There was a day, in the not too distant past, when the media reported the news with an element of self-censorship and respect. Do we really need to watch the full video of a man being consumed by a shark or more recently the murder of a Ukrainian girl on what the Americans call a light rail (I am guessing it is some kind of a tram system or inner city rail network)?
The fact is we don't. I have long discussed with an actress that I know, that even in fiction inference is enough unless such graphic content adds to the story. For example, if a fictional rape scene is necessary in a storyline then only the lead up - to tell the viewers where the story is going - and the aftermath is necessary without going all out to show what happened in graphic detail. The cut off could be the first act of violence - a hand around the throat for example - and then pick up what happened with the victim's clothing all dishevelled and maybe some evidential bruising (make up of course) on her face.
We don't need the whole story to know the whole story.
So back to the point. It begs the question as to why news has become so much more graphic than it used to be. I have been looking at this over the weekend and here are some of my thoughts.
The shift from censorship to widespread exposure of graphic violence, especially murder, is a reflection - a dramatic - shift in how news is produced, consumed, and distributed. It’s no longer about journalistic choices anymore. Traditional gatekeeping in the age of social media has all but collapsed. Platforms like X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube allow anyone to upload footage instantly. Graphic videos of events like the Charlie Kirk shooting were available online within minutes, from multiple angles. Infamously, several years ago in New Zealand an Australian walking into two mosques and murdering 51 people was live streamed. This is further exacerbated by what could be called citizen journalism. With smartphones in every hand, bystanders often capture and share raw footage before news outlets even arrive. This democratizes information—but also bypasses editorial discretion.
Sadly such people are more keen to film than help.
On the other hand traditional media has been framed by principles that I have defined as editorial restraint. Traditional outlets still avoid showing explicit violence. For example, during Kirk’s assassination, they showed panicked crowds but not the moment of impact. However, with the rise of what I have just written the ability to act as a gatekeeper has become significantly weakened in a fragmented media landscape.
The key consequences of this shift has been a large scale desensitisation which numbs public empathy and secondary trauma, especially when viewed without context or warning.
Of course at the core of this lays the debate about censorship and a problem is that many platforms, especially social media, promise unfiltered access, but that comes without guarantees of truth or protection from harm. In short, the change isn’t just about what news outlets choose to show—it’s about what they can no longer contain. The question now is not whether graphic content will appear, but how society chooses to respond to its ubiquity.
I am a great believer in self-censorship with what I always thought to be obvious exceptions (which i shouldn't have to list) and age limits, but my world of the obvious is becoming increasingly blurred and I think it is time for the (social) media platforms to re-examine what they allow to be shown.
As always stay safe and well out there my friends.
