In Theory: The ethics of watching violent footage on TV
Following the Wednesday, Aug. 26 shooting deaths of WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, news organizations had to make the choice of whether or not to rebroadcast the violent footage — both the live broadcast version and the point-of-view video uploaded online by the shooter, Vester Flanagan.
Many have pondered the ethics of rebroadcasting the footage, as well as the morality of simply watching online.
Q. Should news organizations rebroadcast or post the footage? Should people watch the footage?
--
This footage should not be rebroadcast or posted online for public viewing. It’s disrespectful to the people who were murdered. Their murder is certainly newsworthy, but to air the footage of their deaths in public media makes them more like a spectacle, just another shocking event to watch that grabs an audience’s attention.
It’s also insensitive to the victims’ family members. Just put yourself in their shoes. What if it had been your beloved relative? Would you want their death displayed like that? Finally, to hear the details of the murders is more than sufficient for the general public. We already see too much violence in TV, movies and video games. Our culture is already becoming numb to fantasy violence, and we cannot afford to become emotionally numb to violence in reality by overexposure to it.
Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for all the sins that humanity will ever commit. He did so in order to reconcile any person to God who wishes to be. This teaches us that all life is valuable and worthy of respect. Indeed, we are all made in the image of God. To put the destruction of a human life on such public display is simply wrong. To attack or disrespect the image of God is to attack or disrespect Him.
Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank
--
Broadcasting violent footage seems to feed the dark side of human nature, along with the drive of capitalism to make money and gain consumers. While we live in a country based on freedom of speech and the general population has a right to know the facts, it seems that morals and ethics have been watered down and are no longer deemed meaningful. We not only expose children and teens to things that are not age appropriate, but it seems that we treat moral standards as if they are no longer relevant.
Situational ethics became popular back in the ‘60s, opening the moral/social Pandora’s Box, and we have continued to spiral downward ever since. Can the box be closed? I don’t think so. We also aren’t able to control or legislate broadcasters and society continues to thirst for the dark side. So what can we do?
I believe the only solution is to encourage organizations and individuals to hold up the standards that teach and model good character, teaching individuals to make responsible decisions for their life and family and for the organizations in which they participate. How can this be done? I believe teaching the Biblical principles of godliness, holiness, honesty and integrity are essential! I believe humans are limited in their ability to exercise these characteristics without the divine intervention which comes from having a personal relationship with God. And he has provided a way for us to have a personal relationship with him.
Pastor Terry Neven
Montrose Community Church
La Crescenta-Montrose
--
As a former radio and TV newsman before I got into the ministry, I am leaning toward saying yes, the images should be broadcast, but with a warning, such as: “The video we are about to show you is very graphic.”
The truth is that we live in a free and open society, and if one news outlet decided not to show the disturbing video while another one did show it, the one outlet might be considered “soft” and the other “heartless.”
But guess which outlet will have more viewers next time? Right! The one that showed the gory details!
I may be sorry that human nature is that way, but we have to face facts: human nature is that way. Remember the last time you drove by an accident on the freeway? It was slow, wasn’t it? And why? Because all the looky-loos are hoping to see a little blood! Sorry to be so graphic, but in my opinion, it’s true: we say we don’t like the blood and guts, but the truth is we do. So don’t blame the media in our competitive, economic society; blame human nature. And while you’re at it, take a good long look at yourself in the mirror.
As the comic strip Pogo pointed out one time, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
This is a miserable question to ponder. The alternative to rebroadcasting amounts to suppression of news coverage of a historic (and yes, horrific) event. For me to tell people that they should not watch it constitutes censorship and imposes my moral choices on others.
While a few are engaging this important question as we are here, no doubt millions have already viewed the footage, whether prayerfully or thoughtfully, or ghoulishly or frivolously. Many more will in the future, with a full range of motivations and reactions.
I will not be watching it, but so what? Alison Parker, Adam Ward and Vester Flanagan are still gone forever except in the memories of their loved ones and survivors, the latter category having a particularly gruesome meaning in the case of Flangan.
With these deaths, we have added three more in the long list of killings by a clearly unbalanced person who had exhibited threatening and violent behavior on numerous occasions, yet easily and legally acquired guns.
If we are ever to end these senseless deaths, it will not be by restricting media broadcasts and stopping people from watching.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
--
I saw the incident online and it was very fast, and the news channel that was airing the interview when the attack occurred did not even know what had happened. Lots of popping and running, but that was about it. It reminded me a little of when Reagan was shot. I don’t think anyone thought it unethical to see the footage of that incident when it happened. I’m guessing the ethical question is whether or not to show such footage when we know the incident resulted in death or was especially gory. Of the Reagan victims, James Brady died many years later of complications. In this recent film, the woman doing the interview was shot point blank and still managed to run away before succumbing to her wounds off-screen. We don’t see the aftermath.
Is watching what happened simply an example of rubbernecking; a looky-loo urge we have to see disasters unfold without ourselves being in danger? I’m not sure. It may be a reaction we have as mortal beings to ponder life and its fragility in light of such circumstances. How important is our every breath in this world full of unstable sinners bent on causing mayhem or bound to do happenstance harm? Is this not cause to pause? Would we just go on blindly in life if such moments were not broadcast in full view? Did it change us when we watched the World Trade Center Towers go down on 9/11? Did it make anyone think differently having to visually take in such reality?
In times past there was no video. People just heard the stories, or they witnessed tragedy first hand. When Jesus was crucified on the cross, there were those who watched with sick relish, and others with deep sorrow, but the fact of the incident was also used to validate Christianity when Jesus rose from the dead. Perhaps he was just sick or asleep when they put him in the tomb. No, everyone “saw” him die up there, and he is alive again, and news spread, and here we are today with the largest religion of earth — a religion based on an eye-witness news story.
So watch/broadcast or don’t, but a picture’s worth a thousand words, and I do not believe it in any way immoral. In some cases it may be crass, but that’s different.
Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga