They are seen everywhere; in the news, on television, in magazines and newspapers; they are violent images. They are images of war time, and disaster, as well as crimes and protests. Susan Sontag wrote that “Perhaps the only people with the right to look at [graphic war] images are those who could do something to alleviate it…or those who could learn from it. The rest of us are voyeurs, whether or not we mean to be.” (Source D) I agree with Susan Sontag’s opinion that the only people that should view these photos when their viewing leads to action or knowledge. However, I also believe that everyone has a right, and a need, to see these images, regardless of the outcome of the viewing.
The first amendment granted Americans their basic freedoms; freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly. The freedom of the press unleashed an entirely new phenomenon where people had a chance to publish the truth. Instead of hiding from the fear of prosecution, they were able to publish true and honest things that led to reforms, changes in opinion, and a reduced amount of secrets. These dramatic changes would not have occurred if these things were not printed and circulated across the World. These articles, and news stories, and photographs, would not have made any difference if they had not fallen into so many hands; some hands beneficial, and some hands not.
The truth has expanded over the years, so much so that it is debated whether or not our press says too much. A picture of three maggot covered bodies of US servicemen was published in Life magazine. Many readers were stunned by the picture but many soldiers praised the photograph for being published in the magazine (Source A). Of course such a vulgar photograph would be shocking, it’s an unbelievable scene, but it showed what our soldiers saw. War is a horrible thing and is filled with shocking images and horrifying experiences. By sharing this photograph with the world, Life Magazine is showing a piece reality. Whether the viewer’s decide to take anything from it or let the sight of it impact their future actions is entirely up to them, but they still have a right to see it.
Pictures like the one in Life Magazine make people believe that society has gotten too relaxed in their restraint of vulgar images. Even though it seems that everything is published, some newspapers use what is called the “cereal” test. According to source B, newspapers ask questions like “What images would readers want to see over the breakfast table? Or what images would they want their children to encounter?” I assume that the main idea behind this test is to prevent future complaints about the images that are published. If especially disturbing pictures are published, they obviously have a higher purpose than just entertainment. Whether people learn from these photos or not, the newspaper’s intent of publishing them was to give readers the opportunity to gain new knowledge.
Violent images leave a distinct mark in society, especially the extreme and particularly crude ones. While it is better to learn something from these images, everyone should be able to see them regardless of their post-viewing experiences. Every published photograph has a reason and was put out there for people to see. To deny the right of viewing or publishing is just wrong; in both a constitutional and a moral way. Susan Sontag was correct in her thinking that the only beneficial people viewing it are those who could change it or learn from it. She was incorrect in her idea that those were the only people that could view the images. Everyone has the right to view these images regardless of the aftermath. (632)
No comments:
Post a Comment