Do We Need Another Emmett Till Moment?
There is a debate currently taking place within the editorial departments of some of the nation's biggest newspapers, on the subject of what their own professional ethics and standards should be when it comes to showing the aftermath of violent mass shootings. What it boils down to is this: "Does the country need another 'Emmett Till moment' -- a photo of a child's badly-mangled body who was killed by gunfire in a mass shooting?" Which is an interesting editorial question, seeing as how the American media has gotten more and more timid over time when it comes to showing the results of any violence, really.
Before we even begin to explore this debate, though, there is something upon which everyone is universally agreed: no photo of a child's dead body should ever be published without the express permission of the parent(s) or guardian(s) of that child. Consider that one a given. If not for sheer decency's sake, then for the fact that any news organization which printed such a photo would almost certainly be sued for mental anguish by the parents who never gave their permission for it to be used. So this entire discussion is about whether the media should show such photos after permission has been freely granted, just to be crystal-clear. Emmett Till's mother was the one who demanded media coverage and photos, after all -- this is really nothing new.
As I said, the American media pretty much as a whole has (over the past 30 or 40 years) shied away from graphic photos of any nature, when it comes to the effects of violence. They do still appear, although they are rare (and usually involve foreigners, not American citizens). This is true even when the American military is fighting wars overseas. In all the time we were in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can only easily remember two images which broke through this self-censorship in a brutal way: the horrific images of the corpse of an American military contractor hung from a bridge in Fallujah, Iraq (one of four Americans from one vehicle who were brutally killed that day by a mob), and the videos and images of people desperately clinging to -- and then falling off of, during takeoff -- an American military transport leaving Kabul, Afghanistan during our hasty withdrawal. Other than that, we didn't see a whole lot of the horrors of war. Or at least not the "this is what death looks like" aspect of it.
Compare the coverage from Iraq and Afghanistan with the images that were regularly reported from Vietnam or even World War II. Wars mean one thing, primarily: a lot of dead very young soldiers. We saw that, previously. We don't, anymore. Seeing yesterday's date on the calendar, I wonder what would we see if D-Day happened today -- because I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anywhere near as graphic as what America saw, back then. That is a big shift, and it is all part of the question of how much should the media show of what violence and war really mean.
There were several images from Vietnam which were absolutely pivotal in shifting the American public's attitude towards what was going on over there. A Buddhist monk setting himself on fire in a busy intersection to protest the South Vietnamese government. A South Vietnamese official publicly executing a Viet Cong fighter by means of a pistol and a quick bullet to the head. My Lai. The effects of napalm graphically illustrated by a fleeing naked young girl who had torn off her clothes to try to make the burning stop. Would any of those images be shown today, in newspapers or on broadcast television? I seriously doubt it. This changes the role the media plays in American life and American political discourse, obviously.
These are iconic images, as was the Emmett Till photo. When Time magazine put together a list of the 100 "Most Influential Images Of All Time," three out of the four of those Vietnam images made the list (I couldn't find My Lai). Scroll through their display and see how many of those images are of war and other violence. And think for each of them whether it would run in a newspaper today, or be seen on the evening news.
But while one of the two Emmett Till photos is prominent in Time's layout of their top 100, at the time photos of his body were published in only two places: Jet magazine and the Chicago Defender newspaper, both of which were Black media, published for a specific audience. The mainstream White press in 1955 didn't run these photos -- which is an important footnote.
These days, the gatekeeper function of the national media has been lessened considerably. It's not that hard for anyone to disseminate a video or still image to the general public any more. The news media can either pick up such images after they go viral or ignore them, but either way millions see them. That is an important distinction often left out of the media's navel-gazing over editorial ethics.
I wrote about this phenomenon 11 years ago, while the Arab Spring was happening. I mentioned the first incident here in America where I was taken aback by the power of the public to capture video of violent interactions with police (the BART cop who killed a man in the Fruitvale station in Oakland, California). Back then, I wrote:
Now, everyone has a camera, and they're ready to whip it out and point it at, for instance, a subway policeman shooting a suspect who is lying on the floor. The BART cop incident was horrific, of course, but it was also instructive, in a way. Not only was the entire incident caught on camera by innocent bystanders on a subway train, but it was caught from multiple angles. Lots of people had their cameras rolling, in other words.
