Understanding Human Suffering Acceptable - Literature review Example

Most people would agree that information about human suffering is acceptable: it depends how it’s presented” (Karen Sanders) Introduction Working in the media presents opportunities for making choices. Some of these involve presenting news that revolve around success. Too often, however, the media finds need to report bad news, in part, because this is what most gets people’s attention. Over decades, those working in the media have found that certain formulas work better than others. In other words, having large catchy headlines can be a big draw, as is an image, especially if that image is dramatically presented. Some of the bad news the media must of necessity report to a public that wants to be informed involve human and animal suffering. Should such information be suppressed the public can hardly claim to be well informed. It seems reasonable to suppose that there would be widespread agreement with what Karen Sanders said, that, “Most people would agree that information about human suffering is acceptable: it depends how it’s presented.” This means that although the media has a responsibility to report the news they also have a responsibility to do so in a manner that does not harm the public or those about whom they report. Reporting of Human Suffering Acceptable: How true is this？ Truth is a highly valuable commodity in any society. If citizens cannot trust their government or the media, the society cannot function effectively and provide all within it with a fair playing field. Even in war, where truth is considered to be the first casualty, citizens often make an effort to find the truth and when there are reporters on the field who make a reputation for getting to the truth, such reporters can be sure of having wide readership. This does not refer only to stories that would make people feel good. In the United Kingdom, the Sun, in 2008, won the Cudlipp Award for writing a series of articles focusing on the wounded and maimed in the Iraq war. The story was not simply to show images of the suffering of those who were making huge sacrifices for their country. Rather, there seemed to be a purpose for highlighting the suffering of the returning British soldiers from Iraq. Among the questions being asked were, as Cathcart (2008, p21) writes: “Were they adequately treated in the field? Would they receive decent compensation and support from the government? How good were facilities at home? Was anybody thinking about their long-term care?” Clearly, these soldiers that are being sent out to war are the sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers , whose lives intersect with those of their fellow citizens. If the government is not taking good care of these people, certainly the public has a right to know and such knowledge might serve them well when there is an election and they are thinking of whom to vote for. Because the reporting surrounding wounded veterans revolves around the noble purpose of seeking to help them, showing the suffering of these former soldiers can be appreciated by the reading public. During this same Iraq war, media in the UK hardly ever reported on Iraqi deaths. When such news was presented, it was presented as generalized suffering, not one that would arouse the sympathies of the British for Iraqi civilians being killed. Though images of Iraqis who have been killed or suffered other forms of trauma may not be heartwarming to see, it would have given an indication that the press care not only about British people but about humanity as a whole and that would have seemed so much nobler. As things stand, Iraqis who are suffering a blur, which also means that those who might have wanted to help such people, whether in terms of wounded soldiers or civilians with no hope for the future, may not have information about the proper channels for such aid. If suffering is presented as a matter of fairly exposing what we human beings are capable of, this is likely to go down well with the media consuming citizen. Another area in which the manner in which suffering is presented is so critical is when it comes to suicide. As Hawton (2002, p1374) points out, “Reporting and portrayal of suicidal behavior in the media may have potentially negative influences and facilitate suicidal acts by people exposed to such stimuli. Recent systematic reviews by others and ourselves…have found overwhelming evidence for such effects.” No society ought to be proud of providing information to people when it is clear that the information has an adverse effect on the people whose protection society seeks. Studies reveal that when the media report on suicidal behavior and do so by providing detailed information about the method, this leads to copy-cat suicides. Similarly, when photographs of the deceased are presented prominently or the news is reported under huge headline, suicides are likely to increase. In addition, the prominent reporting of celebrity suicides has a similar bad effect. This means that the media has a responsibility, so that, as with medical doctors, they aim to do no harm through the way in which they present their stories. What challenges does this view present for the working journalist? The working journalist may have a lot of information at her disposal but needs to be selective. Context is very important. In the same way that a parent might not be explicit in telling children everything about reproduction, complete with graphics, journalists need to exercise discretion in terms of how much information they provide. It is suggested that journalists consider working with researchers and psychologists when working on stories that involve trauma or excessive suffering so that they can be aware of the psychological dimension and the potential effect on the reading public. A case in point, reported by Hawton (2002, p1374) is that “Efforts to limit the reporting of subway suicides in Vienna through the collaboration of researchrs and journalists were followed by a reduction in the number of suicides and sucide attempts by this method.” Several guidelines have been presented to the media to help them. In 2006, one such guideline was presented by The National Office for Suicide Prevention. “For example, in the week following an episode of Casualty on the BBC - which included a storyline about a paracetamol overdose - rates of self-poisoning in the UK increased by 175 per cent” (O’Brien 2006). Advice offered in this manual includes not romanticizing or glorifying suicide and also not giving simplistic reasons for why someone might have committed suicide. As the name implies, these are guidelines and are not being imposed on the media. This means that the media still have a great deal of room to use their judgment. As the head of the National Office for Suicide Prevention, Geoff