New York Times shows Luge death, drops standards

Tom Pearson kicked off a debate at work. Instead of pestering my old team over email, here is what I think.

a screen on the lead up...
 

The Issue

The New York times recently showed a click through explainer of the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. I think they were wrong to do this. They were wrong on terms of taste and decency and they also they missed a chance to do some good journalism.

A variety of factors combine to make this disturbing. By understanding these elements (be they accidental or intentional) we as practioners in the media can maybe not repeat this. 

You may choose to see the graphic here (it's unsettling, shows a man seconds before death)

Taste and decency
User implication
One disturbing effect is the users implication in this scene. By clicking through the 8 steps of the interactive guide, we whisk the man to his demise. We are then left with the final screen, whose tragic, kinetic image is the final take- out. There is no aftermath - even some (obvious maybe, but - hey) flowers or a photo could have acted as a memorial.

Point of view
Throughout the piece, the luger travels in our direction, then in the last stages, he flies towards us, dying in front of us, not hidden away from us in the distance. He almost dies in our laps.

Clarity of final image
The images that lead up to this are fuzzy, blurry, with the yellow line and cc tv shot helping us undertand the position of the Luger. The final one is in a radically different mode- of clarity - not the more acceptable vaguary of the run up. If anything, the vaguary should have been kept for the final portrayal of his death, if that portrayl is required at all.

Modal leaps
Slick 3D representations of the course (a decent use of 3d - ice, steel, man-made fibres) lull us into an unreal, schematic world, where we will be shown representations of things - not the things themselves. The final photo jumps out of this un-reality and is more realistic and visceral for it.

Historical precendent
Public interest often demands that significant deaths be shown. The human condition demands we confront death - often when the deceased is well known or it is part of a significant event. If neither is the case - as with this, the public may ask why they are being shown it. Their need for confronting these matters is replaced by an intrusive, unpleasant sensation that although impactful is unwelcome and hollow.

Journalism
I my mind, the main issue was his impact - into a metal pole/support - and why that was there. This is the missed opportunity - an investigation into what other options were and their safety record. My dad mentioned that in his wild youth when he did the bobsleigh, they used a combination of drift snow, pine branches and man made barriers (all softer than a metal beam). 

This graphic has focussed on the What rather than the Why or How, so is just showing, rather than explaining. The thing is that showing this is not really very necessary or nice.

The lack of insight leaves sour taste.

I hope there is a discussion about that at Malofiej this year. I won't be there I'm afraid (we have a new baby who is a bit young for the Jumping Jester after-parties). But it is important and needs discussing.

Issues within (and pictures) explored  in this excellent post too.

Cheers Tom.

Comments

[Ciaran Hughes]

I hadn't seen this graphic and I wish it had stayed that way. It contributes nothing except to allow us to slow down our car and look out the window at the misfortunate.
I know why he died already - the how is irrelevant. What were they thinking of?
Or have they become so detached, so sterile, that their clinical treatment allows any subject to be treated in the same 'style' without discrimination. Where is their humanity?

You nailed it ...
'it is just showing, rather than explaining. The thing is that showing this is not really very necessary...'.
No, not necessary at all