Define or Inform: Examining the media’s use of imaging in the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

By now, most are aware of the tragedy that occurred in Sanford, Florida, this past February, in which Trayvon Martin, a 17-year old male, was shot and killed in what many believe were suspect circumstances. When the story initially broke, news media outlets like CNN, Huffingtonpost, and Reuters featured photos like the ones you see below.

These photos were used when very little information was known about the circumstances surrounding the shooting and the individuals involved. They characterizes Trayvon as a vivacious and happy child, an innocent cut down in the prime of his life. And yet, they are misleading.

At the time of the shooting, Trayvon was 17-years old, and no longer the young child we see above. Still the media used these images instead of something more contemporary. Why?

Now take a look at the photo below. This image came into popular use around the time that it was revealed a police report of the incident confirmed that Mr. Zimmerman had sustained injuries consistent with his claim that he had been assaulted. No longer the happy child seen in the previous photos, this image is of a much older Trayvon scowling at the camera. Again, why did sites like CNN.com choose this photo instead of the former, more ‘positive’ images of Trayvon?

In the case of Mr. Zimmerman we see a similar misrepresentation in the media’s selection of images. The picture you see below was used early in the story’s genesis.

It portrays Mr. Zimmerman as an unhappy, overweight, criminal, someone perhaps capable of the brutal and senseless murder of a child. However, just like the photos of Trayvon, it is misleading. At the time of the murder, Mr. Zimmerman had lost a significant amount of weight and was not incarcerated but worked as a volunteer for a local neighborhood watch program. Why did the media select a photo of Mr. Zimmerman that was both out of date and misleading as to his physical image and legal circumstances?

The photo below was used around the time that the “angry” photo of Trayvon was first introduced. Like the photo of Trayvon, it is more contemporary to the time of the shooting and suggests a shift in the subject’s attitude and demeanor. Not only is Mr. Zimmerman in a suit and smiling, he is much thinner than in the mugshot photo.

As documentarians we recognize the power of images to influence public opinion. In fact, we rely on it. To suggest that the media’s use of these photos, and the timing of their use, was arbitrary would be naïve. Thus, the issue becomes whether or not their use was part of a conscious effort to shape public opinion, in my opinion, yes. But in doing so, has the media crossed a line of journalism ethics? Is it unethical for the media, and by extension documentarians, to manipulate images to in effect ‘tell’ the public what to believe or how to feel about an issue? Not necessarily.

While one of our primary functions is to inform it is also to interpret. Even the most non-invasive, fly-on-the-wall documentaries are edited with an underlying theme or tone. In other words, it is impossible to be totally objective about a subject. The fact that we choose one event over another represents our personal interest, or the interest of our employers, and by definition that makes the work subjective, but does that mean we have the right to mislead the public? Should the media have used the photo of George as a thin and smiling man when the story first broke, instead of a mugshot? Or, in the case of Trayvon, should they have used the photo of him as a grimacing teenager instead of the smiling child?

In my opinion, it is the seriousness of a particular issue or story, and its potential to polarize the public that requires that we as interpreters of events be as objective and unbiased as possible. Why couldn’t news sites have used photos of Trayvon and George that were contemporary and neutral as to their demeanor? The fact is they could have, and should have, but didn’t, because they wanted to create controversy. 
This is one of the major problems with contemporary media and its propagandistic approach to controversial issues. By focusing on the controversy, instead of providing a balanced interpretation of the facts, the media is, in effect, telling the public what to believe and how to feel. Thus, they are no longer informing so much as defining the way a story should be understood.