In week three’s class we looked at the ethics of viewing other people’s suffering. After focussing on the week’s provided readings we were shown powerful images of people suffering and asked how we feel about them. We were also asked what we would do in some of the situations: take the photo or help the person suffering.
Near the end of the tutorial we touched on the Sydney Siege that occurred at the Lindt Café in December 2014, as there were chilling images of the hostages that media released that horrified the public.
One image in particular was released early in the siege showing two women holding an Islamic State flag against the Café’s window. One of the women’s faces was covered by the flag but the other women’s face (who was a Lindt Café employee) was clear and on show to the world. The employee looked distraught.
As the siege progressed the same image was used by different media outlets, however the employee’s face was blurred out. This could have been because as time progressed the situation became more serious and showing her face could endanger the hostages. Another reason could have been because the media realised the effect their unethical choices could have on the woman’s family, as they would presumably not consent a distressing image of a loved one shared around the world.
In the dieing hours of the siege, hostages began to escape and as expected members of the media were present to capture these intense moments of glory for those that were now free, but great fear for the hostages still in the café. The faces in these images were not blurred when first released and are still not blurred, which brings me to the question of: is it okay to show a freed hostage’s face as they run to safety purely because they are no longer in danger, despite still appearing distressed, or should their faces still be blurred out as a sign of respect for their family, friends and themselves?
I believe all of the images taken throughout the siege, including the ones of hostages escaping, should not show their faces until either their families or themselves give consent. It can be unsettling for family members to see and can be considered an invasion of privacy of the hostages. As most of the hostages survived the siege, they could have given consent for the images to become clear in the following days or weeks of the siege.
issuesinmedia310 
I think the issue behind the Sydney siege was that although we were seeing images of the hostages who were being released, there were still people being held against their will. None of these people had been able to contact friends or family to tell them they were okay. I think this became especially bad when there became casualties and everyone was left in the unknown.
LikeLike