Visual Communication. Janis Teruggi Page

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ Images of Tragedy: Afghan Victim

      A New York Times (NYT) special report told of how an Afghan woman was falsely accused of burning a Koran at a Muslim shrine in Kabul. An enraged mob beat her to death and then burned the body. The story featured a video of cellphone clips depicting the gruesome and bloody assault with the warning it contained scenes of graphic violence (Rubin, 2015).

      This powerful NYT piece stitches together cellphone clips posted on social media into a compelling story that emphasizes the apparent bloodlust of the mob, the relative indifference of the police, and the horrific abuse the woman undergoes. A voiceover briefly explains the source materials used in the story. What isn't immediately apparent is that, like all stories whether visual or in other media, the process of the gathering and organizing of story elements is largely invisible to the casual viewer.

      Journalists compiled this story thus creating a narrative or plotline based on storytelling conventions, the perceived news value of the story, and the journalists' skills and beliefs about good reporting. In the newsgathering and editing process, various story elements are rearranged, deleted, or given less or more prominence. As Ernest Bormann wrote in describing the coverage of an American hostage crisis, the images create a specific rendering of reality: “The pictures … are stitched into dramatically improvised scenes. The viewer sees an artistic, interpretative, organized portrayal of social reality” (Bormann, 1982, p. 145). A different rendering of these very same videos might lead viewers to a different storyline and conclusion about what took place.

      What does this have to do with ethics? First, “real” and relatively undoctored images can be presented in ways that draw viewers to different conclusions that may or may not be intended by the presenter. Second, different media outlets, news organizations in particular, have different guidelines about what types of images should or should not be disseminated (Brooks et al., 2020). At one time, media companies could largely control and limit the dissemination of gruesome, sexual, and graphic images. However, with the massive sharing capabilities of social media and non‐journalistic outlets, there are few ways to limit or protect viewers from seeing problematic images or protect people's right to privacy. For example, several times when terrorists beheaded captives, mainstream media did not run the video the terrorists took. However, within minutes the videos were widely available on the Internet.

      Even the choice as to whether to run a photo or include a video in a news story or other media representation has ethical implications as well. Of course, the issue raised earlier about graphic video and imagery is one that journalists frequently confront. How many, if any, photographs of a tragedy should be included?

      Foundations of Ethical Thought

      Your grounding in ethics likely emerged from your upbringing – the mores of your family, religious institutions, school, and family – and even the media you use. It may be useful to begin with reflecting on your own beliefs and approaches to dealing with ethical dilemmas. Most of us respond instinctively in such situations and think we “just know” the right thing to do. However, our instincts can lead us down problematic paths. This risk is why a system of reasoning about complex situations is helpful. Ethicists tend to fall into two main camps known as “deontological” and “teleological” (Figure 2.1).

      Deontology

      Think of deontological ethics as rules based. Deontology is based on the Greek word for duty. Deontological ethicists insist that regardless of the situation, individuals should adhere to moral rules that either require or prohibit certain types of action, regardless of the consequences. We can also think of these rules‐based people as being absolutist in that they often rely on religious tenets or other deeply held values that, in their view, can never be broached. For instance, a photojournalist who believes that they are duty bound to provide photos depicting a “newsworthy” event, regardless of whether others might be injured or shocked in some way, would be an absolutist.

       Figure 2.1 Categorical imperative and utilitarianism.

       Source: © John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Deontology, also called absolutism, places our duty to do the right thing at the heart of moral reasoning, regardless of the circumstances. For instance, an absolutist believes that it is never right to lie so presumably if a crazed killer breaks into your house and demands to know where you keep the knives, you would be duty bound to tell the truth. This, of course, sounds extreme, but carried to its ultimate conclusion, that is where deontology takes us and why many people don't think it passes the “real‐world” test.

      Does the end justify the means? The absolutists will say no. Immanuel Kant is the most famous proponent of this view described as the categorical imperative. Kant believed that each of us should start with the premise that people should only behave in ways that they would want others to behave. In other words, we should act as if our own ethical choices were universal law. As Patterson and Wilkins (1997) explain, the test of a moral act is its universality – whether it can be applied to everyone.

      Teleology

      In contrast to deontology, think of teleological as “it depends.” Ethical theories can be categorized in terms of those theories' basic guiding principles (Black and Roberts, 2011). These principles bring different values to the fore and influence our ethical decision‐making.

      Teleology, also known as consequentialism, focuses on outcomes or ends and is at the root of utilitarianism, a well‐known philosophical approach to moral reasoning. We ask ourselves “what are the possible results of choosing one decision over another?” “What happens if I favor one value instead of another?”

      The core of decision‐making for utilitarian thinkers involves what actions will lead to the best outcomes for the most people or will cause the least harm. One of the ways we commonly do this is to focus on outcomes, known in ethicist lingo as “consequentialism.” By that, we mean that we think about what will happen if we choose one course of action over another.

      For instance, if an advertising agency’s creative director wants to use a video of a person base jumping from a skyscraper to dramatize the thrilling taste of a soft drink, they may indeed be successful in gaining the attention and interest of members of a target audience and thus have greater success in selling the product. On the other hand, they may also want to take into account that depictions of potentially dangerous behaviors may encourage others, especially vulnerable audiences, to emulate that behavior. A 12‐year‐old boy whose judgment is not highly developed may see the video and believe himself capable of doing the same thing.

      While at first blush utilitarianism seems logical and fair, it’s often criticized for ignoring the needs and concerns of those who aren’t in the majority. Critics also say that utilitarianism lets people off the hook by ignoring our fundamental human responsibility to make ethical choices. And, as Black and Roberts (2011) point out, it's problematic to expect people to be able to accurately imagine and predict the outcomes of these decisions.

      Pluralism

The categorical imperative (deontology) and utilitarianism (teleology) are often envisioned as being on the opposite ends of the spectrum of moral thought. The ideas СКАЧАТЬ