A picture is worth a thousand words, a picture can tell a story in a way a journalist at a desk never can. With all of today’s luxuries and technologies it is not hard for the public to not feel like they can be where ever they want to be through the news. But when does photojournalism and journalism for that matter go too far.
The article put it best when it says “Journalists have an obligation to take people where they need to go, even if they don't always want to go there. Still photographs and video images do just that.” I feel like in today’s society there should be some natural discretion when it comes to censoring disturbing images. “Shock value” is used more now as a way to get noticed instead of actually getting attention toward the cause. In class during the slide show we saw a picture of a child hiding from a vulture because he was so hungry, this picture drew attention to the cause of world hunger but was horribly sad, however I personally found it grotesque how the photographer basically exploited this child’s plight for personal gain. I feel that disturbing images aren’t really for any other use besides for shock value; I think that almost all images that are deemed disturbing can be really inappropriate and shouldn’t be run, it is all about discretion. The article uses this response from readers “Some of the shared values weren't abstract at all: How do I explain this picture to my kids?” Think about how you would explain the image to a child, how can you explain to someone so innocent about all the bad in the world, this brings me to my next point, I believe that unfortunately there will always be disturbing images out there, but I think that they should be put on websites only and not on the first page. In this I am certainly not saying that we should be censored from the world problems, I think that they should most defiantly know about the effects of Tsunami’s and Poverty but without exploitation, this is a pipe dream with journalism comes exploitation. When it comes to the 5th image in the second article I agree with one reader Michael Segers of Lakeland when he says “Does the photo work more FOR the captors (they want this image out) or AGAINST them (showing how awful they are)?" I feel that war is an even more slippery slope than poverty and tragedy, because we never want anyone to know we are weak. We don’t want to show our enemies we are weak, we want to show them that we are in it to win it. Also it can bring down moral when the servicemen and women see that some people in their country do not support them.
I whole heartedly agree with Wally Rayl’s statement: “Not being able to face reality is a major problem in our society.” Seeing believing and the public who are not directly effected by the occurrence of war or world poverty live their lives, shocking images although I am against them really generate action, they wake up the world and for a short time make society face reality, but it is always short lived. Our society is so dependent on what the news channels tell us. I defiantly feel like news organizations should censor some of their images and not only use their own personal degree of discretion but also society’s. Journalist can tend to view the world in terms of what would make a good story but you have to think of the over all effect that a disturbing image can have the world.