings to suit the viewing figures there will be more bombs. This isn't big, clever or news.
Let's stop treating it as if it is.