Assignment 5: Representing Others

Most people consider media today to be an important news source, something that they need and that they have a right to. But is this entirely true? Or is the media largely an invasion of privacy? Often the news takes steps to preserve the privacy of its subjects, but this is not always the case. In Regarding the Pain of Others, Susan Sontag discusses a case regarding a woman whose husband had been kidnapped and slaughtered overseas. She says, “…a vehement debate took place in which the right of Pearl’s widow to be spared more pain was pitted against the newspaper’s right to print and post what it saw fit and the public’s right to see” (pg 69). In this particular case the video of her husband’s death had been posted online. Perhaps this subject is so controversial because it does not violate the rights of the dead man, but is an indirect invasion of his family’s privacy, which is less concretely protected in the Constitution. It is a moral dilemma, one which requires news sources to decide whether it is more important for the public to access certain information, or to protect those whom it most directly affects. This is further exemplified in Clint Eastwood’s film Letters from Iwo Jima. There is one scene in particular in which several Japanese soldiers are ordered to commit suicide, rather than be captured and killed by the invading American army. Many of the soldiers commit the act in blatant fear. Although the identities of these soldiers are not directly identified in the film, it is historically accurate. The grandchildren of these men may watch the film, see the fear in the faces of the men as they hold tightly a grenade to their chests before they are killed by the blast. Viewers are not spared the sight of torn flesh and blood splattered across the cave walls before the scene changes. How might these visions affect those whose families were directly touched by these forced actions? Is it the right of the media to release footage that shows a man being brutally executed? It is not a matter of freedom of speech: these events could be described in words rather than images, to spare those who are closest to the incident further unnecessary pain.