Self-Censorship versus serving as a Witness

As journalist we serve as witnesses reporting on events, violent and non-violent for our readers and viewers. We bring our perception of the events as we witnessed them. I abhor violence and I hate it when the media exploit violence, the lurid, and the disenfranchised merely to make a profit. Yet, we have to report and photograph the obscene violence that is rampant in this world. We have to report, for if we don't, who will.

I am reminded of a photo-essay I did a few years ago on the proliferation of dogs and cats and how the local animal shelter did all they could to find this innocent animals homes but despite their efforts they had to put a number of cats, dogs, kittens and puppies down every week. It was hard on the personnel but it had to be done. One of the photos I published was of the workers putting down kittens. In hindsight, I guess I should have placed a disclaimer or some kind of warning at the beginning of the story because a couple of families were caught unaware when they came across the photo of the kittens being put down. I felt bad and my managing editor was upset that I hadn't given him a preview of the photo-essay, on the other hand the employees at the animal shelter felt I had covered a story that had to be told but with sensitivity. I felt bad for the family but I also felt that the photo and the entire essay may have helped provoke and awaken members of my community, my city, to this issue.

The issue of not linking to websites that promote pornography or graphic depictions of violence such as the beheadings of 12 Nepalese workers in Iraq can't be dismissed by ignoring its availability on the internet. These issues need to be addressed, by not linking to them do we deny they exist? I advocate some kind of warning system, perhaps similar to what we use in the U.S. to rate movies, PG, PG-16, R, X. It's an imperfect system and its flaws may create more problems than it resolves.