Violence on our screens has become inescapable. From natural disasters to mass shootings, sensational headlines and graphic images invade our lives with alarming regularity.
While the intention may be to inform, the result is often a desensitization that diminishes our empathy and can even numb our response to tragedy. Often, real-life suffering is turned into entertainment by media outlets rather than a call to action or an informative piece for viewers.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine is an example of this. It’s not uncommon to open a social media post or a news headline and be bombarded with graphic images — often without warning. Whether depicting the scene of civilians caught in crossfire in Gaza or the disheveled state of Israeli hostages, images aren’t suitable or desired by many viewers.
People often scroll past these images, whether this is because they don’t want to see the graphic images, or more often because they’re so used to content like this they hardly internalize what’s in front of them.
Movies and television programs have had content warnings since 1968, which were initially put in place to protect younger audiences from graphic imagery.
Unlike movies and television programs that have moderators check the content before it’s publicly released, social media apps like TikTok and Instagram use content detection software, which isn’t always accurate.
Explicit language and violence gradually found their place in mainstream media, and guidelines initially set in place began to loosen.
Users have encountered pictures that are blurred or have the image classified “graphic,” but gory images of war and other graphic content still often go unmarked.
Moreover, many true crime series are trending and are constantly spotlighted in the media in today’s age.
Many people become fascinated with true crime, and we feel like sometimes even they may forget these series can be based on true stories and the lives of real people.
A recent example is the Menendez Brothers Case from the 1990s, which has received heavy media attention lately due to a popular Netflix adaptation, Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, released a month ago.
Two brothers were accused and found guilty of killing their parents, and the recent Netflix adaptation depicts a graphic murder scene, among other violent scenes.
Though the murder scene in the was a fictionalized portrayal, explicit content related to the crime quickly found its way onto social media and news outlets in the wake of the show’s release.
This blurred the line between entertainment and reality.
With ongoing tragedies or crises, media imagery can significantly impact the way we process our emotions. It is important to remember those featured in these images are real people, and we must not let our empathy diminish because of our overexposure to explicit media.
According to a 2015 NIH study, habitual exposure to media violence reduces anxious thoughts associated with viewing depictions of violence long-term. It was found that the more time individuals spent watching violent media depictions, the less emotionally responsive they became.
There needs to be a distinction between transparency and sensationalism. So, where is the line drawn?
While social media and news outlets may argue that the value of “revealing the truth” outweighs exposure to explicit content, it doesn’t outweigh the societal conflicts.
It’s not entirely up to viewers to moderate the content they view. Social media platforms must be more diligent about sensitive or graphic content warnings, and content software cannot be the single responsible means for detecting explicit content on the web.
At the same time as viewers, we should also be more cognizant of the content we view, and take into account the severity of the images we see and understand what’s real and what’s not.
Explicit content can help shape our worldview and perspective, but we must remember to hold empathy towards each disheartening image we see.
Comment Policy
Comments posted to The Brown and White website are reviewed by a moderator before being approved. Incendiary speech or harassing language, including comments targeted at individuals, may be deemed unacceptable and not published. Spam and other soliciting will also be declined.
The Brown and White also reserves the right to refuse the publication of entirely anonymous comments.