Is it right for the media to use images of refugee tragedy?

Question: What's people's stance on news organisations and individuals sharing photos of dying refugees (some children) to try and make a point and draw attention to the issue?

I've been reading a lot of back-and-forth discussions online today, and just wondered.

I can see why you'd do it, but at the same time I feel like I kind of understand why people don't want to see it. But, I can't help but feel but moaning about seeing it isn't really that helpful.

A heartbreaking and sad necessity, or just not needed?

I'm not too sure where I stand, overall. Although, I think I lean more towards it being a desperately sad resort to open eyes.

Any thoughts?

Thought it had the potential to be an interesting and worthwhile discussion... genuinely very torn.

I've just seen the Independent's front page for tomorrow band I have to say it's one of the most upsetting things I've ever seen.

I would hope it has some sort of positive impact, rather than a negative one, but I have no idea what "the answer" is. I find it hard to feel sorry for people who "don't want to see that" when there are other people who have to live it.

TBH whatever I say will be wrong, its been a mess for a long time, I have become very hardened to news images . Yes we are all human, yes there are issues and problems.

I do not care any more. History repeats itself and always will do.

Babies die all over the world all the time, we know it happens, but ignore it as we don't 'see it'

I suspect this will be big news in the UK for the rest of the week, then some shyte singer will be on X factor and the nation will forget again.

In this case yes. If it takes such tragic pictures to get the message home so that these isles actually help these people then so be it.

These kids are part of the "swarm". These kids are the "cockraoches" that Hopkins wrote about in the Sun. These kids are the "hoard" that many on here said we shouldn't be rescuing from the Med.

These are children.

http://www.unicef.org/health/files/health_africamalaria.pdf

Over one million people die from malaria each year, mostly children under five years of age, with 90 per cent of malaria cases occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa. An estimated 300-600 million people suffer from malaria each year. More than 40 percent of the world's population lives in malaria-risk areas.

The media do seem rather selective about which dead bodies or dead children they show . I guess it's because the families won't see the pictures and therefore it won't cause them distress ,but there's no way an English kid would be pictured like this . As VFTP says maybe it'll make people stop and think about the language they use and bring home the pure horror of what's happening . There's no doubt that pictures and films of horrendous stuff turned people against the Vietnam war,so maybe the people can lead and shape the politicians response to all this .

Personally when I see stuff like I this I thank my lucky stars I won the lottery of life and was born in a country that despite all it's faults is safe and secure . I also question how anyone believes that there can be any sort of God.

I think these images could be a game changer, perhaps in the way that the Ethiopian famine ones proved to be a pivotal moment.

Social media seems to have a lot of people who have woken up to this crisis today, and I agree with them.

Dead toddlers are washing up on the beach and our government says we can't help.

All of the stats suggest we have turned our back on desperate people, our nation has crossed the road and left them to die while other countries have helped.

That's not the England I'm proud of.

We were better than that in the past and we should be better than that now.

Germany is lecturing us on how to treat people who are different....

And the most embarrassing thing is, they are correct.

What would be the point in having eyes if we don't see everything put before them?

What would be the point of having the ability to process these images if they were meaningless to us?

Pictures of starving victims in Nazi concentration camps still resonate in the minds of many people today, and with good reason. Why would it be any different that people today are suffering greatly due to other causes?

Show it all. Show everything. It's what we have eyes for. What we do with that information is another thing altogether.

Some good posts on here. I agree 100% with Rallyboy, though Germany's receptiveness to refugees is somewhat sudden and convenient, apparently.

Utterly heartbreaking. Not sure what we can do with a country that is creaking due to the number of people here. Perhaps a temporary EU ban on the movement of people, or the ability to say no to immigrants in lieu of taking refugees.

Of course they are right to show the true human cost of the current crisis.

The whole debate on immigration is so frustrating. We have this Tory government making all these anti immigration statements yet as being part of the EU we will never ever have control of our borders.

It is a simple fact that if you are pro EU you are pro uncontrolled immigration, they is no grey area.

Another simple fact is that if we left the EU we could bring in as many skilled foreign workers or help as many of these desperate refugees as we wanted without worrying about numbers.

The human crisis is heartbreaking.... but it is the symptom, not the cause.

The fundamental question of why people are fleeing their home nations rather then can we look after them needs to be addressed otherwise this will keep getting worse and worse. This will not be solved by opening boarders further.

