As students of Media Studies, we know that an important function of the media is to provide the public with a free flow of information, especially when that information is in the public interest. Indeed, Judith Lichtenberg cites the theory held by Alexander Meiklejohn in her article “Foundations and Limitations of the Freedom of the Press”, which says that the First Amendment freedoms ensure that the media can serve its “informative function: Free speech permits the flow of information necessary for citizens to make informed decisions” [McQuail 177]. However, we must ask ourselves: when is the free flow of information too much information?
Last week, as the 2010 Winter Olympics began in Vancouver, what is usually a joyous and exciting occasion was marred by tragedy. As we all know, a Georgian luge athlete named Nodar Kumaritashvili was killed during a practice run on the same day that the Opening Ceremony was held. Obviously, NBC was put into a very tough situation as a result—they had to cover the story, to ignore it would have been unacceptable, but exactly how much coverage would be appropriate? NBC made the decision to air footage of the crash, and as is the custom for most news coverage, they showed it repeatedly, in regular and slow motion, and they even showed his lifeless body being attended to by the first responders, despite the fact that he was already dead. Of course, a warning that the footage would be graphic and disturbing preceded the airing, but not everyone would have been able to see that warning.
Was the airing of this footage really necessary? Of course, a tragedy like this happening at such a major event like the Olympics is clearly something that is in the public interest, so the media has a responsibility to present this information to the public. But, when we as the public hear that an Olympic athlete has died in a horrific crash, do we really need to see the crash to understand the gravity of the situation? Or should the media trust its audience enough to know that we will understand the tragedy without having to see it?
Many news outlets have given their opinion on whether or not showing this footage was the right decision, and most agreed that the airing of the footage, despite the fact that NBC placed a warning before it, was gratuitous and unnecessary. You can read more of their opinions here: http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Should-NBC-have-shown-video-of-Nodar-Kumaritashv?urn=oly,219497 (like NBC, I will warn you that this article contains a picture of the crash) and here: http://www.examiner.com/x-14552-Social-Media-Examiner~y2010m2d12-Winter-Olympics-luger-death-How-much-visual-media-is-too-much
An important factor we must think about here is privacy. Obviously, this young man had family and loved ones who surely would not want to see his final moments played out over and over again for millions to see. As Cheryl Phillips pointed out in her article from Examiner.com, Kumaritashvili’s father has been quoted as saying that he refuses to watch the footage, so why should the rest of the world have to? It should be noted that in the end, NBC was largely praised for their handling of the situation, especially after they announced that they would not be showing the footage again—though, in the age of YouTube and the Internet, footage is never truly “gone”.
But, would putting restrictions on what is too much information hinder the ability of the media to freely dispense information regarding other matters? There have been countless court cases related to the freedom of the press, and as Everette Dennis pointed out in “The Press and the Public Interest: A Definitional Dilemma”, the courts have largely held that “the free flow of information is in the public interest” [McQuail 166]. Should we accept that in order to get as much information as we can in other situations, we will have to deal with being shown things we might not want to see or know about?
Many questions are present in this situation. The readings mention that journalists and media professionals must follow a code of ethics. Do you believe that NBC handled this story professionally and in an ethical way? Do you think it was right for NBC to show the footage in the first place? What could they have done differently? What do you think proponents of the social responsibility theory would say about this controversy? Finally, would putting restrictions on the free flow of information undermine the functioning of the media?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
First of all, I think Brianne is astute in connecting this idea of social responsibility to the Olympic fatality. I can’t help but compare it to the example in the Baran and Davis text of NBC’s decision to air the Virginia Tech shooter’s video. While these are two different situations, I think they are both indicative of a need for more social responsibility on the part of the media. To play devil’s advocate, however, I’d like to address Paul Slavin’s quote in the text about the Virginia Tech coverage. He said, “This story didn’t need any sensationalism, but people are always looking for that extra rating point” (Baran & Davis 96). I fully agree with Slavin; airing the killer’s video was completely unnecessary. I also think airing the slow motion shots of Kumaritashvili right before his death was absolutely wrong. I can, however, see why the media chose to air the footage. If they had merely said, an Olympian has died during his final practice run, this information would be easily lost in the excitement of the opening ceremonies. There is no doubt that the Olympics bring a higher volume of viewers to the networks during its broadcast. The fact here, however, is that coverage of Kumaritashvili’s death brought a higher amount of viewers and had the potential to attract more people than usual to the opening ceremonies. Baran and Davis say, “In the competing ‘ethos of news as business [and] that of news as socially responsible institution’ (Lind and Rockler, 2001, p.119) social responsibility often comes in second” (Baran & Davis 116). Perhaps people forgot that the opening ceremonies were scheduled to start that day and when they heard others talking about the coverage of the death, they decided to tune in to the coverage as well, then stayed as the ceremonies commenced.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of why the networks decided to air the footage, the question that remains is whether or not the footage should have been aired in the first place. Did the people even want to see this footage? Everette Dennis provides some insight for this question when he says, “The relationship between issuer and consumer of communication that is operating to the satisfaction of both” (McQuail 167). Obviously, those who showed the footage believed it was satisfactory to air such an event. The overwhelming response, however, as Brianne pointed out is that most agreed it was “gratuitous and unnecessary.” If the consumers of communication were not satisfied by this coverage, then what other choice do they have? Yes, they were warned by the disclaimer, but that’s like telling someone not to peek while you prepare a surprise—curiosity almost always gets the best of them. In this case, the media should have been more socially responsible to their consumers. It is not relevant or beneficial for people to see the footage, thus they never should have aired it. Instead of allowing themselves to be driven by commercial interests, they should have taken the interest of the public into consideration. This situation is a clear example of the media’s devotion to sensationalism and ratings, rather than relevant and important news for the people.
