Violence in the Media: How Far is Too Far?

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that violence in the media is on the rise. Researchers have long been doing studies trying to link violent video games with an uptick in crime, especially since the advent of such games as Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt.

But that’s not the type of violence I’m talking about. I’m talking about the media accompanying news stories with graphic videos. One example is the story of Neda, an Iranian woman killed in the violence following last summer’s election. Someone captured on their cell phone the last bloody moments of her life. The video then went viral, even airing on CNN, albeit an edited version (you can find the unedited version online). In the video, you can see Neda lying on the ground, with several people administering first aid. Within a few seconds, she is shot again, and the unedited version shows blood streaming all over her body.

Last September, Chicago honors student Derrion Albert was also killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Caught walking between two feuding gangs, Albert was beaten to death while people stood and watched. It was recorded and, like Neda, made the news. Unlike the Neda video, it does not show any blood, but it does show the repeated hits and kicks that fatally injured Albert.

During a practice run at the Vancouver Olympics, a Georgian luger crashed and died, his death captured on film by NBC, which was rightfully criticized for airing the accident. It was aired during the opening ceremonies and mentioned throughout the rest of the Games.

Twitter has also been used, to a less-detailed but more-live action degree, to document such events as the Iranian protests and Captain Sully’s miracle landing on the Hudson (the first recorded picture of the plane on the water was posted on Twitter), but unless a user posts a link to a video or picture, is much less graphic.

I get that the videos do a better job of showing the horror than any newscaster could describe it. But is it really necessary? What happens when a 7-year-old is channel surfing or an elderly woman tunes into CNN and they see one of these videos? What if they were relatives of the victims? If one of my relatives was murdered, I would not want people seeing it, especially in an age where everything online can be archived and viewed by my children years in the future.

Technology is no doubt an asset to broadcasting, but I think it’s turning into a situation of “too much of a good thing.” Do we really need to see someone die to understand the seriousness of the story? No, I don’t think so. It’s better to leave some things to the imagination, and I think violence is one of those things.

Michael Jackson and Neda

There’s no doubt it’s been a trying week in Hollywood. Three celebrities, each of varying degrees of fame, passed away.

 One was 1970′s pinup icon and “Charlie’s Angels” star Farrah Fawcett, who died after a battle with anal cancer. 

The second was music legend Michael Jackson, who has been cited by many performers as an influence. His professional life was legendary, his personal life bizarre.

The third was Billy Mays, television pitchman extraordinaire.

Now being that these three people were public figures, their deaths certainly are newsworthy. But there is one more notable death that we should be paying more attention to than the others: the death of Neda.

 So who is Neda, and why is her death more significant than that of the so-called “King of Pop?” 

Two weeks ago, at the height of the post-Iranian election backlash, Neda Agha-Soltan was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. CNN reports that she was observing the riots when she was struck in the chest by a single bullet. A bystander crudely filmed the gruesome scene on a cell phone, watching as a crowd surrounded her, trying to help, but it was too late.

The video can be seen here. WARNING: This video is graphic and NSFW. DO NOT watch if you are squeamish. Normally, I’m fine with blood. I can watch shows like “CSI” and movies like “Kill Bill” and be okay, but my stomach turned the first time I saw this video.

Although it is unclear who shot Neda, the assumption is it was either a government official (Iranian citizens are not permitted to own guns), a Basijj militiaman, or a pro-Ahmadinejad and Khamenei sniper. Remarkably, Ahmadinejad has called her death “suspicious” and has urged an investigation.

I’m surprised that he didn’t just flat out deny the involvement of his government or his allies, or just ignore the whole thing together. Neda has become the face of the revolution, the face of the turmoil. She humanizes it. It’s one thing to hear about struggles going on elsewhere in the world, but to put a face on it, to make it more relatable, is something else.

That’s what Neda has become in Iran’s troubles. CNN’s Jessica Ravitz compares her to images from the Kent State shooting, Tiananmen Square, and of Holocaust survivors: one single person symbolizes the tragedy of others.

