STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

cc · Marc Jacobs

RE: FEMA accused of censorship

halleybird · Hermes

cc wrote:

I'm hoping halleybird will come and comment on this since she has a background in journalism.

ha ha ... and here I am! I wasn't going to post at all tonight, but I logged on and saw this, so I had to say something, since I literally spent ALL DAY today talking about this with my students. Incidentally, I am also on the Journalism Education Association listserv and they have been arguing about it too.

Like you said, cc...the real issue here is the RIGHT to photograph and to record the event. Remember that literally hundreds of photographs are taken before even one is used, and to deny reporters access to a particular scene purely because an agency believes they shouldn't be taking pictures (not b/c it's a safety issue) is, IMO, a violation of the 1st amendment (in spirit, at least).

Some important points:

first, a good reporter/photog will get the photos anyway, whether FEMA says they can or not. They will find other ways to show the utter and total destruction without a free pass on FEMA's boats. They have, and will continue to, report the whole truth (which, yes, folks, does include death).
Second, please remember that literally hundreds of photos are taken for every one that is printed. They may end up with photos of distorted or bloated bodies, but a good editor will find a way to show the death without making it unnecessarily gruesome or sensational. I have watched a lot of TV news (CNN) and read a lot of articles (AP) in the last week, and I have seen photos of bodies, but I have yet to see one that I think is tasteless. A reputable news agency would never try to capitalize on this event.
Although I think some photos from this event may become famous/infamous (like the people who jumped from buildings in 9/11, the famous photo of the Viet Cong execution), I think it is precisely those images which burn the events into our minds and help us to understand the utter devastation that exists.
I don't think I have heard a single complaint about the photos of bodies (which have been shown for a week now) until this issue came up, which proves that it is more political than anything else. In fact, one of my students is a NO native (his whole family lives there, and he actually just went back last weekend to pick up his grandparents), and he lost his uncle during the storm. He said the images of the death/destruction are a good thing, because he said it's the only way for people disconnected to this tragedy to remotely understand what happened there.

Finally, I would like to say that I get personally offended when I hear people say that the media is trying to sensationalize, that reporters are just out for a story, and they can't make ethical decisions. Before we criticize journalists, we should consider just how much valuable and important information they have given us in the past few weeks, and how they have risked their own lives to ensure that we get balanced information.

I respect and admire those people so much, and I can't imagine the strength of will it takes to spend your days talking to people who have lost everything -- and yes, photographing people who happen to be dead.

There's my 2c. I am sorry it's long, but like I said, we discussed this in EVERY class today (btw-- I don't give my own opinions...I let them talk it out, which is why it was all bottled up. ).

laken1 · Hermes

Cc’s right, this post did get off track & once again it’s my fault I suppose. I guess my point was that in the spirit of free speech, we get into a political discussion & while that is healthy, sometimes I think we lose sight of the fact that every argument that is made, it references someone and is personal to someone. But to refer to people who don’t want to see dead bodies on TV as dumb or ignorant – or the fact that we don’t care to see it makes us so – is offensive. Especially when it hits close to home, thus my out burst. I doubt that the families of the victims that are floating around New Orleans would want to see their loved ones on tv, that is my point. When it affects you personally, the whole “showing the dead body” issue seems disrespectful. So I’m sorry, but that’s how I feel & this is a free speech thread.

I don’t think anyone is trying to hide the number of fatalities that are a result of this tragedy. Let the media be there & take a count of the bodies, but do we need to see every single one? I think if any one of us has watched the news for 5 or so minutes we have seen dead bodies and realize that it is very much a reality. What about children? People without kids don’t always think about this, but I’m sure mothers aren’t really happy to see the news showing dead people if their school age kids happen to turn on the TV to watch Barney & the news is airing today’s bodies laid out for the world to see.

And as far as tying up the bodies, on our evening new today it was stated that they were tying them up & noting the location so teams could be sent in to retrieve the bodies.

I stand by my comment on not trusting the media to report dead bodies with dignity & respect. Although the reporters thus far have seemed much more human in this instance (surprisingly) I really feel that even the “real” news has become so cut throat & sensationalized that they go to extreme lengths to get ratings, thus showing things that are not respectful. I’m not saying that they will do this, but it surely opens the door, and I really wouldn’t want it to be my family member that became the bloated image that the world remembers forever. Like halleybird, I do respect & admire some of the reporters that are there for the right reasons, but I refuse to believe that someone of less “reputable” morals won’t do something unethical.

