Three problems present themselves to anyone who argues that hard-hitting photojournalism is important in the daily press. The first concerns the compromised nature of photography as a foundation for authentic eye-witness reports. Photography, even in its most realistic style, is no absolute guarantee or proof of events. The second problem derives from the poor state of the newspaper industry as a source of reliable public record. News has become more entertaining and trivial than concerned or controversial. The third problem, which is the main point of this essay, relates to how effective hard-hitting documentary record might be, given that readers are supposed to be quickly bored by images of suffering unknown strangers. The argument stresses that photographs might be used in evidence; the press does not have to be trivial; shocking photographs are a measure of the press's contribution to debate in a civilized society. What would it mean for everyday knowledge if images of horrible crimes ceased to circulate, or were never seen in the first place? What would it mean for civility if representations of crimes were always polite?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
John Taylor (2000) studied this question.