Desensitization is a process by which viewers of media violence develop callousness or emotional neutrality in the face of a real-life act of violence. As the usage of media increased, so did the research topic of the effect of mediated violence. In the 1960s, there was a noticable spike in the percentage of crime and with it grew the public concern about the relationship between violence portrayed in the media and violence in everyday life. It was determined by these studies that the short-term effects of exposure to media violence were the potential of audience modeling the acts of violence they had witnessed. However, it was the potential long-term effect that was determined to be more damaging. This long-term effect is the experience of desensitization which may explain why people fail to react to real-life violence they witness. A specific category of desensitization is dedicated to photography and its impact.
Desensitization is one of the biggest issues facing the industry currently. In simple terms, desensitization in relation to photography, is the idea that over time, being exposed to graphic images of violence or death repeatedly, will lessen the emotion attached to them. In essence, it is the fear that the public will stop being affected or moved emotionally in any sort of way after growing accustomed to seeing images once perceived as highly disturbing. This issue is such a popular issue because it affects the real life behavior of its audience.
Beginings:
The idea of desensitization was originally derieved from a psychology practice used for treating phobias. When emotions were evoked repeated when a patient was put in a similar situation, it was determined to be a phobia. In order to treat the phobias and reduce the intensity of the feelings, patients were placed into uncomfortable situations that were uncomfortable but not too anxiety-evoking. This allowed patients to slowly master their anxieties by learning to deal with uncomfortable situations in an increasing scale. Essentially, the more they were exposed to their fears, the less affected they became, even as the level of uncomfortability increased. So, when television and photography became a daily part of the media the public was exposed to, researchers began to question the effects. Coincidentally, as exposure to more graphic images was increasing, so were the rates of violence in big cities across the country, further sparking interest in the subject.
Examples:
The best way to understand desensitization and why it is so important, is to view examples. Examples make it easier to see the controversy and apply the theory. These examples are either some of the most talked about examples and contain some of the most controversial subject matter.
Image of executions by firing squd of prisoners of war
Image from the holocaust
The first of emerging topics was the use of weaponry within photographs and whether or not the public should be exposed to it. The fear behind the public being exposed to weaponry through photography, was the idea that they would begin to view weapons as acceptable ways of dealing with problems. Despite this fear, curiosity won out and these photos continued to be taken, published and shared.
American soldiers paying respect to their fallen comrades before their transport
Flag draped coffins being unloaded from carrier planes
Another large issue specific to American culture, is the publishing of images of fallen soldiers. This issue covers images of wounded soldiers, fallen soldiers, and fallen soldiers returning in flag draped coffins. In America, this issue has extended past just the researchers, to the level of government involvement. The government believes that these images should not be shared out of respect for the families of the fallen. However, they run into conflict when it becomes an issue of censorship due to the First Amendment. But the question being raised is, are the images of flag draped coffins offensive? Or do they showcase the level of respect that the army uses when transporting these fallen soldiers? The major concern with these images is that they may desensitize the public the tragedies of war, which may lead to a higher tolerance for war and destruction of human life. To read more on the debate, check out this NPR broadcast.
Article featuring an image of a wounded American soldier
Image of Holocaust victims
The largest fear that accompanies disturbing images, is the fear that they will desensitize the public to the destruction of human life. Images that feature graphic destruction of the human body, whether it is bloodied or malnurished, over time, could cuase the public to accept such destruction as normal. This was shown in the case in the holocaust. When the images first circulated around the world, the reaction was shock and horror. However, the longer these pictures remained in the eyes of the public, the less shocking they steadily became. Along the same lines, researchers fear that constant exposure to images of bloody soldiers on the battle fields or wounded soldiers in the hospital will negatively impact the public and their perceptions.
Current Industry:
Currently there is a sort of internal debate going on within the public. On one side of the debate are those that don't necessarily want to see these images. Most don't expect to pick up their newspapers to find the mangled face of a wounded soldier on the front page. These images are indeed disturbing to view, especially without warning, and people generally don't want to see things that evoke unpleasant emotions from them. However, on the other side of the debate are those that don't want to have what they view be limited by the government or some other sort of organization that supports a form of censorship. The thought of the government regulating what the public is allowed to view is a terrifying thought to many. This debate currently has no answer, which puts the industry in a difficult position and leaves photographers and editiors with many questions. What should be photographed? What photographs should be shared with the public? What is crossing the line? Is there even a line? Having so many questions further complicates the changes the industry is currently undergoing, but regardless, there needs to be a solution to this debate, sooner rather than later.
