on a “need to know” basis.
If you live anywhere near Vancouver, you’ve been inundated with coverage of the Robert Pickton murder trial.
It’s on the newsstands.
It’s on the television.
It’s on the radio.
It’s on the Internet.
And it’s not just “trial coverage” in the generic sense — this person testified, this person will be called to the stand, the accused looked remorseful, etc. — but coverage in graphic detail. So much so, in fact, that most news agencies are forced to offer “viewer discretion” notices before their pieces.
I have friends who won’t touch the top section of their paper or listen to the top of the news or check their usual internet journalism sites right now, simply because they don’t want to be subjected to the images and descriptions that are accompanying the reports.
The reality is this: the things this man is accused of doing are heinous beyond belief. There’s no other way to say it. If you disappear too far into the details, you end up with a churning stomach and an aching heart. I’m not sure how anyone can read about the events and not feel a serious level of disgust, even in this world of slasher films and true crime dramas and sensationalist media.
We’re jaded, but we’re not this jaded.
And if we are… well, that’s a problem. Sure, we have to be able to deal with horror capably enough to continue functioning. People in war zones have to live their lives under the constant pall of death and mayhem. But there’s a difference between coping and becoming numb. Between survival and acceptance.
At least I think so. Which may be naive, or perhaps just idealistic. I can live with either.
I know violence on this level is not new to the planet. People have yet to run out of methods of abusing or torturing one another, or to grow sick of seizing power over others’ lives. And these things happen daily, all over the world, at every societal level, to people who run headlong into it, and people who never see it coming.
But where does the line exist between exposing these nightmares and celebrating them? Between veracity and prurience?
We want to know what happens to people like Robert Pickton because the idea that he could face consequences for his alleged actions allows us to sleep better at night.
If one of these women was a sister or friend of mine, though, I’m not certain I’d want her experiences splashed across the front page for strangers to read during their coffee breaks. I’d want her agony avenged, but could I stand to watch people take in all the details?
When does coverage cross the line?
How much do we need to know?
And when does notoriety become exploitation?
Where do you stop reading/watching and why?
January 25th, 2007 at 10:36 am
eiw!
i wish i knew what makes some people do things with no remorse.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:45 am
It’s called evil…
January 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Meh, I was tired of this frickin’ case years ago. “If it bleeds, it leads”, and unfortunately the Pickton trial will be distracting us from things that actually matter for months.
Although the media would have you believe otherwise, the case has no pertinence to the average Canadian. It’s just sensational noise, and makes for great, cheap content for news broadcasts.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:55 am
I fully agree!! I find this “blanket” coverage — minute dissections of every facial twitch and shadings of tone — both off-putting and somewhat obscene. The things that happened at that farm are dark and horrible, but I have no interest in hearing the awful details — there’s nothing to be gained. And this breathless media coverage does nothing to change that.
I’m also bothered by the fact that, because this trial is getting so much press, people will start to feel like they HAVE to know all the details — by presenting the coverage at the beginning of newscasts, front page of newspapers, etc., it’s almost glorifying it, suggesting that it’s the most important thing happening right now.
It’s going to be a long year — I (hopefully) predict there will be a backlash against this over-coverage, or maybe it will become less pervasive as time wears on.
One other thought — I’m also very glad that cameras are not allowed in Canadian courtrooms. It would be much worse…
January 25th, 2007 at 10:58 am
I stopped reading/listening to the coverage after the first day. I may go back later, but the details…my god, the details. Have you read Susan Sontag’s Regarding the Pain of Others? It has been a few years since I read it, and its focus is primarily war and photography, but I believe the themes could be applied here. How do the images (details in the case of this trial) alter our sympathies, or conscience? Am I a worse person because I’d rather not know the details? Is ignorance bliss, here? Or am I just in self-preservation mode?
January 25th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I think if you are charged with the task of judging the events of the crime on an official basis, the details are pertinent. But how does it help anyone outside of that sphere — victims, their families, ourselves — to know what was done with bodies and prurient sexual details?
That’s pure tabloidism.
I don’t think it’s a matter of “hiding” the facts — I think we need to avoid glorifying the details of crimes ESPECIALLY like these ones, because serial killers and mass killers in particular thrive on attention and the glorification of their acts.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I’m not sure I know the answers to any of your questions except the last: Where do you stop reading/watching and why?
For me, the news was never important. I ignored it or sat through it; it did not matter. At some point in college this ambivalence transformed into a complete dread and avoidance of the news. It is so bad now that if I hear it coming on I jump up and quickly change the channel before I can hear any part of the stories. There is so much bad out there and so many horrible, scary things… If I watch the news I connect to the negative and start living like these things are going to happen all the time. I would rather try to remember there is good out there and focus on my life because that is all I can control. Of course there is a point when my avoidance leads me to naivety. To counter this, I read select NYT articles, according to what I think is relevant and important.
Long answer, eh? geesh. This is me leaving my soapbox.
January 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
There are two sad realities with this trial. The first is the number of women who died, each one, and their families who mourn their loss.
The second is the Canadian justice system, which makes the extensive coverage of the trial so ridiculous and unnecessary. The maximum penalty for first degree murder in Canada is “life without the possibility of parole for 25 years”. Judges in Canada usually sentence concurrently for multiple convictions.
This means that if the accused is convicted of anywhere from 1 to 50 murders he will receive the maximum sentence for each, life with no possibility of parole for 25 years, all sentences to be served concurrently. So, 1 conviction or 50, the sentence will be the same - the possibility of parole in 25 years - and the judge may remove “time already served” from the 25 years. Sad!
January 25th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I don’t know anything about this case in particular. But then again, I know very little about the big, over-exposed cases in my own neck of the woods. I just avoid most of it these days. I feel that I don’t need to know most of it. My life goes on just fine without it. I sleep a tad better not knowing it. Ignorance can be bliss.
The news (all forms of media) has become nothing more than tabloid sensationalism to bring in ratings, if you ask me.
Tonight, I caught the end of the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams because my hubby had it on as I was cleaning up after dinner. Brian nearly had to apologize for showing the next segment, which “was related to nothing, other than to perhaps bring a smile to our faces.” It was a story with lots of video on 18 baby pandas in China. Now THAT made my day. Thanks, Brian.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I do my best not to hear or read about, or God forbid, watch anything to do with the Pickton trial. I think it is enough that I know what happened. Spare me the gory details.