That’s why it has bothered me so much to see the news dominated by these celebrities’ deaths, especially that of Jackson. They are news, but so are a lot of other things.Let’s get back to Iran and North Korea, major news outlets, and save celebrity funeral arrangements for TMZ. 

 So while we Americans are mourning the loss of Michael Jackson, let’s not forget one thing. He lived and died in America, a country that has freedom.  Neda died in Iran, a country that is fighting for it.

Duck and Cover

The other day, my History of Modern Russia class watched, and mocked, a video of Bert the Turtle.

 This brought to mind the acquiring and possession of dangerous arms today by rogue nation—rogue nations that have had quite a bit of press coverage lately. Obviously, I’m talking about Iran and North Korea. 

 Admittedly, I don’t pay much attention to news from the Middle East, which is something I need to work on. I browse three news sites twice a day, and read the articles that interest me and skim the others. Usually it’s the Middle East stories that get skimmed.

However, I must say that the day before Iran’s elections, I was perusing articles about it on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News (Yes, I read Fox News. Both the stupidity (read: blatant right-wing attacks) and weird news stories entertain me). The only thought that kept me from getting super excited about the prospect of an Ahmadinejad-free Iran was that it’s really the hardliner Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that holds all the power.

 If I wouldn’t be the naïve, eternally optimistic idiot that I am, I wouldn’t have been surprised at the outcome. My initial reaction was, “No way. That can’t be right.”

 Bravo, Amanda, for making the most obvious statement of the year.

There are just so many unanswered questions arising out of this situation, and new ones are popping up each day. For example, how does a candidate in any race anywhere lose in his or her hometown or ethnic group? Jack Cafferty brought up this point in Monday’s “The Situation Room” with Wolf Blitzer.

He compares it to President Obama losing the black vote to Senator McCain last fall. It’s just not going to happen.

Monday also raised the question, how were they able to count so many paper ballots in so little time?

How is it that their election is decided already and seven months later, Minnesota’s Senatorial race is not? No offense to Iran, but I’d like to think that our system is a bit more sophisticated than theirs.

 Friday brought the question, how many people are going to die for expressing their opinion?

Unfortunately, knowing this regime, there are bound to be lives lost in the coming weeks.

 One thing is for certain: Although it looks like it will be a loss for the progressives of Iran and the world at large, it is also a loss for Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. This debacle has shown them that the people of Iran are tired of them running the country and are ready for change.

 It kind of reminds me of Russia’s Bloody Sunday in 1905, when a priest led disgruntled workers on a peaceful march to the tsar’s palace. Whether from Tsar Nicholas II’s orders, or from confusion, officials fired on the crowd, killing several hundred. Although it was a loss for the protesters, it was also a loss for the leader, who had to make some concessions to appease his people. It was also the beginning of a 15-year revolution that overthrew an autocratic and oppressive regime. (Not that the replacement government was any better, but that’s beside the point).

 Hopefully, the situation in Iran will have the same result as the protest in Russia—freedom—but with a lot less bloodshed. I guess that’s the eternal optimist in me coming out.

 On to North Korea, which is the more immediately serious situation in my mind. Am I the only one that noticed that right around the same time Kim Jong Il started acting up again, he also apparently named his son as his successor?

 My hope is that this is just a PR move and not genuine provocative hostility. With as paranoid and secretive as that regime appears to be, Kim Jong Il may think that handing the reins over to his son would make his country seem weak. Taunting the world with missiles would be a good way to distract attention from a regime change and focus it on, I don’t know, nuclear war?

 This may be a stretch, but I liken Kim Jong Il’s actions to compensation cars. Men buy big, flashy compensation cars because something else they have is not big and flashy. Kim Jong Il is acting out to refute any notions that the country, like his health, is not faring too well.

To again relate this to something I’m currently studying, does this situation remind anyone of the Cuban Missile Crisis? A Communist country’s ship carrying illicit weapons is intercepted by an American ship and does not permit inspections.

Hopefully, history repeats itself and the Communist leader backs off, but without the American leader having to do so.