I called this effect "Little Brother," and it has only grown more powerful over time. The death of George Floyd was presented to America (again, from multiple angles) because people whipped out their cell phones and started filming what was happening right in front of them. Those images enraged millions, to put it bluntly. If they didn't exist, nobody would know George Floyd's name today, most likely. And no news editor made the decision to publish those videos -- they had to play catchup with what was already out there, blowing up on social media.
There is one big tangential question to the main one (whether to show a dead child's corpse), though, and it is more complicated. Should official crime scene photos be released to the public and shown in the media which do not show actual dead bodies? Consider the shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Even if no parent agreed to it, should the media have been allowed into the school after the bodies had been removed and the scene had been processed by the lab techs -- and then have been allowed to film the bloody aftermath of mass murder in a school? Pools of blood on classroom floors? Barricades students and teachers had erected? Multiple bullet holes in walls and ceilings and floors? None of that would technically require consent from any of the victims' families. But would showing such images be considered "newsworthy" or merely "exploitative" and "sensationalistic"? That might be a much more pertinent question for the media to be asking itself right now. Such images would indeed convey the horror of the scene, even without corpses visible. A classroom with typical fourth-grade wall decorations instead transformed into a scene of gore and horror would be a lot more shocking than a photo of a large mound of flowers and candles and toys outside the school, in memoriam. That would be, as Time magazine put it, an "influential image." And it might indeed enrage the public more than just hearing statistical numbers and seeing posed class photos of the victims after the fact.
Publishing such images would be provocative, to be sure. So the question really becomes whether the media still has any stomach left for being that provocative or not. They used to, although it was usually done quite reluctantly. Remember the videos and images of the Civil Rights movement from the Deep South? The American public didn't see all of the violence at demonstrations (not by a long shot), but it did see enough and was shocked and disgusted at water hoses and vicious dogs turned on peaceful protesters. It shocked the American conscience -- which simply would not have happened if those images hadn't been shown.
Perhaps we are at the point now where we really do need to see -- quite graphically -- what the reality a mass shooting at a school truly looks like, for the people who have to document and clean up such atrocities. A photo or two of a blood-soaked classroom would be a lot more provocative than what the evening news does show, but perhaps that is precisely what is necessary right now.
But the main question which prompted this discussion is largely moot, even if the newsrooms haven't quite realized it in their debates. Because I believe that no matter where you personally come down on the question of whether we need to see photos of the actual shot-up corpses of children -- some so mangled it reportedly took DNA matching to identify the remains -- that is a decision that now rests solely with the parents. Any parent who does decide to share their pain graphically with the rest of the world -- precisely what motivated the mother of Emmett Till -- will not be stopped by some editor who turns the image down because it doesn't comport with their corporate editorial policies.
All such a parent would have to do is post that photo somewhere. It would be noticed. It would generate outrage. It would be seen by tens of millions. All before that image ever appeared in a newspaper or on cable or broadcast television. The gatekeepers are arguing about whether to lock the barn door or not after all the horses have already fled. "Little Brother" is fully capable of disseminating a photo without any media gatekeeper's intervention. And the resulting outcry would be so intense and so widespread that the decision would be taken away from the gatekeepers anyway -- they would almost have to report on the story and provide the image afterwards, whether they wanted to or not.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I heard what the medical examiner in Uvalde had to say about the bodies of the children he examined. Photos weren't necessary after that.
But, I could certainly understand if a parent, like Emmett Till's mom, would want to show a photo of their child's mangled body, especially if they thought that would move the policymakers and legislators to act.
I feel like our media culture has become very cynical about this stuff. A mangled body comes out, and the first thought from many quarters isn't how awful or what can be done to help, it's whether they're posturing for a lawsuit or lying or being explored to push some political agenda.
Exploited
Good to see the SD referendum that would have made it harder to pass Medicaid reform fail...
