Years ago, I watched television channels show a captive being shot dead by hooded terrorists. The pictures had been made for an audience. The killing and the recording were part of the same act of terror. Yet several news channels carried the images because they were dramatic.

My first thought was not about the gunshots. It was about the families of other Indians being held hostage. What would they feel when those pictures appeared without warning in their homes?

Put yourself in their position and the editorial question changes.

Television journalists often defend disturbing visuals by saying that they are showing the world as it is. That is only part of the truth. The channel is selecting a piece of reality, placing it in a sequence, adding words and taking it into the drawing room of a viewer. Selection is an editorial act. So is repetition. So is the decision to stay on a shot for five seconds instead of one.

Availability is not a reason

The internet has made violent material easy to obtain. Ease can create a dangerous argument inside a newsroom: the pictures are already everywhere, therefore the channel may as well show them.

That argument removes the editor from the decision. A news channel is not an open pipe from the internet to the television screen. It has a duty to verify the material, decide whether it advances the story and judge what harm the broadcast may cause.

The Society of Professional Journalists expresses this well. Its ethics code says that legal access to information is different from an ethical justification to publish or broadcast it. The Indian News Broadcasters & Digital Association is more specific about television. Its code asks channels to exercise restraint so that reports and visuals do not glorify violence, and to take adequate precautions with images of pain, fear and suffering.

These are not instructions to hide violence. They are instructions to edit it.

The breakfast-table test still works

The old test can therefore be made wider. Would you place this picture in front of an unprepared family? Would you show it in full if the victim were known to you? Does the viewer have enough warning and enough control to look away?

BBC editorial guidance says that the greater the risk of harm or offence, the greater the thought, care and planning required. It also says audiences need clear information to judge whether content is suitable for them. A warning is useful, but it does not settle the matter. If a visual has no editorial purpose, a warning cannot manufacture one.

What does the shot add?

The first question in the edit room should be factual: what does this shot establish?

It may prove the scale of an attack, expose an abuse that authorities denied or show the conditions in which people are living. In such cases, some distress may be unavoidable. The editor can still consider duration, distance, masking, sound and the point at which the sequence cuts away.

At a broadcast-journalism course in the United Kingdom, I saw a BBC training film that used original footage of a man being chased and stabbed in South Africa. The cameraman had followed the mob. The full sequence would have been highly disturbing. The broadcast treatment showed the chase and cut before the killing. The fact of the violence remained. The victim's final moments did not become a spectacle.

During the same course, I showed participants one of my reports on a train accident in India. I believed I had treated the event sympathetically and had used only long shots. Some participants still felt revulsion. I had not received the same reaction from Indian viewers.

That experience left me with an uncomfortable possibility. Repeated exposure can change a viewer's threshold. It can change a journalist's threshold too. What feels ordinary in one newsroom may feel brutal when seen by somebody who has not become used to it.

A practical decision before transmission

When time is short, an editor can ask a few direct questions:

  1. Is the picture verified, and do we know who made it?
  2. What fact does it establish that words or a less explicit shot cannot?
  3. Are we informing the viewer or feeding curiosity?
  4. Could the image identify, humiliate or further harm a victim or family?
  5. Have we reduced repetition and used the minimum duration needed?
  6. Does the audience need a clear warning before the sequence begins?
  7. Would we make the same choice if a rival channel, not our own, were broadcasting it?

That last question helps an editor detach from the excitement of possessing a strong visual. We are very good at spotting sensationalism on another channel.

The line moves, but it does not disappear

No rulebook can anticipate every picture. Editors must draw the line consciously for each story and be willing to explain the decision.

The strongest journalism does not turn away from suffering. It finds a way to show what happened while protecting the human being inside the picture.

Before pressing the transmission button, ask one final question: are we helping viewers understand violence, or are we training them to watch it without feeling anything?

Sources