The human crisis is heartbreaking.... but it is the symptom, not the cause.

 

The fundamental question of why people are fleeing their home nations rather then can we look after them needs to be addressed otherwise this will keep getting worse and worse. This will not be solved by opening boarders further.

Agreed. The problem needs serious focus and resources thrown into that part of the middle east/north Africa.

Utterly heartbreaking. Not sure what we can do with a country that is creaking due to the number of people here. Perhaps a temporary EU ban on the movement of people, or the ability to say no to immigrants in lieu of taking refugees.

Is that neccessary? I thought the Shengen agreement allowed free movement of citizens between member states (Shengen states are not the same as EU states), and also visitors or foreigners with Shengen visas. As I understand it refugees and assylum seekers don't meet the criterai and don't have an automatic right to free movement across borders in the Shengen area. But I could be wrong, I haven't studied the issue.

I couldn't argue with the Hungarian on the wireless this morning. I'm not sure if he was the PM or another minister. He said all we ask is for assylum seekers to register, and that economic migrants not entitled to assylum will be sent back where they came from.

Britain must take it's fair share of proper refugees, from places like Syria, and I'm sure it will. But the media will continue to distort the true picture for it's own ends.

And I'm pretty sure VFTT is wrong when he states that many on here have said that Britain shouldn't be rescuing children from the Mediterranean.

Is that neccessary? I thought the Shengen agreement allowed free movement of citizens between member states (Shengen states are not the same as EU states), and also visitors or foreigners with Shengen visas. As I understand it refugees and assylum seekers don't meet the criterai and don't have an automatic right to free movement across borders in the Shengen area. But I could be wrong, I haven't studied the issue..

In practice, once you are in the Shengen area, you can go wherever you like, there is no border control or checking.

In practice, once you are in the Shengen area, you can go wherever you like, there is no border control or checking.

I know that, but I don't think that any change in EU rules would be required to permit restrictions to be placed on non-citizen non-visa holders from crossing the borders. It's a practical issue, not a legal one.

EDIT: Coincidentally, I've had my passport checked on a train crossing the border between France and Spain, so it's not unheard of. I don't know why, and I don't know what would have happened if I didn't have correct papers.

Utterly heartbreaking. Not sure what we can do with a country that is creaking due to the number of people here. Perhaps a temporary EU ban on the movement of people, or the ability to say no to immigrants in lieu of taking refugees.

Fundamential to the whole existence of the EU. Might as well run up the white flag and fold the organisation. Will never happen. The EU mandarins would rather see Europe swamped and forced into recession or depression.

I think these images could be a game changer, perhaps in the way that the Ethiopian famine ones proved to be a pivotal moment.

 

Social media seems to have a lot of people who have woken up to this crisis today, and I agree with them.

Dead toddlers are washing up on the beach and our government says we can't help.

All of the stats suggest we have turned our back on desperate people, our nation has crossed the road and left them to die while other countries have helped.

 

That's not the England I'm proud of.

We were better than that in the past and we should be better than that now.

 

Germany is lecturing us on how to treat people who are different....

And the most embarrassing thing is, they are correct.

200% this.

I have to say I voted for Cameron but absolutely expect him to act on my behalf and that the UK should do more than is expected of us to help in this crisis

The human crisis is heartbreaking.... but it is the symptom, not the cause.

 

The fundamental question of why people are fleeing their home nations rather then can we look after them needs to be addressed otherwise this will keep getting worse and worse. This will not be solved by opening boarders further.

This is about refugees from a brutal war, not economic migrants. Massive difference.

How desperate must mothers & fathers be that they'd flee their homes and risk their kids life in flimsy boats to escape Syria?

This is about refugees from a brutal war, not economic migrants. Massive difference.

 

How desperate must mothers & fathers be that they'd flee their homes and risk their kids life in flimsy boats to escape Syria?

there are plenty getting fished out of the med that are just that.

Yes, yes.... I know....this is written by one of the nasty Tory anti-EU scum brigade, but it's actually quite a balanced viewpoint IMHO, if one cuts through the aforementioned heartless Tory veneer...

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/09/daniel-hannan-mep-i-saw-the-migrant-crisis-first-hand-theres-no-way-the-eu-can-solve-it.html

I think these images could be a game changer, perhaps in the way that the Ethiopian famine ones proved to be a pivotal moment.

 

Social media seems to have a lot of people who have woken up to this crisis today, and I agree with them.