-CW
(kind of a dull election return night, mostly...)
I just read this on reddit:
I keep thinking that Chesa is the Betsy Devos of SF criminal justice.
Heh..
Ouch! And the ref takes a point away!
Looks like SF DA bites the dust...
-CW
Ryan Zinke in a close race up in Montana...
(This is a pretty boring primary night for having 7 states in it...)
-CW
I am not sure if we can have an Emmett Till moment when it comes to gun violence… in part because we already know just how gruesome the effects of gun violence can be. Emmett Till was a young man who died at the hands of a bunch of white men for supposedly whistling at a white woman. The violence he experienced in his murder was something the general public was not used to seeing. Between movie violence scenes and video game violence, today’s public may not be as shocked by what they would see. It will still have the “shock and horrify” effects, but maybe not as much as we might hope.
Well we still have Alaska to look forward to. And the J6C public hearings.
For the sake of letting you recharge and psyche up to cover it/them it's just as well that there's not much to see here, folks.
ListenWhenYouHear [10] -
I almost wrote a whole section of this article on depictions of violence in pop culture (movies, tv, etc). I would have pointed out that, other than like the "slasher-flick/horror-movie" genres, in blockbuster movies you almost *never* see the actual real-life results of violence. Ok, video games, maybe, but stuff with a stricter "gateway" almost never....
I think real-world still has the power to trump fantasy-world "everyone gets up and fights another day" violence. I think some American photos similar to that link of what the Taliban did in a school would shock the conscience of America.
I could easily be wrong about that, I fully admit, though...
-CW
(sorry, was referring to the last link contained within my article... it's pretty shocking...)
-CW
click that link, and then think what those scenes must have looked like inside the Uvalde school... with 4th grade artwork on the walls...
those pictures exist. But should they be made public, especially right after the atrocity happened? That is indeed the question.
-CW
Quality beats quantity, every day of the week and twice on Sundays, my friend.
Well, then aren't you the luckiest one, Liz...
In me, you get BOTH! :D Quantity *AND* Quality...
So, just put a reasonable limit on the number of your ducks, okay?
You have asked this before..
And I complied..
NOW you are asking again..
So one can logically deduce that the QUANTITY is NOT the real issue..
Logically, it's the QUALITY of the opposition to Democrat incompetence and malfeasance that you REALLY don't like and would like me to curtail...
Is that a possibility??
And, all those damned links! I would much rather read what YOU think about a topic and respond to that instead of reading what every bloody columnist you've read thinks.
I am CONSTANTLY bombarded with accusations that I never have any facts to support what I "think about a topic"...
Ergo, I provide the links to back up what I think...
I am honestly perplexed that this is an issue..
The moderator puts links in his commentaries to back up what he thinks..
Is not what's good for goose good for gander??
But hay... I'm a reasonable guy and am more than willing to work with ya..
Ya get the others to stop with the BS "no facts" accusations and take what I "think about a topic" at face value... And I won't be compelled to provide facts to back up what I think..
You WILL note that I have curtailed actual text from the links and simply put the title of the article..
So, I am doing my part.. A little credit for my efforts would not be outta line here..
"Yer gettin' me for free here.. A modicum of gratitude would not be outta line here.."
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY
:D
But here is an ON TOPIC comment free from links, that just tells you what I think..
Frisco DA, the son of terrorists, gets shot down in flames!!!!
BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LA DA is next!!!!!
When are Democrats going to learn?? Coddling criminals and being pro-criminal instead of pro-victim is the sure'est way to lose elections..
AND lose jobs...
Russ,
I am not sure if we can have an Emmett Till moment when it comes to gun violence…
I agree.. We likely never will..
Because Americans are smart enough to realize, as horrific as any bullet ridden body is (and I have seen plenty) that horror was caused by a PERSON, not a tool..
A body ripped apart by a chainsaw (saw one of those once) would be even MORE gruesome than a bullet ridden body..
And yet, the gruesome pic would not prompt an outcry to ban chainsaws...
I have said it before and it's especially apropos again with this latest commentary and your comment..
