TPM Reader MW isn’t the only reader who questions whether it’s appropriate for photographs or videos of domestic violence to be published by news organizations. First, MW, followed by my thoughts …
I’m fully informed and in agreement on that publishing must always favor transparency. More the better, trust the public, sunshine disinfectant, when in doubt print it, etc.
But is there a bar that applies to images of direct ‘domestic’ abuse? If not, then what was the point of the eruption of outrage (some manufactured, I’m sure) over the JLaw (and others not) leaks?
For Ray Rice’s wife, getting punched – and severly hurt – by her husband has to be one of the most vulnerable, private and emotionally scarring moments of her life (or at least, based on any serious study of domestic abuse, we can conclude it is very likely to be). Surely linking to this video – regardless of any ‘transperancy’ argument – is as much of a violation of her privacy and is as humiliating as naked celebrity pics. My personal compass tells me it’s much much more so, though I also know I’m wildly unqualified to judge (though I think its inarguable that publishing the video can be expected to impact other victims who view it as well. We need not refight the ‘trigger warning’ debate to agree that the damage can be real).
I can’t accept that a woman getting punched – and, in truth, nearly murdered – is a legitimate public ‘document’ if we’ve all agreed that naked celebrities aren’t. Yet I’ve yet to see a single media source say “in the interest of privacy, we are not linking or posting this video” or similar.
Or is it – and of course I’m really afraid this is it – that one is “just” vicious physical aggression by a man and the other is OMG boobs. We know exactly which of those images is universally viewed as more harmful in America.
Finally, I also am sickened by but completely certain that racial norms are in play in this decision, though spelling them out here would just add to my despair. They’re pretty self-evident on both sides.
I’m not writing to castigate you or complain. I’m interested in this topic and think its worth bringing up.
First, let me say that I have not personally considered this question as an editorial matter or had not until now. For starters though I see no meaningful comparison between this and the recent release of private nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and others.
There’s zero news value to seeing Jennifer Lawrence naked. There may be a pleasure value for some people. But that’s 100% trumped by the fact that the subjects of the photographs didn’t want these photographs released. We have a thriving market connecting up people who want to look at nude bodies and those who want to show their nude bodies to people who want to see them. Not to belabor the obvious, but we know that Jennifer Lawrence would be naked if she were photographed without clothes on. Again, no news value. No news at all. I don’t think any of the meaningful criticism of the release of those photos was about someone appearing nude. It was entirely about it not being voluntary.
This all seems so 100% straightforward as not to require more elaboration.
Whether these photos of violence should be shown is more complicated. And I get the point that this is in many ways inherently intimate, inherently private, albeit in a very different way than the leaked nude photos.
The first thing is that it is inherently newsworthy. The fact of violence against women generally, the fact of this particular assault by a famous professional athlete are extremely newsworthy. The newsworthiness doesn’t mean videos should be published. But I think there are arguments for doing so.
There’s a secondary point that crimes are by definition public. Not all the details. But when a criminal act takes place, the privacy rights of all involved get abridged. Not totally. But to a significant extent. The counter here is the journalistic practice and in some cases laws against publicizing the identities of victims of rape. I don’t think this is the same but I recognize that it may be similar.
As I said above, I don’t have a settled opinion on this and I’m curious what others think.
However, I do have a general stance against those who think news reporters should be in the business of not reporting certain things to advance various purportedly good ends. Two examples. Recently we have used still photos from the videos of the beheadings of the two American reporters by ISIS. Not stills of the actual killings but from the parts before that happens. Like many other press organizations, we’ve never published the videos themselves. In recent days I’ve heard from a number of readers who’ve said we should not be publishing any of these photos, even in stories which directly relate to the videos themselves because this is somehow too upsetting or doing ISIS’s work for it.
Similarly, I know there’s a move afoot to refrain from publishing the names of mass shooters on the theory that this just gives them the notoriety they crave and which led to their atrocities. I disagree. These killings are facts. The ISIS beheadings are facts. There’s no reason to publish imagery of mutilated bodies. But within certain bounds, these things happened. And withholding critical information about what happened just doesn’t make sense. I’d go further and say that it’s actually wrong. Ugly things happen. We shouldn’t play games about reporting them. We shouldn’t get into mind-games about what a mass murderer might or might not have wanted. Journalists should just focus on doing their jobs.
As I said, the question of how to deal with imagery of domestic violence is an important one. And I’m not sure I have a settled opinion. But I lean strongly to the side of not keeping information secret.