Dead toddlers are washing up on the beach and our government says we can't help.

All of the stats suggest we have turned our back on desperate people, our nation has crossed the road and left them to die while other countries have helped.

That's not the England I'm proud of.

We were better than that in the past and we should be better than that now.

 

Germany is lecturing us on how to treat people who are different....

And the most embarrassing thing is, they are correct.

we have had/have major assets out in the med saving hundreds...probably thousands of lives. more so than most EU countries. That is a fact before you say we have turned our back

Exactly this. Most 'refugees' are not from Syria, its primarily an economic flow. Malaria is a problem we can fix, and dengue and river blindness - and whilst we are at it stop bribing African dictators to give European industrial trawlers access to their waters and so starving their people. Addressing the causes not the symptoms is rule 1 in the aid handbook.

there are plenty getting fished out of the med that are just that.

No sh*t. Well f**k me, every day's a school day.

I specifically refer to those fleeing Syria. Refugees from a brutal war, not economic migrants.

there are plenty getting fished out of the med that are just that.

See the scenes from Budapest Station this morning to see the massive economic migrant problem.

The OP's question was whether it was right for the media to use upsetting images of refugee suffering to accompany a story. For me the answer is always "yes", it is right. The use of an image is sometimes more hard hitting than a thousand words can be, sometimes it is not, but the image can often reinforce the story, nonetheless. As to whether its use should be considered in light of the everyday sensitivities of Europeans who are removed from the event, then again, i say "yes".

This is about refugees from a brutal war, not economic migrants. Massive difference.

 

How desperate must mothers & fathers be that they'd flee their homes and risk their kids life in flimsy boats to escape Syria?

Indeed, there is your root cause. Why did you assume I only meant economic migrants?

The OP's question was whether it was right for the media to use upsetting images of refugee suffering to accompany a story. For me the answer is always "yes", it is right. The use of an image is sometimes more hard hitting than a thousand words can be, sometimes it is not, but the image can often reinforce the story, nonetheless. As to whether its use should be considered in light of the everyday sensitivities of Europeans who are removed from the event, then again, i say "yes".

I agree. I thought it was an interesting and relevant question, on the basis of people on social media complaining (and there's a fair portion), and from the perspective of media ethics. As someone who is studying that, it definitely holds interest in that regard.

Actually think this thread has been a pretty decent discussion to start with, despite Pap clearly not thinking the same by flying into one at me on Twitter.

Apparently it's disgraceful I even had to ask the question. Despite my own personal views, I just thought it was a discussion worth having and something that would provide some interesting responses from different people. It's proved to be that way, so far.

As someone who recently sat media law and public affairs exams, this is something that is right at the core, so despite my own opinions I thought it'd be interesting to throw it open and see what the spread of opinion is like.

Fundamential to the whole existence of the EU. Might as well run up the white flag and fold the organisation. Will never happen. The EU mandarins would rather see Europe swamped and forced into recession or depression.

The point is its temporary. We can't take more without closing the borders for some time. This is an extraordinary situation which calls for extraordinary actions. It is only temporary.

No sh*t. Well f**k me, every day's a school day.

 

I specifically refer to those fleeing Syria. Refugees from a brutal war, not economic migrants.

it is fairly difficult to tell on the ground which are which.

that is the reason why the UK (and many others) are hesitant to just take anyone who wants to come (or who the EU say we should)

The OP's question was whether it was right for the media to use upsetting images of refugee suffering to accompany a story. For me the answer is always "yes", it is right. The use of an image is sometimes more hard hitting than a thousand words can be.

I agree. I thought it was an interesting and relevant question, on the basis of people on social media complaining (and there's a fair portion), and from the perspective of media ethics. As someone who is studying that, it definitely holds interest in that regard..

It is a an interesting and relevant question. If you want to generate an emotional response you need a picture. If you want to understand a situation you need to read. A picture is usually misleading without 1000 words of context. The appalling picture of two drowned children rightly moves people. Why did they die when the family were no longer in fear of death in Syria and were already safe in Turkey?

Around 240,000 people die every day, 85 million pa, most of them prematurely from treatable causes. How many of those get their picture in the paper? and as a result how many people care about them? Should UK aid be a lottery - whoever gets their picture in the paper first - or should it be more thought through than that?

I agree. I thought it was an interesting and relevant question, on the basis of people on social media complaining (and there's a fair portion), and from the perspective of media ethics. As someone who is studying that, it definitely holds interest in that regard.

