When the media cover mass shootings, would depicting the carnage make a difference?
The University of Oregon’s Nicole Smith Dahmen questions if the media has a responsibility to cover the far less sanitised details of America’s mass shootings.
Since 20 children were gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, we’ve seen public calls for the release of crime scene photos – the idea being that the visceral horror evoked by images of young, brutalized bodies could spur some sort of action to combat the country’s gun violence epidemic.
The day after the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting, a Slate article echoed the demand for crime scene photos to be released, arguing that if Americans could actually see the bloodshed, we might finally say, “Enough is enough.”
As a scholar who specializes in photojournalism ethics, I’ve thought extensively about how journalism can responsibly cover gun violence, balancing the moral imperatives of seeking truth while minimizing harm. I’ve also studied how images can galvanize viewers.
A well considered piece on the ethical usage of images of violence and carnage in an attempt to reduce the incidence of such events.
Our .05 drink driving ads, and cigarette packaging laws demonstrate that graphic images can be used to change behaviours to produce socially desirable outcomes.
But these ads are depictions, albeit depictions of loss of life.
I am less comfortable with showing the real images of trauma, because of the trauma that can cause. The friends and family have already suffered enough.
Surely the better course is to focussing on reining in the out of control gun ownership and usage in the US.(4.5% of the world’s population and 40% of the guns – Winterute, University of California).
What is holding this up? One sentence. Twenty seven words. The Second Amendment to the United States of America’s Bill of Rights in its Constitution, viz. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The key words are “…to keep and bear arms…”. It seems to be lost on many NRA supporters that “to bear” means “to possess and carry”. Nowhere does the Second Amendment assign the right to use those arms. Surely that must still constitute a criminal offence.