Pictures at a funeral, each one a mirror

The line between personal privacy and the public’s right to know gets thinner with each passing day. The seriousness of the situation is not fully revealed in a joint apology offered by media umbrella groups following the shocking press clamour at the funeral of actor Tridsadee “Por” Sahawong. 

In an era where most people carry camera-phones and the social media share every ripple of news as it happens, anyone can become a victim of ill-considered or ill-intended public exposure. The term “media” now extends to platforms far beyond the conventional newsroom, involving everyone typing on a keyboard. Such circumstances have led to unhealthy competition – and the virtual death of personal privacy. Photographers and reporters covering Por’s funeral were the natural focus of public fury over the undignified bedlam that ensued. Yet they were assigned to the event and had their jobs to do, so surely the blame belongs to the media owners. And yet the media owners were responding to acute demand from readers and viewers for coverage of this very event, and the more poignant the images televised and words printed, the better. So now who is to blame?

To be sure, reporters and photographers – schooled to respect their subjects’ privacy – have to find a better way to do their jobs when the news entails massive media coverage. The graceless scene at this celebrity’s funeral resulted from intense pressure to get the “money shot” for the front pages and the lead item for that night’s newscast. Back at the office, failure to produce the best possible pictures or the best possible story will not be excused by the noble intention of not wishing to be intrusive. A reprimand or worse will be the employee’s reward.

The editor is answering to the publisher’s demands and the publisher is gauging the level of public enthusiasm for the story. In this case, the public was perceived to want images of Por’s grieving family, captured as close up as possible. Photos and video can have a tremendous emotional impact. Fans of the actor and everyone else who empathised with the family might feel somehow heartened to be so close and intimate, sharing in the grieving process themselves. Does the fulfilment of the public’s wish to be a part of the news, however vicariously, justify trampling on the sensitivities of those actually involved in the story? Interestingly, if counter-intuitively, few consumers of the news will admit it’s ever a matter of what they want. They will insist they have no choice other than reading and watching whatever is placed in front of them.

We suspect that such voices are in the minority, and that most readers and viewers in fact have an insatiable appetite for gore, scandal and tragedy, fed by mainstream news outlets and constantly stimulated by the social media. Curiosity over the strange and the shocking is part of what makes us humans.

The Thai Journalists Association, the Thai Broadcast Journalist Association, the National Press Council of Thailand, the News Broadcasting Council of Thailand and the Society of Online News Providers issued a joint statement abhorring a “crisis of faith” in the media and condemning the mayhem at the funeral. It is interesting that the last group, SONP, took part in this, because there is no denying that the mainstream media now take their cues from the social networks, at least when it comes to assessing public interest in specific aspects of sport and show business.

We live in celebrity-obsessed times, as reflected in the fact that sensationalist news reports no longer skew to sex crimes but rather the stars and their own peculiar scandals. Intrusion on privacy continues, but now reporters dig through celebrity trash cans, triggering tumults that are invariably short-lived but cause lasting damage. 

And who wants to see what’s in the trash can? Take a look in the mirror.