Trophy Shots and their Framing: An Ethical Dilemma

• In Event: Ethical Perspectives on Visual Framing

Abstract

Violent conflict and terrorism is typically accompanied by a “second” battle for dominating the visuals that define the conflict. Recently, atrocity images disseminated via online video platforms have taken on a new dimension in terms of barbaric acts committed in order to create visual proof of these atrocities, and to threaten and terrorize. This paper will address the predicament of journalism, shared with information-seeking prosumers, how to frame these atrocities visually, and which ethically based alternatives journalists and prosumers have to counter their instrumentalization by terrorists, who kill for the purpose of shocking video-footage. The paper will focus on the dilemma between documenting these heinous deeds, and framing these visuals in an ethical manner that respects the victims and their families, while at the same time taking care not to vicariously traumatize on- and offline audiences. The latter question is highly relevant for journalism and media at large, since their framing of the atrocity images has a major impact on actual audiences. In this context, the concept of “trauma culture” (Kaplan, 2005) is applied to analyze the particular media frames, distinguishing between different types of media, and different types of contextual and multimodal properties these visual frames have, due to the respective production and dissemination contexts. Four types of stakeholders are identified, each group having a different access to the visuals and to contextual knowledge, and very different ethical concerns: victims, their families and friends, (photo) journalists/mass media producers, mass media audiences/consumers, online prosumers. Due to the differences among these four stakeholders, their ethical concerns, their emotional responses, and their “visual strategies” differ. According to “trauma culture” theory, there are three types of empathic responses: empty empathy, vicarious traumatization, and witnessing (Kaplan, 2005). Only the latter one – witnessing – is a pro-social response to the exposure of “trophy shots.” The paper discusses what the particularly disturbing properties of hostage and atrocity images/videos are, and what types of visual framing are both, ethically appropriate and promoting “witnessing” as empathic reaction, considering all four stakeholders.

Author

• Marion G. Mueller, Jacobs U - Bremen