In Lilie Chouliaraki’s article “The symbolic power of transnational media-managing the visibility of suffering,” the author raises an interesting point. Does satellite broadcasting, bringing with it the 24/7 ability to view suffering from the furthest reaches of the globe, make us more sympathetic to the horrors taking place in the world? Or does it lead to compassion fatigue, tugging at our hearts just enough for us to get up and change the channel?
From taking a quick look around, it seems that the latter view has prevailed. Most people I know, faced with a relentless onslaught of stories about death and destruction, have admitted to being overwhelmed by the news. They skim the news just long enough to get the jist of what is happening in the world and hopefully be able to sound intelligent when talking about current events. I think a lot of people look at watching the news as if they’re ripping off a scab-something that’s painful but necessary to get out of the way.
Has it always been this way? I wasn’t born when this picture came out, but for people who lived through the Vietnam war the picture was a powerful reminder of the brutality of the war and the failure of U.S. policy in the region.
The picture, and others like it, helped bolster anti-war sentiment and could be considered to be one of many factors that led to the U.S. withdrawal in 1975. This was before 24/7 satellite television, before cell phone cameras gave most Americans the potential to be become a photographer, and before websites like YouTube allowed us to instantly spread images and video across the globe.
So why hasn’t a similar photo emerged since, a photo that exposes the viciousness of our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia? Of course there are the Abu Ghraib photos, and pictures of prisoners hooded and shackled at Guantanamo. But these photos haven’t made the same impact on our collective psyche. For the most part, judging from corporate news, war today is a clean, sanitized operation that involves the targeting of a series of maps and computer graphics, leaving people completely out of the picture.
I think images of suffering can be helpful in getting people to sympathize with the events people are experiencing in other parts of the world, but only if they’re put in the proper context. During Vietnam these images stood out because there weren’t violent video games, 3D horror films, and an endless sludge of media that trivializes murder and dismemberment. Today images like these
never make it into the corporate press, and if they do they seem so much like a video game that you’ve played back in the day that they really don’t register. These are the kinds of images that our soldiers trade with each other for fun (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/IraqCoverage/story?id=1166772&page=1#.TrcftHHWBhM), when they’re not busy cutting off the hands of murdered civilians to use as trophies. When we, as a society, are so numb to violence, when our president jokes about using Predator drones to kill teenage pop stars and his fawning admirers erupt into laughter, it’s hard to see how any more of these images can shake us out of our stupor. What we really need is a new media, one that puts events into context without showing history as an endless cycle of beheadings and carpet bombings.
I wonder how much of this has to do with the consolidation of media into four or five giant media conglomerates who hold a lot of political power. Is the decision to not publish these photos coming from the top because they want to generate pro-war sentiment? Do media giants still wield enough political power like the story of William Hearst telling his reporters to stay in Cuba because he would 'bring the War'?
ReplyDelete