“MRT, pinasabog. Dalawampu… PATAY!!!”

            Headlines like this leave me with the image of reporters and cameramen in a mad scramble to see dead people. Similarly, a story no longer seems to be interesting if someone is not raped, beaten, stabbed, stolen from, dead, or all of the above.

            I believe that the problem does not lie in the content, but in the way the story is presented. This is most evident in the kinds of pictures that newspapers choose to run, and the videos that television stations choose to air.

            When faced with the choice between airing or running graphic and gory images, my knee-jerk response as part of the audience is to say, “No! Don’t print or air it!” For one, such images can be offensive on many levels. Some images may offend people’s sensibilities: for people who read the paper over breakfast or watch the morning news, gory and graphic images may be enough to ruin one’s appetite and one’s day as well.

            Graphic and gory images can also be offensive to religious groups. Manny Mogato of Reuters joked that images of cows being led to a slaughterhouse must be very offensive to the Hindus, but I believe that he might be correct. In general, one must be careful of offending other people and their beliefs, be they religious, cultural, or moral.

            Such images could also greatly affect the youth. Children, in particular, do not have the full capacity to distinguish right from wrong. The very pervasiveness of media could shape the sensibilities of children in ways it cannot control. Whether it likes it or not, media undoubtedly has a didactic effect on children and on people in general. Thus, media practitioners must also take into consideration the didactic effect of their reportage.

            However, this is easier said than done. There are times when it cannot be avoided that the images are graphic and gory. News coverage of war and crime best exemplify this. How does a television network report the latest news on the war in Iraq without showing any footage? Videos and pictures lend a certain degree of validity to a story, especially with the popular belief that pictures do not lie. A story, then, becomes more believable if it has the visuals to back it up.

            Videos and photographs can particularly spice up an otherwise boring story, providing added impact to the story. As impact translates to ratings and sales, it sparks competition between networks, publications, and other channels of media. Media outfits then fall into the trap of sensationalism just to gain an edge over their competitors.

            The limited supply of interesting news challenges networks and publications to hype up the boring stories. Sadly, most choose to hype up the stories not through writing the piece in a more interesting and creative style, but through enhancing the accompanying visuals to make them seem more dramatic. The kinds of enhancements vary: reporters can simulate the event, as Mr. Mogato shared. They can also add or subtract elements from a photograph using imaging software like Adobe Photoshop. Or they can use musical accompaniment and sound effects to add dramatic flair to the story. Regardless of the method, such enhancements may overshadow the truth that the story held in its raw form.  The desire for profit, then, overshadows the journalistic duty to report the truth and nothing but the truth.

            In the same way that journalism as an industry must strike a balance between public service and business, journalists must also strike a proper balance in their stories. The desire for higher sales and ratings cannot be an excuse to disregard accuracy, fairness, and balance. These principles should be used in making the judgment call to use gory and graphic images to accompany the stories.

            Editors must then consider: will the story remain accurate even without the visuals? How much harm can the visuals cause if they are shown? Will the story fall apart without the visuals? I believe that showing gory and graphic images should be a matter decided upon after careful deliberation and consideration. If there are ways in which the gore can be minimized without sacrificing the essence of the story, such alternatives should be taken.

            In television, it is fortunate that the audience has two opportunities to watch the news: the early evening telecast, and the late-night telecast. This bookend structure makes it possible to report on a particularly gory or graphic story without the footage during the early evening news, with the advisory that the full video will be shown during the late-night telecast. Such a strategy minimizes harm on the audience –especially the children—and prevents offense to the general public, without sacrificing the journalistic duty to report the truth.

            In print, the available alternative is to choose the angle with which to take the picture. In the shootout that resulted in Al-Ghozi’s death, the Philippine Star and Philippine Daily Inquirer both had Al-Ghozi’s picture on the front page. However, readers reacted differently to the two publications. Many criticized the Inquirer’s treatment of the piece, as their photo showed Al-Ghozi’s dead body sprawled on the floor in an undignified and almost inhuman manner. Inquirer justified that this was done to prove that Al-Ghozi was indeed dead, and that his status as a terrorist merited this treatment.

            In comparison, the Philippine Star simply ran a close-up of Al-Ghozi’s face. This photo also proved that the man was, indeed, dead. However, in choosing not to show the full length of his dead body, the paper paid some amount of respect to him and his family. Terrorist or not, he was still a man who had been killed, a man whose demise some would mourn. The fact that he was human merited a humane treatment of his death. In my opinion, the Philippine Star made a better call because they had been able to report the truth without offending their audience.

            Media must be attuned to the sensitivities of their audience. They cannot assume that just because they are reporting the truth, readers and viewers will take any kind of image given to them. It is human to have tastes and preferences, so media outfits should keep in mind that not everyone could tolerate gory images. But at the same time, media outfits should not water down reports just to cater to the tastes and preferences of the audience.

In the end, balance is the key to controlling shock journalism.