Friday, September 08, 2006
Crikey! Death and TV.
(Category: life, faith)
Amid the continuing fall out from the death of the flambuoyant Australian TV conservationist and TV presenter Steve Irwin there's this interesting piece from the good folks at the Beeb.
One argues that we should allow the film to be screened, pointing out that Irwin made his name by undertaking dangerous exploits in the attempt to educate us. She concludes that since his life was spent in showing the reality of "nature red in tooth and claw" so the "footage of Irwin's death is his ultimate message to us of the ruthlessness and power that we admire and fear in nature."
On the other hand, despire acknowledging that Irwin's statement "If I'm going to die, at least I want it filmed" might have been meant to be taken at face value, the nay-sayer errs on the side of caution, primarily for the sake of Irwin's family, but also because it "may well harm the watcher, whose humanity and moral sensibility will suffer."
Both viewpoints are valid and logical. Yet as interesting as their pieces are, I can't help wondering whether they have slightly missed the point, or at least, a point.
It is possible that I am extremely sad, cynical and mentally-ill individual. I wouldn't think it likely but it is true. For me the question is rather more blunt - what difference does it make anyway?
We are all regularly subjected to pictures of death and injury, both in regular news footage, and via the entertainment industry. Scenes of violence and murder are common place within our televisual media. It could be argued, of course, that since this is "entertainment" we know they aren't real, and therefore they are afect us rather less, but I'm not convinced. Like it or not, we as a society have become pretty much inured to such images.
The pictures of the death of a famous individual are most likely to shock us because of a degree of identification, of "knowledge" we feel we might have about that individual. The memorable (and I must confess that at least intially, on a personal level, I could not say "shocking") images of the two planes crashing into the Twin Towers nearly 5 years ago, are indistinguishable from what the best special effects departments can, and do, create on a regular basis for the entertainment industry. As such, the victims are somewhat 'removed' from us, especially on first viewing. It's not shock that's the problem - it's over-familiarity.
Only in the application of the general to the particular, in the consideration of the human angle of such images and stories, do they really impact us. And even then, the question is actually how much? Given what we see on our TV screens week-in, week-out, and the general level of public response they (fail to) create, I suspect the answer is "not a lot." The injunction to love our neighbour, rather breaks down when we fail to cast the other in the role of "neighbour," and retain them simply in the role of victim.
And if you were wondering, about my personal answer to the question that heads the Beeb article "Would you watch it"? I would say that from morbid(?) curiousity, I would probably want too. But I don't need to. In the light of 'experience' it would probably be fairly unremarkable. I shouldn't need to see it. Maybe that sums up the point rather too well... ¶ 1:55 pm
Amid the continuing fall out from the death of the flambuoyant Australian TV conservationist and TV presenter Steve Irwin there's this interesting piece from the good folks at the Beeb.
I find it fascinating that the individuals asked for their opinions are "medicial ethicists." Why confine the discussion to that particular field of ethics, I was forced to wonder? Are they the only ones seen to have the monopoly in matters of life and death? However...
"Crocodile hunter Steve Irwin's final moments were captured on camera. But should that film ever be broadcast to the watching public?"
One argues that we should allow the film to be screened, pointing out that Irwin made his name by undertaking dangerous exploits in the attempt to educate us. She concludes that since his life was spent in showing the reality of "nature red in tooth and claw" so the "footage of Irwin's death is his ultimate message to us of the ruthlessness and power that we admire and fear in nature."
On the other hand, despire acknowledging that Irwin's statement "If I'm going to die, at least I want it filmed" might have been meant to be taken at face value, the nay-sayer errs on the side of caution, primarily for the sake of Irwin's family, but also because it "may well harm the watcher, whose humanity and moral sensibility will suffer."
Both viewpoints are valid and logical. Yet as interesting as their pieces are, I can't help wondering whether they have slightly missed the point, or at least, a point.
It is possible that I am extremely sad, cynical and mentally-ill individual. I wouldn't think it likely but it is true. For me the question is rather more blunt - what difference does it make anyway?
We are all regularly subjected to pictures of death and injury, both in regular news footage, and via the entertainment industry. Scenes of violence and murder are common place within our televisual media. It could be argued, of course, that since this is "entertainment" we know they aren't real, and therefore they are afect us rather less, but I'm not convinced. Like it or not, we as a society have become pretty much inured to such images.
The pictures of the death of a famous individual are most likely to shock us because of a degree of identification, of "knowledge" we feel we might have about that individual. The memorable (and I must confess that at least intially, on a personal level, I could not say "shocking") images of the two planes crashing into the Twin Towers nearly 5 years ago, are indistinguishable from what the best special effects departments can, and do, create on a regular basis for the entertainment industry. As such, the victims are somewhat 'removed' from us, especially on first viewing. It's not shock that's the problem - it's over-familiarity.
Only in the application of the general to the particular, in the consideration of the human angle of such images and stories, do they really impact us. And even then, the question is actually how much? Given what we see on our TV screens week-in, week-out, and the general level of public response they (fail to) create, I suspect the answer is "not a lot." The injunction to love our neighbour, rather breaks down when we fail to cast the other in the role of "neighbour," and retain them simply in the role of victim.
And if you were wondering, about my personal answer to the question that heads the Beeb article "Would you watch it"? I would say that from morbid(?) curiousity, I would probably want too. But I don't need to. In the light of 'experience' it would probably be fairly unremarkable. I shouldn't need to see it. Maybe that sums up the point rather too well... ¶ 1:55 pm