I think we are all so emotional over this & are trying to sort it out & I do appreciate the debate, it’s just so tiring. And I guess I was trying to remind everyone that there are hundreds of thousands of stories that we aren’t hearing, some of those stories might be the daughter looking for her mom that ends up dead on the news. And in light of having crying family members everyday over lesser issues, I can’t imagine what that would be like.

-- Edited by laken1 at 06:41, 2005-09-09

jen · Kate Spade

Imagine watching the news about the hurricane. Imagine that your mother lives there while you live in NY or any given other state. Imagine that you don't know if your mother is dead or alive. Now imagine your watching the Today show and some reporter is Louisiana. Imagine the camera zooming in on your mothers' cold dead body tossed aside on the side of the road. I'm sorry, that's not okay. I understand what's going on. I've cried almost every day since that's happened while watching the news. I've decided that for me persoally I need to just donate and not watch the news anymore. My heart breaks for them. For the handicapped that drowned, for the dogs that are starving to death with no place to go, for the kids that were raped in the super dome.....my heart just breaks, I'm crying as I write this. I just cannot take to see anymore footage of any of that. I just want to help at this point.

kenzie · Chanel

While I understand halleybird's point (I was a journalism major, so I know all about the legal issues as I have taken communication and journalism law classes) and yes, technically telling people that can't take photos of dead bodies is censorship.

However, I if I were a journalist reporting in NO, I wouldn't show photos such as those. I think, rather than FEMA making rules about what can and can't be photographed, the reporters should be trusted to use their own judgements and to have some compassion. This is an extremely sad and sensitive time and while not all reporters get caught up in the story and forget about the actual people, the sad truth is that some do. There is a reason that many people are extremely distrustful of the media.

I agree with Jen's points (which are in line with my earlier posts) that I do not want to see someone I know floating in the water. And every one of those people is someone's mother, someone's father, someone's sister, brother, cousin, uncle, friend, whatever. And no one wants to see someone close to them dead on TV.

NCshopper · Hermes

This may be a totally naive questions, but doesn't the FCC have rules on what is and is not appropriate for television? Aren't there decency laws? Like why you don't hear the f-word on regular tv and why they only show certain shows after 10?

I ask this because I've never EVER on American TV seen the face of a dead body. I've seen pictures of dead bodies from far away, and I've seen pictures of bodies covered in a white sheet, but I've never seen a dead body on TV that has been in any way recognizable.

So, if there are indeed rules governing this sort of thing already, then why do we have to vary from them now?

This is all meant as a question, because I honestly just don't know if there are decency laws. Any ideas anyone?

cc · Marc Jacobs

NCshopper wrote:

This may be a totally naive questions, but doesn't the FCC have rules on what is and is not appropriate for television? Aren't there decency laws? Like why you don't hear the f-word on regular tv and why they only show certain shows after 10?
?

The FCC rules mainly apply to sex and certain curse words. And apparently discussion of excrement, which I never knew!

Here is some information from their web site:

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test:

* An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; [btw prurient means overly interested in sex if anyone wasn't sure]
* The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
* The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

-------
The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community broadcast standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely.

-----------

sephorablue · Marc Jacobs

CC you are completely right--the thread did wander off track a little... and you are right that that is what the issue is really about.

halleybird · Hermes

laken1 wrote:

I stand by my comment on not trusting the media to report dead bodies with dignity & respect. Although the reporters thus far have seemed much more human in this instance (surprisingly) I really feel that even the “real” news has become so cut throat & sensationalized that they go to extreme lengths to get ratings, thus showing things that are not respectful. I’m not saying that they will do this, but it surely opens the door, and I really wouldn’t want it to be my family member that became the bloated image that the world remembers forever. Like halleybird, I do respect & admire some of the reporters that are there for the right reasons, but I refuse to believe that someone of less “reputable” morals won’t do something unethical.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion of reporters. But there are unethical people in every profession, and I just get really tired of the "not trusting the media" argument. Personally, I find the media more trustworthy than a lot of other information sources -- like, say the government.