 

Actually think this thread has been a pretty decent discussion to start with, despite Pap clearly not thinking the same by flying into one at me on Twitter.

 

Apparently it's disgraceful I even had to ask the question. Despite my own personal views, I just thought it was a discussion worth having and something that would provide some interesting responses from different people. It's proved to be that way, so far.

 

As someone who recently sat media law and public affairs exams, this is something that is right at the core, so despite my own opinions I thought it'd be interesting to throw it open and see what the spread of opinion is like.

You got "Pap'd" on twitter! You lucky fella!

I can see why some would not want to look at the image, it brings into sharp focus the very real consequences of the problem. But that is the beauty of the use of image. It can shake people up, especially when it is so immediate and is presented to us in our personal space, on our screens - pictures of dead children shown on the same screen we view pictures of our own kids is something that hits home hard. But i don't agree with not showing the images for the sake of taste or decency or whatever reason is given. Just my opinion of course.

The saddest picture i have seen over the last few years was on the front of the Guardian after Typhoon Haiyan a couple of years ago. A father was wandering aimlessly among the chaos of the aftermath, holding his dead child, a girl of about 7 or 8, in his arms. The look on his face was a mix of devastation, confusion and utter helplessness and the accompanying text referred to him looking for a place to bury his daughter. I found this utterly heartbreaking and bought the paper, donated a sum i could ill afford at the time to the disaster relief fund and couldn't stop thinking about this image. It shook me up (i have a young daughter too) and i still have that newspaper and don't mind admitting i well up every time i look at it. Did it change me? Yes, in a very small way it did, more than words could have done, i think. For the better? Who knows, i'm still a cynical, miserable ****! But the power of the image can be huge and should not be excluded because it may upset us.

An alternative point of view...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/brendan-oneill/2015/09/sharing-a-photo-of-the-dead-syrian-child-isnt-compassionate-its-narcissistic/

Sharing a photo of a dead Syrian child isn’t compassionate, it’s narcissistic

 

This narcissistic search for outlets for our tenderness has increased a million-fold with the dawn of the internet, when not only can we gawp at more images of destitute, destroyed kids, but we can republish them too, signalling our virtue and emotional sensitivity. But showing dead kids is, in my mind, emotionally insensitive. It can be cruel and unnecessary. It’s the victory of the visceral over the rational. And we really need a rational debate about the migrant crisis, rather than people holding up a dead-child snuff photo and saying: ‘I cried, therefore I’m good.’

The Independent have been spot on with this.

It's a refreshing reality check that removes the artificial construction from news stories. What is on the front page of the Independent is what paramedics/police officers/etc. have to deal with as a profession. Whilst the story is beyond tragic, all the populace have to do is look at an image of it. If people find that upsetting then spare a thought for the people who have to investigate how they died or deal with the dead body. Dead bodies don't just evaporate or disappear.

The story is beyond tragic, and well done to the Independent. Glimpses into undiluted reality are a powerful thing.

Why did they die when the family were no longer in fear of death in Syria and were already safe in Turkey?

 

Politicians have to take the emotion out of decisions , you can not make policy on the back of isolated events or the latest news cycle ( this is why you end up with millions being spent looking for one missing child) . Hard as it is, when you take the emotion out of this , your question is a good one. When do people stop becoming refugees and start becoming economic migrants ?

One step at a time. First the EU must inform Turkey and Lebanon that it will accept half a million Syrian refugees or 800,000 or whatever the number is. They will be transported directly to Europe from Turkey or Lebanon.

From that point on you send them ALL back where they came from. No need to decide if they are genuine refugees or bandwagon jumpers. They aren't in any danger waiting in Turkey or Lebanon, they are already out of Syria.

At that point the incentive for parents to take children on leaky boats has gone.

So get a policy together EU including UK to bring a substantial portion of Syrian refugees to Europe legally.

the whole EU policy on this has been nothing but a shambles. Obviously, now Germany are starting to pipe up, things will change

The family were trying to get from Turkey to Greece: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34133210

Yet one more tragic and innocent victim of war and oppression and sadly he won't be the last. The root cause is in their homeland and that's where the problem needs to be tackled. Are the media right to show the photograph? I would say that it is neither proper nor necessary. This image will join the hundreds of thousands that have been taken over the last hundred years or so. When they lose the power to shock and affect us it will be a sad day but if that happens then they won't be shown.

