An eye level perspective of communications and how they're evolving

Just as I’m feeling slimy for using a morbid pun in my post title, I wonder if folks at CTV and other news outlets are feeling any guilt over repeatedly showing Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili’s deadly crash.

Should they?

My thoughts on this were sparked by this post over at the Reflections in the Snow Covered Hills blog, belonging to my friend and communications colleague Megan. Among many interesting points it raised is this idea that modern news consumers can/should be given the choice of how much “gore,” for lack of a better term, they want in their stories—at least through online channels.

The internet has made it easy to level our news consumption. Once past the headlines, we can read only the basic facts, or drill way down into in-depth articles, related stories, and background pieces; all linked together with photos, audio and video clips.

I suppose it’s not a stretch to argue we should have the choice whether or not to read about, hear and/or view all of the available information, including any violent, gross or otherwise unsettling stuff which might exist. Theoretically, we can take only what we want and leave the rest.

Personally, I tend to side with the argument that most information should be freely accessible. Fundamentally, knowledge is power, and it is dangerous to censor it for the sake of  “protecting” ourselves or others.

So yes, I think there is something to be said for the idea of putting it all out there and letting us choose for ourselves what content we want.

Not in this case, though.

I also believe it is unethical to share sensational photos, videos, terms or any other information to hurt others and/or gain something for yourself. In the same vein, I think it is wrong to promote information that invades others’ privacy, and is of no real value to the public.

By showing the footage of the man crashing and sustaining fatal injuries, the media exposed what is really a private moment.What did it add to the story that can’t just be explained without showing the traumatic scene? Are there arguments for using the video that don’t involve boosting ratings?

I’m not saying the video should be destroyed and never seen again. Perhaps there is value for engineers and even athletes who build and use luge courses. They could examine the crash to see what went wrong and how to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

However, in terms of widespread public viewing, I see no point besides network greed.

What’s your take?

{ 7 comments }