Day, pointed out, "We're not mandating anyone to do this. These are more helpful hints to promote good and responsible coverage of the media. The key things we want to avoid are glamorising or sensationalising suicide," he said” (O’Brien 2006). Another group that has showed a great deal of concern regarding suicide is, The Samaritans. According to Pati (2006), “Samaritans guidance says press coverage of suicide should be ‘discreet in and sensitive and should avoid the use of dramatic images related to suicide” (Pati 2006). If journalists and those in the media understand that they have a responsibility to help the communities in which they live and indeed the whole human family, then they will be able to make decisions that do not lead to hurt and pain. Though journalists are expected to be objective, this does not mean that they should at all costs refuse to lift a finger to help others when doing so will not affect the role that they play. Such an issue came to the fore in January 2009 when, following the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, there was a call for aid for the Palestinians. The television appeals for health, not unexpectedly, included images of people whose bodies had been mangled or killed. This included innocent children. Should such a program be aired? If the purpose is simply to show human suffering for the purpose of getting higher ratings, then this should not be the case. We do not want to look at human suffering as some kind of entertainment. As it happened, this particular case was not a matter of entertainment but an appeal for aid and an appeal that was urgent because of the immediacy of the suffering. The British Broadcasting Corporation refused to play the advertisements, noting that it would seem prejudicial to the Israelis. This decision has been criticized even by many Israelis because the issue was one of dealing with human suffering, by raising money for food, medicines, and shelter not highlighting issues about the conflict. As one commentator noted, This is an absolute nonsense and a slur on the integrity of the Corporation's listeners and viewers who are more than capable of making the distinction between reports and adverts. And in a demonstration of just how out of touch the BBC is on the issue, thousands gathered in protest outside the broadcaster's HQ in London on Saturday. A string of politicians including senior government ministers have also voiced their dismay. (BBC must realize that to air is human 2009) There were demonstrations against BBC and many prominent people, including the government, came out strongly against the stance of the BBC. This is because, on the BBC channels and those of other television stations, the Disaster Emergency committee, which comprised some of the most highly respected charities in UK, had run ads for victims of other wars and disasters. Conclusion Journalists have been guided by the tenet of impartiality for many years. Whether in reporting a neighborhood skirmish or a war from afar, their goal is to send in as much information as possible. Information without the proper context, however, can be misleading or confusing. As such, in particular, when journalists have to present images of human suffering whether these relate to crime, war, or otherwise, it is important to provide a background and to avoid giving simplistic explanations. As it has been proven that people can be highly affected by the kind of images they see, it would be unfortunate if the media simply printed any image that they got their hands on. Rather, in presenting images it is important to review what the purpose might be. If images of suffering are being presented for entertainment, then one might argue that there is enough of that in the movie theatre. While it seems fair to decry the use of suffering for entertainment, Jade Goody, a celebrity who found out that she had cervical cancer was able to batter her impending death for a chance to be in front of the television cameras. The whole thing might have seemed distasteful but she was an adult who decided that using her remaining life to benefit her two children was worthwhile. As the Economist (2009) reports: For seven months she died in public. It was the most extraordinary of modern British deaths, orchestrated by Max Clifford, her publicist, in all the nation's tabloids. On the supermarket shelves, between the beans and the biscuits, Jade was seen with her oxygen tank on her lap, or sucking on opioid lollipops, or with her bald head tied up with yellow ribbon like an Easter egg. ("Stricken Jade: 'Get me out of this pain'.") When she could not appear, her small boys were proxies for her. She might have been exploited for nothing but on the path of doom, Goody seems to have found the courage to orchestrate something of a “happy” life for herself. The public saw the happy moments on her way to her death. And since she did it with her eyes wide open, the media might not be criticized too heavily for it. Journalists and the media in general need to be flexible and to be willing to think carefully about decisions they make. They ought to allow for the possibility that as brilliant as they might be, it is possible for them to make a mistake. When that happens, as is the case with suicide coverage or the Gaza fund-raising debacle, offending individuals should have the courage to admit their mistakes and move on, but always remembering that their job is to serve not only their communities but humanity as a whole. Bibliography ‘BBC must realize that to air is human.’ The Gulf Times.’ 2009. Arabia 2000, Jan. 26. Cathcart, Brian. 2008. ‘An unprecedented focus on the wounded.’ New Statesman, vol 137 no 4894, p21. Ghosh, Labonita. 2008. ‘Not so feel-Goody.’ Daily News and Analysis Sunday (India). Lewis, Justin. 2004. ‘Television, Public Opinion and the War in Iraq: The Case of Britain.’ International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol 16 no 3, p295. Hawton, Keith. 2002. ‘Influences of the media on suicide.’ British Medical Journal,vol 325 no 7377, pp1374. ‘Obituary: Jade Goody. 2009. The Economist, Mar 28, vol. 390, no. 8624, pg. 98 O’Brien,Carl. ‘New Guidelines for Media Suicide Coverage.’ Irish Times, Jun 20, 2006. Pati, Anita. 2006. ‘Samaritans ‘appalled’ by suicide press coverage.’ Third Sector, no 409, Jan 11, p3. ‘Pressure still on BBC in Gaza row.’ www.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk=news/7848673.stm, January 25, 2009, (Retrieved March 30, 2009) Senior, Kathryn. ‘Bigger and better tobacco warning labels.’ The Lancet, vol. 356 no 9224,p139. Shah, Anup. ‘Iraq War Media reporting, Journalism and Propaganda.’ Global Issues http://www.globalissues.org/article/461/media-reporting-journalism- and-propaganda. (Retrieved March 30, 2009) Ward, Kate. 2009.‘Jade Goody’s Most Memorable Moments.’ Mar 27, no 1040, p.55. Read More