
When Hussein was executed, there was an official camera crew present to document the event for legal and historical purposes. There was also a guy with a camera phone.
When something unexpected happens, no matter where or what, there is usually someone with a camera phone nearby. But then there are those incidents when both amateurs and professional journalists are present and both are taking photos or videos - but only one of them chooses to publish it.
Media professionals follow a code of ethics as well as local laws and regulations when it comes to choosing what to show or use and what to leave out. Anonymous amateurs do not. The official video from Hussein's execution has not been released, at least not yet. The amateur video from the execution, on the other hand, is already available on Google video and many other such sites and some mainstream media sites have started to link to it and even show it in their TV broadcasts.
We can not get amateurs to follow the rules of mainstream media and mainstream media can not hold on to its old rules and risk being overrun by amateurs. Up until the second world war, it was unthinkable to show a dead body in a newspaper article - but this changed when the journalists decided that people should know what happened in the German concentration camps. The rules kept changing and now with camera phones and video sites, any death is important enough to be shown - as long as an amateur is there to film it. Three weeks ago, a war veteran here in Finland committed suicide at a military parade by suddenly going out on the street and lying down in front of a tank. There where plenty of journalists around, but the only published material of the actual incident came from a spectator's camera phone that was uploaded to youtube.
It is with little joy that I realize just what a killer application the camera phone really is, but there is no point moralizing about it - can we really expect something else when everyone has the tools and the means to publish? And with page-view counters, it is difficult to take the moral high ground and clame this is something we do not want.
Comments
Hey! Don't shoot the messenger!
Except that it is almost always better to see or to have out in public what happens, whether it is distasteful or not. A couple of reasons.... One, everyone can see what happens in our name, maybe then it has to be justified properly. Two, many abuses happen when people in authority know what they have done won't or can't be exposed, that can be changed now see Peter Gabriel's witness organisation as an example. The only exception I can think of is when the filming of an incident exacerbates that thing happening but then the people filming are probably in on it two. We are in the age of the blog and so maybe we should let witnesses show what happened and then we can decide about it.
lewism
Accountability
I do agree with the importance of an open society and about accountability. "Killing the messenger" is certainly counter productive. Right now, the Iraqi government is investigating the unauthorized filming of the execution and it seems they are more interested in dealing with the person who filmed it rather than dealing with what the video exposed.
Alfred Nobel thought the invention of dynamite would end wars as wars would be so heinous with explosives that men would refuse to fight. Ironically cell phones might do what dynamite did not: when everything is photographed and filmed, military operations can really become so heinous that soldiers hesitate as they risk being held accountable for their action when the civilians back home see the unauthorized images of what they have done.
It is unfortunate, however, that we need photographic proof to become concerned about the obvious.
personal privacy
I think there's a difference between showing something like the execution of Saddam Hussein and showing an image of an ordinary member of the public. I've heard in Korea or Taiwan (can't remember which) there was a spate of spy camera footage going up on the internet, of people in public and private spaces, mostly of women being filmed by men. You could buy tiny cameras that you could use to look up womens' skirts, or wireless cameras that you could leave in a bathroom. Though it may be impossible to effectively legislate against that kind of thing, I think it should be considered unacceptable. A society needs codes of conduct as well as laws. Just because there's no law against something doesn't mean it's okay to do it.