Some newspapers use graphic imagery in tragic news consciously, for instance to attract attention. Doing this also runs the risk of deterring the audience, however. "What people find acceptable in imagery varies a lot between countries," according to behavioural scientist Gabriela Ruhl Ibarra, who will defend her PhD dissertation on October 2 at Radboud University. "It works if newspapers are transparent about why they publish certain images."
We live in a time of constant exposure to distressing news content. "Reporting this kind of stories is not easy for journalists", the researcher says. "Especially when it comes to selecting which images to include in their coverage. Some people advocate for the occasional use of graphic imagery, while others believe that the audience should only be exposed to sanitized or non-graphic images."
To contribute to this debate, Ruhl Ibarra investigated how tragedies and victims are visually portrayed in newspapers in Mexico, Germany, and the United States. She interviewed audiences from different cultures about how they perceive these portrayals and how exposure to graphic or sanitized images influences their emotions and behaviour. The researcher divided the covering of tragic events by newspapers in graphic (images of actual injury, blood or corpses), moderate graphic (no imagery of the direct attack, but for instance of building explosions or big fires) and non-graphic (images of police or bystanders for instance).
Graphic content
When it comes to the publication and perceptions of graphic images, she found that there are clear differences between countries. Mexico and the United States are more likely to publish graphic images than Germany. And Mexican audiences are more accepting of the publication of graphic images, while Germans see them as less appropriate. "The reason for this might be that there are strong sociocultural differences between countries and audiences", Ruhl Ibarra explains. "Mexico for instance knows a tradition called ’La Nota Roja’ (The Red Note), which is a very rough type of journalism that focuses on violent, tragic events and uses very explicit images of those events."
She also found some evidence of a bias in the publication of graphic imagery: newspapers are more likely to publish graphic images of distant events, than of proximate ones; and not all victims receive the same kind of portrayal: non-citizen and non-White victims are more likely to be shown in graphic imagery than White and citizen victims. Ruhl Ibarra: "This is problematic because it creates unequal representation in the media."
Emotional effects
She also investigated how these graphic and sanitized images affect people. In general, graphic images affect the audience more: the news made people more anxious or angry and they were more likely to want to share the news with others. "This raises the question whether it is justified to make people feel bad to achieve a positive effect."
What would Ruhl Ibarra advise journalists? "Use graphic images when there is a clear justification to do so, and do not use it just for certain groups. Furthermore, it is important to realize that graphicness is not a universal concept. What people find acceptable varies a lot between countries and people. Also, it works best if newspapers are transparent about why they publish graphic image. Of course, you don’t want to be sensational. By being exposed to violence too often, some people don’t react as much anymore. But for others, seeing images of people suffering can increase the awareness of a problem. For future research it would be interesting to find out whether text alone is already able to make people feel emotional, remember the event or even make them do something about it."