PressEthic

After naturalist Steve Irwin's fatal encounter with a stingray while filming a documentary in Australia last week, curious media-minds wanted to know: will the footage of his death be broadcast?

Irwin publicly declared his desire to have his death filmed in an interview conducted four years ago. But many, including Irwin's friend and manager John Stainton, advocate destroying the tape. As reported on News.com.au:

"Friend John Stainton said he had viewed footage of his friend's last moments and the images were 'shocking.'

'It's a very hard thing to watch because you're actually witnessing somebody die...and it's terrible,' he said."

(Read the complete article, "Mate Tells of Irwin's Last Moments")

Moreover, a recent Sydney Morning Herald Poll reveals a divided public -- 40% of the approximately 24,000 respondents voted in favor of showing the footage.

=============

In response to the controversy, the BBC has set up an online forum open to the public, complete with discussion-starter "expert" opinions that argue both sides of the debate.

Anna Smajdor, a researcher in medical ethics at Imperial College London, asserts that Irwin's status as a public figure whose popularity was strongly connected with his dangerous exploits makes the footage of his death, in the line of work, of relevant interest to the public. She adds that the educational objectives of Irwin's work would be rightly honored by airing footage that depicts just how dangerous and deadly wild animals can be.

In contrast, Daniel Sokol, a lecturer in ethics at Keele University, advocates leaving the decision in the hands of Irwin's family and close friends. Even then, should they decide to release the footage, he warns:

"The public and graphic exposure of his death could have significant psychological effects on his relatives and, in particular, his two young children."

Sokol further argues that even if Irwin had explicitly pre-authorized airing such footage, members of the media must think carefully before deciding to broadcast scenes that may "cause distress to others."

=============

It's an interesting dilemma that raises tricky questions about commonly accepted community standards and privacy issues (as one BBC online forum respondent notes, "Steve Irwin is a public figure but not public property."). Are a beloved public figure's excruciating dying moments newsworthy or just a morbid curiosity?

For me, personally, the decision is clear cut -- I have no stomach for such grotesque public spectacle. But comments from the public on the BBC's online forum rightly point out that we are all regularly subjected to graphic violence in films (dare I refer to Snakes on a Plane?) and daily news coverage (esp. recent reports of the bloodshed in the Middle East and Africa), as well as hearty helpings of publicly broadcast privacy invasion (C.O.P.S., anyone?). In comparison to all this, Irwin's relativey speedy on-camera death could prove to be far less disturbing material.

If Irwin's family were to request that the footage of his death be aired -- as some sort of final homage, perhaps -- should a broadcaster block such a move in the interest of protecting viewers from potentially graphic footage? Or, would such good-intentioned censorship be disrespectful to the memory of Irwin's daring-do public persona and the wishes of his family?

Moreover, in today's spectacle-driven, no-holds-barred media environment ("if it bleeds, it leads"), what are the odds that such a demurral would really occur? Would any savvy broadcaster actually pass up the opportunity to attract the potentially massive global viewership that would most likely tune in for Steve Irwin's "death episode"?