Media Matters: Excessive violent media online leads to desensitization

Independent Journalism 101

In the picture above, a civilian films a bombing incident in Syria. While the rise in social media has ushered crowd-sourced journalism, the resulting saturation of violent content through platforms like LiveLeak can pose more harms than benefits.

by Adrian Chu, Reporter and Aquila Columnist

After any tragedy, such as the bombing in Ankara on Mar. 13 or the terrorist attacks in Brussels on Mar. 22, one can expect to see a flood of information relating to the incident, condolences to victims and symbols of solidarity. However, there is some content that will never show up in a Facebook feed; graphically-violent, uncensored video has grown in popularity behind the scenes.

With over 15 million unique viewers worldwide, LiveLeak, a site known for previously publishing the executions of Saddam Hussein and James Foley online, has become more and more prolific, now releasing footage of conflicts in Ukraine and Syria.

Although LiveLeak serves as a hub for user-generated content, its violent content has become its signature; the site even keeps channels associated with major terrorist attacks.

LiveLeak infographicAdrian Chu

People are often initially drawn to such graphic content due to its shock value. But as individuals see violence more often, their psychological response to the content begins to change.

Normally, humans react to violence through the fight or flight response. Graphic imagery resembles a threatening situation, so people display anxiety, arousal and concern when watching violence. Through repeated exposure to violence, however, viewers find violence less captivating.

Besides this desensitization, watching bombs, attacks and other forms of violence as entertainment brings up another ethical quandary. Sites like Liveleak enable people away from the incident to be awed by the events caught on camera. However, the videos are filmed in real time, a fact that eludes most viewers when they come across this kind of media on the web.

But as smartphones and cameras become more ubiquitous, the horrors of the world can be recorded, uploaded and shared like any other video. Founded in 2006 with a goal of encouraging crowd-sourced journalism, LiveLeak and similar sites provide a nearly regulation-free environment where terrorist attack footage and raw video clips of war appear like TV shows — real events trivialized to mere entertainment.

The victims in many graphic videos are made faceless and are injured or perish without their making a sound. As a result, the victims become dehumanized and no longer garner empathy from the audience. This phenomenon is explained well by this Brock University study.

In combination, these desensitizing effects make it more difficult for individuals who consume violent media to comprehend the scale of conflicts and logically respond to what they see. The life or death consequences of the conflict suddenly seem distant and unimportant.

Uncensored first-hand reporting does have a place in the world. For ordinary people to understand the struggles of those in regions of chaos, there needs to be communication. But having these videos become a constant source of violent imagery can cause more harm than good. For this reason, people online should be deliberate in choosing the content that they choose to share and view. 

 


 

 

Adrian Chu
Adrian Chu (10) is a reporter for the Winged Post and a columnist for Harker Aquila. He enjoys journalism as it enables him to voice his opinion and to engage in school events as well as international matters. His Opinion column discusses media’s influence on society.