If Democrats could not get anything done after Sandy Hook, an inarguably bigger horror complete with a live villain to prosecute and (righteously) persecute AND with a BIGGER majority..
What makes anyone believe that Democrats can get things done now??
My point??
Maybe it's time to take the focus off of guns and focus on something that will actually stop or help stop these mass shootings..
Maybe it's time to put aside the political agendas and just do the right thing for the American people without thoughts of political maneuvering...
Eh???
Liz,
Here is a comment just for you. :D Just what I think about a certain topic without any links.. :D
With the utmost sincerity, I hope you enjoy it..
Guns...
Democrats simply DON'T understand the gun culture..
A gun is simply a tool.. A tool that is INFINITELY better to have and not need than to need and not have..
Take me for example.. I have a really laid back job where I could go to work in gym shorts and a tank top and be comfy as a bug in a rug all day...
But I wear thick shorts with belt loops, a longer shirt to cover my waist and approx 8 pounds of gear on my belt.. As ya'all know, I have heart problems... I also have back problems..
But the quality of life and comfort that I give up is a SMALL price to pay if I ever NEED my tools and not have them.. I may go home a little more sore but I WILL go home.. As opposed to being zipped in a body bag and sent to the morgue..
"She will grow up believing that her father is a traitor. But she will grow up!"
-Admiral Jarok, STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION
It's been ruled by the courts that LEOs are NOT obligated to protect individuals.. We saw that play out in Tempe Arizona where a homeless guy jumped in a river/lake to evade a warrants check and the LEO said, "I ain't jumping in after you!".. And the guy drowned... I really have no problem with that.
The point is, cops don't have to protect the individual..
And, as the adage goes, when seconds count, cops are minutes away...
THIS is why I carry...
Why can't Democrats understand this very basic desire for self-defense and defense of the innocent??
Why is it that the *ONLY* solution that Democrats will even CONSIDER is dis-arming law abiding Americans??
It's a statistical FACT that a mass shooting has **NEVER** been committed by an innocent law-abiding gun owner... Obviously..
As I said above, it's past time that Democrats put aside their politicking and their agendas and their NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE and do right by the American people..
And THAT means taking a good hard SINCERE look at THE most common factor associated with mass murder incidents..
MENTAL HEALTH..
Thank you for your attention..
@m,
Minus the maniacal laughter, your commentary this morning really is outstanding. Not that i agree with you at all...
:)
Minus the maniacal laughter,
"The cause was sufficient"
-Surak Of Vulcan
:D
your commentary this morning really is outstanding.
Thank you.. It's this kind of positive re-enforcement that is needed to change things around here to more of ya'all's liking... :D
Not that i agree with you at all...
Of course you don't... That would be just silly...
Even sillier than Spock and T'Pring inhabiting each other's bodies.. :D
Public Service Announcement..
If anyone is looking for a new show to binge watch, you could do a LOT worse than JOE PICKETT..
Kinda a cross between YELLOWSTONE and WIND RIVER (both AWESOME shows)...
We are about 4 episodes in and it's great..
And.... who doesn't love Dr M'Benga!! :D
http://mfccfl.us/Mbenga2.jpg
As an aside to moderator.. If you feel this comment is unwarranted, no harm no foul it it's deleted...
"There can be no offence where none is taken"
-Sarek Of Vulcan
"Yer gettin' me for free here.. A modicum of gratitude would not be outta line here.."
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY
Out of respect for the forum, I did not quote the movie line verbatim... :D
I will now cease commenting to give my fellow Weigantians a chance to chime in... :D
Michale,
Sometimes you can make me very happy in the morning. :)
But, links often don't contain facts, so ... forget about links, they really don't prove anything and certainly shouldn't be relied upon to "back up" what you say as the gospel truth. I think that's why I don't really use them that often.
Why do you suppose turnout is so low in these elections? I heard that only one in five voters in LA voted for mayor!
Sometimes you can make me very happy in the morning. :)
"One is honored to be of service.."
-Robin Williams, BICENTENNIAL MAN
:D
Why do you suppose turnout is so low in these elections? I heard that only one in five voters in LA voted for mayor!