Desensitization
Desensitization is a process by which viewers of media violence develop callousness or emotional neutrality in the face of a real-life act of violence. As the usage of media increased, so did the research topic of the effect of mediated violence. In the 1960s, there was a noticable spike in the percentage of crime and with it grew the public concern about the relationship between violence portrayed in the media and violence in everyday life. It was determined by these studies that the short-term effects of exposure to media violence were the potential of audience modeling the acts of violence they had witnessed. However, it was the potential long-term effect that was determined to be more damaging. This long-term effect is the experience of desensitization which may explain why people fail to react to real-life violence they witness. A specific category of desensitization is dedicated to photography and its impact.
Desensitization is one of the biggest issues facing the industry currently. In simple terms, desensitization in relation to photography, is the idea that over time, being exposed to graphic images of violence or death repeatedly, will lessen the emotion attached to them. In essence, it is the fear that the public will stop being affected or moved emotionally in any sort of way after growing accustomed to seeing images once perceived as highly disturbing. This issue is such a popular issue because it affects the real life behavior of its audience.
Beginings:
The idea of desensitization was originally derieved from a psychology practice used for treating phobias. When emotions were evoked repeated when a patient was put in a similar situation, it was determined to be a phobia. In order to treat the phobias and reduce the intensity of the feelings, patients were placed into uncomfortable situations that were uncomfortable but not too anxiety-evoking. This allowed patients to slowly master their anxieties by learning to deal with uncomfortable situations in an increasing scale. Essentially, the more they were exposed to their fears, the less affected they became, even as the level of uncomfortability increased. So, when television and photography became a daily part of the media the public was exposed to, researchers began to question the effects. Coincidentally, as exposure to more graphic images was increasing, so were the rates of violence in big cities across the country, further sparking interest in the subject.Examples:
The best way to understand desensitization and why it is so important, is to view examples. Examples make it easier to see the controversy and apply the theory. These examples are either some of the most talked about examples and contain some of the most controversial subject matter.The first of emerging topics was the use of weaponry within photographs and whether or not the public should be exposed to it. The fear behind the public being exposed to weaponry through photography, was the idea that they would begin to view weapons as acceptable ways of dealing with problems. Despite this fear, curiosity won out and these photos continued to be taken, published and shared.
Another large issue specific to American culture, is the publishing of images of fallen soldiers. This issue covers images of wounded soldiers, fallen soldiers, and fallen soldiers returning in flag draped coffins. In America, this issue has extended past just the researchers, to the level of government involvement. The government believes that these images should not be shared out of respect for the families of the fallen. However, they run into conflict when it becomes an issue of censorship due to the First Amendment. But the question being raised is, are the images of flag draped coffins offensive? Or do they showcase the level of respect that the army uses when transporting these fallen soldiers? The major concern with these images is that they may desensitize the public the tragedies of war, which may lead to a higher tolerance for war and destruction of human life. To read more on the debate, check out this NPR broadcast.
The largest fear that accompanies disturbing images, is the fear that they will desensitize the public to the destruction of human life. Images that feature graphic destruction of the human body, whether it is bloodied or malnurished, over time, could cuase the public to accept such destruction as normal. This was shown in the case in the holocaust. When the images first circulated around the world, the reaction was shock and horror. However, the longer these pictures remained in the eyes of the public, the less shocking they steadily became. Along the same lines, researchers fear that constant exposure to images of bloody soldiers on the battle fields or wounded soldiers in the hospital will negatively impact the public and their perceptions.
Current Industry:
Currently there is a sort of internal debate going on within the public. On one side of the debate are those that don't necessarily want to see these images. Most don't expect to pick up their newspapers to find the mangled face of a wounded soldier on the front page. These images are indeed disturbing to view, especially without warning, and people generally don't want to see things that evoke unpleasant emotions from them. However, on the other side of the debate are those that don't want to have what they view be limited by the government or some other sort of organization that supports a form of censorship. The thought of the government regulating what the public is allowed to view is a terrifying thought to many. This debate currently has no answer, which puts the industry in a difficult position and leaves photographers and editiors with many questions. What should be photographed? What photographs should be shared with the public? What is crossing the line? Is there even a line? Having so many questions further complicates the changes the industry is currently undergoing, but regardless, there needs to be a solution to this debate, sooner rather than later.Navigation:
Home Desensitization ObjectivityResources:
|jdb~~ufhjnh||ss~~JN "Conference Papers -- International Communication Association"||sl~~jh','');|Conference Papers -- International Communication Association; 2006 Annual Meeting, p1-43, 43phttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desensitization_(psychology)
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly; Summer 2008, Vol. 85 Issue 2, p291-310, 20p
Communications Lawyer; Spring 2007, Vol. 25 Issue 1, p37-37, 1/4 p
Conference Papers-- International Communications Association; 2006 Annual Meeting, p1-43, 43p
http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2008/08/photographing_casualties.html