Warnings that content may distress some viewers can reduce the impact sought by activists
Judging by its wiry, dun-coloured fur, its ears and snout, the dog was perhaps an airedale, lying side-on and close up to the camera. But identification was difficult because most of its body had been skinned and it seemed in the process of being barbecued whole. The arresting image was the title-screen still from a video about the protest methods of animal rights activists.
Readers reacted quickly. “Please get this off our screens without delay. It is horrible that the Guardian would stoop so low and call it journalism.” One person complained that “the title and content of the article gives no clue that a close-up image of the face and body of a butchered animal will appear, and it is not directly related to the content, either”. In the context of serious video journalism exploring a strand of contemporary political activism, there was clear editorial justification for reporting, signposted, the mock barbecue staged by protesters in a shopping precinct in Sydney. (Their sign on the barbecue read: “If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a lamb? Go vegan!”)
Continue reading...from The Guardian https://ift.tt/2TeYfTl
via
0 Comments