As always, it's a fuck-sight more complicated than that, and the actual truth of the matter is somewhere in between, and heavily dependent on the circumstances in a case by case basis. Not all pillaging is equal.
Most people can agree that profile pics of people who have suddenly become news are okay, provided the people using it is 110% sure it's actually the right person, (everybody remembers the unfortunate Jackass cover of the NZ Herald). If you want so have some kind of presence on social media - and let's face it, no matter how much we pretend, it's not actually essential to have a Twitter or Facebook accounts - there is always going to be some kind of profile picture. Just remember to put your best face on, because that's probably how you're going to be remembered for the rest of time, (and if even that terrifies you, you can always put up an anime avatar or a pithy saying or a Shortland Street character, or anything else in that space).
But when there is a tragic event, even people who complain the hardest about privacy want to see the faces behind the stories, because those images - which are a necessity in online templates - give it an emotional heft. They're not just names, they're people, and if we can all help avoid future tragedies by putting a human face on them, then it's all worthwhile.
Make no mistake - all non-sociopathic reporters hate doing death knocks, because they're awkward and intrusive, and nobody wants 30 different organisations looking for a picture. If everyone has the same photo at the same time, more people can leave the grieving parties alone.
But there are limits on this, and they're fairly fucking obvious, and it only takes one media outlet to dance over the line, and everyone gets tarred with the same shit-brush.
One of the big arguments for a crackdown on use of social media pics recently has involved a terrible bus crash near Gisborne, and pictures of the injured victims that were taken and used on a leading news site.
Several people died, and dozens were injured, in the crash near Gisborne, and the victims were part of a Tongan church group. The Pacific Island communities have embraced the whole social media thing in a way tech-nerds never envisioned, using it to keep strong family bonds even tighter, and they share everything, including friends and family lying on gurneys in a hospital.
It wasn't hard to find these photos on Facebook, they were all public and heavily shared. There is no doubt almost every newsroom in the country saw them, and almost every newsroom in the country made the right and proper decision not to use them.
It was a question of dignity, and good taste, and plain good manners. Profile pics of a victim in happier days is one thing, people suffering and bleeding in plain sight was just unnecessary. It was no use arguing that it was all in a public forum, it was just gross and deeply invasive to use them.
Unfortunately, at least one of New Zealand's major news media outlets thought 'fuck it', slapped them up all over their website. They took a lot of immediate flak for doing so, and got heavily, and rightfully, slapped down by the BSA.
It was a fucking dumb decision, and the unfortunate side effect is that it created an example of media callousness that is going to be lobbed at every fucking journo for years to come. It's already been used as such in several chin-stroking think-pieces, and has also been put forward in parliamentary committee's looking at the issue.
Thanks a fucking lot, TVNZ.
There is nothing that can be done about it, because it was absolutely the wrong call to run those photos, and everybody fucking knows it. All the editors who saw those pics and decided not to use them just have to suck it up, and wait it out. Until the next time some other newsroom fucks up and makes us all look bad.
- Steve Lombard
Posts
