EDITORIAL
The tragic, fatal road accident that resulted in the death of 13-year-old Hanannia Reeves sent shockwaves throughout Barbados. Unfortunately, video footage of the aftermath of that accident emerged on social media. Worse yet, it was reported that some of the young man’s friends learned about his death via that medium. This issue has once again raised the burning point of what the public has the right to share versus an individual’s right to privacy. Is it therefore time to penalise members of the public recording videos at scenes of tragic incidents?
Cellphones have revolutionised our daily interactions in a way never before seen in communications history. Their ability to simultaneously record and transmit information to multiple contacts has not only been used for personal leisure, it can have political effects. In the US, for example, protests of police brutality have been galvanised to a large extent by cellphone footage showing officers’ actions in plain view.
However, one can argue that in the local context, the videos or photographs are not only graphic and disturbing, but filmed for no other reason than to ‘see what happened’; worse yet, they are widely shared and disseminated. Ironically, adults who should know better – some of whom profess to be of Christian mind and faith – are the ones perpetrating this offence. They, seemingly unaware of failing to live up to their faith, have apparently forgotten the maxim of the Golden Rule and betray its concepts by their very actions. To them, a simple question must be asked – would they want to see their loved ones recorded in similar fashion?
There are those who believe these video recordings cannot be curtailed, and to some extent they are right. How can you control the technological weight of instant recordings and transmissions? Even if, for argument’s sake, one person sends it to only one contact, then that recipient may forward to others on their contact list, and so on.
Enough is enough, however. The police have constantly appealed to the public to desist from the act, but so far moral suasion is not working. Maybe the penalty should be higher; maybe it’s time to start sending a stronger message to those would-be documenters by penalising non-media personnel caught in the act of filming video or taking photographs of tragic events.
But then we should also consider the impetus behind filming such incidents. In an age where ‘graphic reports’ make the rounds internationally after the latest bombing or mass shooting, perhaps some are too desensitised to the suffering of others to even know the difference between right and wrong.
Or it may be indicative of a larger culture and growing concern over social media use and abuse. A recent essay in the Wall Street Times points to research which indicates ‘that as the brain grows dependent on technology... the intellect weakens’. The essay quotes findings from several studies, one of which by Dr. Adrian Ward notes that smartphone usage on a daily basis seems to cause ‘brain drain’ that can impact important tools such as ‘learning, logical reasoning, abstract thought, problem solving, and creativity’. Though much of this research is related directly to effects of smartphones on examination and test results, could smartphone usage also impact decision-making skills, judgement, compassion and empathy?
One thing is for sure: in a society as closely knit as ours is, the incidences of these recordings can and already have had devastating consequences. It’s time to nip it in the bud before it becomes more commonplace.