I've been surprised by the proliferation of the images, and shocked into realising what's actually going on out there, so in the sense that the ends justify the means, I think the use of the photos has been successful. There's no need for that to continue now, however, the shock quickly goes and I really don't want to become inert to images of dead kids.

It has been a particular pleasure to see all the "anti-immigration" amoebas squirming as a simple counter argument which operates on their thicko level stares them right in their stupid faces, some of them have even worked out there's a difference between refugees and (im)migrants, albeit only so they can separate their base arguments from the images.

I've been surprised by the proliferation of the images, and shocked into realising what's actually going on out there, so in the sense that the ends justify the means, I think the use of the photos has been successful. There's no need for that to continue now, however, the shock quickly goes and I really don't want to become inert to images of dead kids.

 

It has been a particular pleasure to see all the "anti-immigration" amoebas squirming as a simple counter argument which operates on their thicko level stares them right in their stupid faces, some of them have even worked out there's a difference between refugees and (im)migrants, albeit only so they can separate their base arguments from the images.

What's wrong with thinking our immigration figures are too high and we can't allow everyone that wants to live here to migrate. It's a pretty straight forward, popularly held view and will continue to be so.

What's wrong with thinking our immigration figures are too high and we can't allow everyone that wants to live here to migrate. It's a pretty straight forward, popularly held view and will continue to be so.

I'm sure the view would be massively different if we hadn't already taken in 350k+ in the last year

In the last year or so, it used to be said that we needed a new "Southampton" to cope. Now it is a Southampton and Portsmouth.

How long before we need to build a new Manchester every year just to house everyone?

I've been surprised by the proliferation of the images, and shocked into realising what's actually going on out there, so in the sense that the ends justify the means, I think the use of the photos has been successful. There's no need for that to continue now, however, the shock quickly goes and I really don't want to become inert to images of dead kids.

 

It has been a particular pleasure to see all the "anti-immigration" amoebas squirming as a simple counter argument which operates on their thicko level stares them right in their stupid faces, some of them have even worked out there's a difference between refugees and (im)migrants, albeit only so they can separate their base arguments from the images.

The population of Syria alone is over 23 million. Where would they all go?

See the scenes from Budapest Station this morning to see the massive economic migrant problem.

The images are certainly very powerful. The media do seem to be focusing on children, mothers etc, who are indeed the people who should be given priority, to get the shock factor. Regarding the post above, it was alarming to see the children and women being pushed out of the way onto these trains by the men this morning on SkyNews.

I do not understand why a parent would risk putting their children in an overcrowded dinghy in the middle of the night with no life jacket, knowing they cannot swim, for a life threatening journey between Turkey and Greece, two equally safe and stable countries.

On the whole I think it is right to use the imagery, though one concern is whether it may also artificially distort the reality of the situation (that the overwhelming majority of the migrants/refugees are men).

Migration figures are generally a pretty even 50/50 male/female split, so I think it needs to be questioned as to why this scenario is so vastly different to the norm.

Very uncertain times ahead.

 

It has been a particular pleasure to see all the "anti-immigration" amoebas squirming as a simple counter argument which operates on their thicko level stares them right in their stupid faces, some of them have even worked out there's a difference between refugees and (im)migrants, albeit only so they can separate their base arguments from the images.

For clarity , do you think people risking their children's lives by sailing from Turkey to Greece are asylum seekers whose lives are in danger or economic migrants?

What's wrong with thinking our immigration figures are too high and we can't allow everyone that wants to live here to migrate. It's a pretty straight forward, popularly held view and will continue to be so.

It's a pretty straightforward, popularly held, statistically proven to be utterly wrong, view. For morons.

For clarity , do you think people risking their children's lives by sailing from Turkey to Greece are asylum seekers whose lives are in danger or economic migrants?

You wonder on what desperate grounds people are making that decision whatever their status is.

It's a pretty straightforward, popularly held, statistically proven to be utterly wrong, view. For morons.

How can you " statistically " prove one opinion against another? He didn't say anything that's provable one way or the other.

The population of Syria alone is over 23 million. Where would they all go?

There's plenty of room in plenty of places at the moment, the overpopulation of the planet isn't an immigration problem, it's a birth control problem. We can probably manage for another 30 or so years before the bits we want to live in get a bit too busy. Arbitrary figure btw.

You wonder on what desperate grounds people are making that decision whatever their status is.

So what's so bad or dangerous about Turkey?