Beyond the normal depressed turnout that plagues mid-terms and primaries, I think (no surprises here) that it's a referendum on the Party in power..
The only actual primary elections that had any sort of meaning were Democrat.. Democrat is the current Party in power...
2 + 2 still equals 4...
The one bright spot for the country in general is that Law & Order will rival the economy for what really matters to people..
As evidenced by Eric Adams election as NYC mayor and Rick Caruso's (A Republican in everything but name) awesome showing in the LA Mayoral race...
LAW & ORDER sentiment definitely favors the GOP...
The one bright spot for the country in general is that Law & Order will rival the economy for what really matters to people..
Agreed.
Of course, 'Law and Order' isn't just a great tv show (well, the first few seasons, anyways) - it's a complicated thing and it seems to be hard to find any agreement on what it means ...
At least, I HOPE that law and order issues trump the economy in the next round of elections and beyond.
i hope that law and order does NOT issue trump the economy. although to be fair, michale probably hopes that it does.
Even though it SHOULD, L&O won't trump the economy...
On the one hand, making it paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean squat if yer dead or a loved one is killed..
On the other hand, the economy affects EVERYONE.. L&O only affects a portion of the populace..
trump was the wrong word ... your 'rival' was better amd actually l think neither will be the case. :)
Always remember ... the Republican cult of economic failure!
Always remember ... the Republican cult of economic failure!
Given the facts of Jimmy Carter's and Joe Biden's administrations..
Seems the cult of failure is elsewhere.. :D
Remember how ya'all said ya'all would condemn violence with regards to the abortion issue as passionately and as incessantly as ya'all condemned 6 Jan???
Armed California man arrested by Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh's Maryland home
Suspect was carrying a gun and a knife when he was arrested in Montgomery County, Maryland
Pro-Abortion Terrorists Firebomb Buffalo Pro-Life Pregnancy Center
That is quite debatable.
... about which party has demonstrated that it has the best policies for the economy ...
A topic for a whole other column!
And if I may be indulged for ONE link..
An Ode To The Democrat Party..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_Cqohz0188&list=RDMM&index=25
Winter is coming....
... about which party has demonstrated that it has the best policies for the economy ...
Given the facts of the here and now..
You'de be hard pressed to make your case.. :D
Yes, that is terrorism just as an much as Jan6 was.
[referring to 33]
Yes, that is terrorism just as an much as Jan6 was.
And yet.... SILENCE from Democrats...
Why is that???
I can't speak for other Dems, but i hadn't heard about it. For obvious reasons, a terrorist attack on Congress while it's certifying a presidential election comes with a much bigger spotlight than other similar crimes.
Here's a prediction for you: from 2039-2043 there will be a massive spike in crime.
LizM [24] -
Part of it is election fatigue. Remember, we had to vote in a recall on Newsom not too long ago. Also, there weren't any big competitive races on the ballot, really (statewide). And no big statewide referenda either -- no big ballot initiative that drove people to the polls.
Those are all just guesses, mind you, but hey you asked...
-CW
Michale -
Quoting movies and TV and whatnot is perfectly acceptable and always has been...
:-)
-CW
I can't speak for other Dems, but i hadn't heard about it. For obvious reasons, a terrorist attack on Congress while it's certifying a presidential election comes with a much bigger spotlight than other similar crimes.
That's kinda my point..
If it had been a RIGHT WING terrorist attack on a Democrat Eugenics AKA Planned Parenthood location, the Leftist media would have been ALL OVER IT with wall to wall coverage...
That's EXACTLY the point..
That's not an apples to apples comparison. If a bunch of rabid Hilary supporters had responded in 2016 by launching a siege on the capitol and beating up the police, you can bet it would have looped on Fox for the next twenty years...
That's not an apples to apples comparison. If a bunch of rabid Hilary supporters had responded in 2016 by launching a siege on the capitol and beating up the police, you can bet it would have looped on Fox for the next twenty years...
You, of course, are forgetting the 2016-17 Capital riots...
Which, again, proves my point..
