Let's 'share' respect for victims' privacy

A public appeal has been made and, on the surface, nobody can disagree with it. The plea for the Thai media and all social media users to be more considerate towards the victims of accidents or heinous crimes and their families cannot be disputed if one wants to be politically correct. However, this issue goes way beyond political righteousness. We cannot just say it or preach it; we have to act on it.

In this digital age, it’s getting harder for anyone to restrain himself when the “share” button is right in front of you and the competition among the mainstream media is tougher than ever. But when it comes to sensationalism, you either practice restraint or you don’t. There’s no middle ground. You can’t say you are against sensationalism and then help promote photos or information that mock your proclaimed principle. 

This leaves so much to be desired in Thailand, where extravagant media sensationalism has been amplified by curiosity and hypocrisy in the social media realm. 

The recent appeal has to do with foreign victims whose families, friends and kin must have been shocked by graphic photos or details concerning their loved ones. 

However, the appeal actually seeks to address a chronic tendency that families, friends and relatives of Thai victims have had to endure for so long.

On the issue of sensitivity, they say there is only one guideline or tip on how to conduct oneself and it is so simple. Picture the victim as someone we love and care for and then, if we are the mainstream media, decide what kind of photo or information should go into print or on air. It’s the same when we are social media users gawking at pictures or videos that are heart-breaking or stomach-churning.

There are always plenty of “excuses” to publish, broadcast or share: People should be warned. Others have seen what I have seen. Other newspapers have published the photos. Other TV stations have broadcast the footage. The video that I’m about to share has tens of thousands of likes already. I’m just sending it to a close friend. Check out what’s going on in supposedly better societies; and ad infinitum.

What most don’t think about is that people can be warned in a more proper way, and if a photo or video has already gone viral, what’s the point of adding a bit more fuel to the fire? More importantly, justifying our own dive into sensationalism by saying others “have already done it” is tantamount to admitting to being part of a vicious circle. Sensationalism used to feed on fierce competition among the conventional media but everyone is basically involved now. In many cases, the mainstream media only pick up on what’s already “hot” among social network users.

“News will find you” is the tagline of the information revolution. Admittedly, we have human traits to thank for the fact that we rarely miss out on anything nowadays. But that comes at a big price, as the families, relatives and friends of some gruesome murder victims can attest to. 

Demand and supply are getting all mixed up. The mainstream and social media want the same thing – attention – so they supply the audiences, whoever they are, with what they think interests them most.

It’s a chicken-and-egg conundrum like in the old days, but only stickier. More responsibility and less hypocrisy can bring about changes but everyone must act collectively. 

The appeal has definitely not fallen on deaf ears, but privacy is the ultimate “us or them” judgement, meaning sympathy and understanding have a very thick barrier to break.