Regarding the Pain of Others

Regarding the Pain of Others
By Susan Sontag

1) Should the media be allowed to publish images of war that are graphic and show the brutality of war?
2) Where is the line drawn between "good taste" and inappropriately graphic and traumatic?
3) When it comes to images of unknown, common men and women's faces being displayed during or after their death, should there be a request of permission to the family of the victims?

I will address question #2


I remember when I was 10 years old, 9/11 happened. I remember exactly where I was, who I was with, what I was doing, even what I was wearing. I was old enough to know that this was a seriously tragic thing. But at the same time I was young enough that my parents knew better than to let me know all the gruesome details of the deaths and suffering that occurred.

This excerpt from Sontag's book really made me think about how much we at home have access to the front lines of war, whether we want that inside view or not. While I think its important for us to consider the gravity and brutality of war, there is however, a line that I think must not be crossed and has been crossed in some cases.

 The months following 9/11, there was much more news coverage and education about the culture and injustice going on in the middle east. Coverage included the tyranny going on with their "government". I remember sitting in my living room while my parents watched the a program on the Middle East and some of their customs. I happened to start watching and proceeded to be somewhat traumatized by what I saw. There was coverage of a public beheading of a woman in front of hundreds of people. The way it happened was absolutely horrific and heartbreaking to see. My parents immediately turned it off when they saw I saw it and the look on my face. I think it was too much for a 10 year old to see and probably should not have been broadcasted on national television at 6 in the afternoon when families gather in their homes to watch television.

Now this may be a little off topic but will make sense after I explain. I happen to think that a Victoria's Secret catalog could be argued as one of the many sexiest images in media today. While they are half-naked, it still is tasteful. Then think about Playboy Magazine or Penthouse. These woman are totally naked and these images are more inclined to categorize as porn. These two examples can be compared to the media and their images of war being released. There are images like the Victoria's secret catalogs, where there's enough shown but still a little room for the imagination, you get the message, and you're affected by it. Then on the total opposite side there's Playboy magazine, where too much is shown.

An example in Sontag's excerpt is when she agrees that the images captured can be too much from the folks at home to see.

"The camera brings the viewer close, too close; supplemented by a magnifying glass-for this is a double-lens story-the "terrible distinctness" of the pictures gives unnecessary, indecent information. Yet the Times reporter cannot resist the melodrama that mere words supply (the "dripping bodies" ready for "the gaping trenches"), while reprehending the intolerable realism of the image."

It is healthy for us to be enlightened to that fact that there is suffering and death on the front lines of our war. But I don't think it is necessary or beneficial for us to see some of the graphic images that show too much. It can desensitize us to the point where we might be less moved when we see these images.