Sure, you can argue magnitude.. But that's a distinction, not a difference..
GOP slam House Dems for stalling SCOTUS protection bill after suspect charged with trying to kill Kavanaugh
Nicholas John Roske, 26, was charged with attempting to murder Justice Kavanaugh
Seems like there is no urgency from Democrats to protect Conservative SCOTUS Justices...
Ana Navarro loses it during CNN gun control panel: 'Get your a--es in gear and call your Senators!'
Navarro accused The Dispatch's Jonah Goldberg of making the death of children a "statistic"
This is the EXACT problem with Democrats and their response to mass shootings..
They react emotionally..
Hysterical emotionalism is the ENEMY of objective thought and reasoning..
So the J6C hearings are starting..
2 questions..
1. Which will be more important to the American people in the here and now?? The attempted assassination of a SCOTUS Justice?? Or the ancient history J6 hearings??
2. If this is a FACT FINDING committee, why are the televised hearings being done by a Hollywood producer??
Is it because this is simply a fiction story that needs the Hollywood touch??
"Anyone?? Anyone?? Buehler"
Once again, I'll relinquish the mic for another.. :D
Here's a stat for you:
"While Texas has been loosening gun laws, California has been tightening them. In 2020, California had 40 percent fewer gun deaths per 100,000 population than Texas."
-CW
So... Nobody wants to take a guess at my prediction?
@cw,
What's the comparative rate of other forms of non natural deaths during the same period?
What's the comparative rate of other forms of non natural deaths during the same period?
And what was CA's deaths BEFORE..
If CA's deaths INCREASED, then the stat is misleading...
So... Nobody wants to take a guess at my prediction?
Which one was that??
Here's a prediction for you: from 2039-2043 there will be a massive spike in crime.
Ahhh..
I doubt I will still be alive.. So it's not something I can confirm...
If we have 1st CONTACT before 2039, then all bets are off...
"Farewell and adieu to you, fair Spanish ladies. Farewell and adieu, you ladies of Spain."
-Quint, JAWS
Or, if you prefer...
"Hasta Lasagna, Don't Get Any On Ya..."
-Emilio Estevez, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
I guess nobody has read freakonomics
nypoet22 -
I'm still trying to get through "Future Shock"...
(heh)
-CW
new column up -
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2022/06/08/the-gops-mental-health-hypocrisy/
-CW
In the 1990s crime across the nation went into a massive decline. According to economists, about half that variance was accounted for by the fact that roe v Wade went into effect in 1973, because of the drastic reduction in unwanted children, who had a high probability of ending up as criminals when they grew to adulthood. In the 1990's.
Therefore, if Dobbs v Jackson health criminalizes abortion this year, it should be around 2039 when the tsunami of crime hits.
Really, I thought crime was on the increase in the 1990s, hence the 1994 Crime Bill???
nope, it was going down. however, it may have taken us awhile to realize that it was going down. 1994 may have been too soon to realize.
I guess it was ... 'cause most people supported that Crime Bill at the time.
nypoet22 -
Excellent point, I do remember that argument (forgot where it came from, though).
Crime did go up at the end of the 1980s/early 90s, during the crack era. I still think (the data I'm using only go back to 1985) that it was lower than in the 1970s and 1960s, though. But by the time the 94 bill was passed, the wave had already peaked.
Crime is up the past few years (likely due to the pandemic/lockdown) but is nowhere near as high as it was back then. Over time, crime has gradually come down for the past like 50 years...
but just like in 94, it's people's (and politicians') perception of crime as a problem that matters.
-CW
Chris Weigant
4
Good to see the SD referendum that would have made it harder to pass Medicaid reform fail...
I quite agree; I thought this attempt to derail democracy was the biggest story of the night. The advocates for health care follow the rules to get Medicaid expansion placed onto the ballot in November (where there's no guarantee it will pass by simple majority) so the GOP devises a scheme to change the rules (via the primary) to make it require a 60% approval in order to pass.
What a load of moosepoop... and tells you everything you need to know about the lengths to which Republicans are willing to go in order to sabotage their own constituents. Sad.