The unfortunate death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili was an event that unintentionally had an effect on the entire world. Had the death not occurred during the practice runs of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, most people would not be aware of the incident. However, due to the time and place of the accident, the world was notified. For this reason, I feel that NBC was obligated to air footage of the crash despite how horrific it could be. The luge crash was international news, and the general public which is engaged in a society of free flowing information should be provided with ALL information. It is also the responsibility of the media to deliver on that matter.
ReplyDeleteTo answer some of the questions posed by Brianne concerning proponents of social responsibility. It is no doubt that advocates of this theory would be strongly against airing footage of the crash that could have potentially been disrespectful and hurtful to Kumaritashvili’s family. The reason here is based on the theory's opposition to the marketplace of ideas because only dominant group are recognized. Furthermore, Denis McQuail's principles of social responsibility provide a basic framework by stating "the media should avoid whatever may lead to crime, violence, or civil disorder or give offense to minority groups" (Baran and Davis 114). Clearly Kumaritashvili’s family can be considered a minority group in this case and they were ignored since his father clearly objected to the world's seeing his son's death on replay. Social responsibility theorists would definitely find fault in NBC's actions.
However, on the other hand, I believe that NBC did handle the situation in an appropriate way. Due to the respectful coverage in addition to the pre-video warning for audiences, NBC essentially regulated themselves within a situation where there was a free flow of information. This closely connects to early Libertarian thought which believed that individuals involved in unregulated media practices "would 'naturally' follow the dictates of their conscience" (Baran and David 100). Furthermore as Brianne mentioned the footage could possible leak to the internet and YouTube. If this was the case, then I am certain the crash would not have been shown as appropriately as done by NBC. The effects of an irresponsible post would be far more disrespectful to society as well as Kumaritashvili’s family. Not to sound unsympathetic, but the footage NEEDED to be shown on NBC. The marketplace of ideas theory says "that all ideas should be put before the public, and the public will choose the best from the 'marketplace'" (Baran and Davis 104). As a result, the footage was giving a warning to inform people to CHOOSE if they wanted to watch or not. However, citizens should be granted the right to uninhibited information from the media. Alexander Meiklejohn substantiated this by arguing that "the citizens in a democracy, as the ultimate decision makers, need full (or at least a lot of) information to make intelligent political choices" (McQuail 177). The public needed to know all the details as well as see the accident in order to grasp the effect of the event, this is the only way to truly inform and educate the public. That is why I believe NBC acted very appropriately by giving viewers and opportunity to choose if they watched as well as providing the footage of the event to the public in this society of free flowing information.
Unlike most of the country, I haven't been following the Olympics at all, so I had only heard brief snippets of information about the death of an Olympic athlete. However, the Virginia Tech shootings are still vivid in my mind, and I think both are strong examples for the social responsibility theory. I have always found it creepy and just unnecessary when the media delivers outlandish reports on a horrific tragedy. In a situation like 9/11, where the entire world was desperately searching for answers, extensive coverage is appropriate. However, in a situation like Virginia Tech - is the airing of the killer's videos necessary? What purpose does is serve, really, other than ratings? As the book explains, "On the day of the shooting, both CBS and NBC News sent their best-known personalities, their prime-time anchors, to the campus for 'live reporting,' guaranteeing increased viewership. To heighten the drama, all networks - broadcast and cable - repeatedly used on-screen graphics declaring the senseless murders a 'massacre' and a 'bloodbath'" (Baran and Davis, 96). Where is the social responsibility in that?
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also have to acknowledge that there is a sick need in most people, including myself, to know the dirty details: why did he do it? Who did he kill? What's his backstory? I think its part of the reason why crime dramas are so popular - we get glimpse into the details of the types of crimes that are usually only glossed over on the news. This relates to what Dennis discusses in his essay, the theory of public interest. "Perhaps the most useful distinction in this conceptual definition is the clear dividing line between preference and interest" (McQuail Reader, 163). What the public is interested in may not be what is in their best interest. We may want to know everything about a school shooting, but it is it really good for us? This relates back to Baran and Davis and their discussion of the tragedy. Said the CBC news chief, "'I had this awful and sad feeling that there were parents watching these excerpts on NBC who were unaware that they will lose their children in some future copycat killing triggered by these broadcasts'" (Baran and Davis, 96). In my opinion, unless it is of national importance, I don't think it is necessary or in the public interest to make audiences relive the horrors of these events.