As an editor, a large part of your job is a form of censorship, we have to change things, remove things....hide things. It's completely normal that after being given a 10 minute long snippet of video and being told you need thirty seconds of it for a VT, that you're going to have to snap away at it. Get to the point, do you really need to show fifteen seconds of the dog crossing the street when the subject of the VT is about the protest happening in the next few scenes? It is called editing for a reason.
Understanding where to draw the line between what was okay to show and what wasn't, proved to be one of my biggest challenges when I slipped into the editing chair at work. On one hand you have to abide by the chosen angle of your employers and on the other hand, you have to remain neutral and allow enough space for the viewers to form their own opinions or ideas of the subject matter. I believe it's the point where your work begins to reflect your own personal beliefs, that you've begun digging yourself a dangerous little grave. The media is unforgiving, it is no surprise that the people working in it are following suit.
I've been checking the BBC website every half hour or so for updates on the situation going on in Gaza at the moment. This is something I've rarely done with a news story, in fact, I can only recall a few events that kept me glued to the BBC's website waiting anxiously for updates. Despite my young age at the time, the events of 11th of September had me hitting the "refresh" button on internet explorer repeatedly, then there was the build up to when the US first entered Afghanistan. I clearly remember the day I read about how Bush had given Saddam a warning that he must surrender within 72 hours or so...and then the day that the US/UK forces first entered Iraq and begun the despicable bloodshed that continued for years. The Tsunami that devastated Asia back in 2004 also had my eyes glued to the computer screen, and finally, the Lebanon/Israel war in 2006 had me unable to sleep because of the constant need to check for updates on the catastrophic situation that was getting worse by the minute. They were all the kind of stories that managed to
It was something new, something completely different when I found myself refreshing the BBC's home page every few minutes yesterday, because this time, it was Palestine.
My reaction to the news that almost 300 innocent civilians had been wiped out in less than two days in the city of Gaza even managed to shock me. The familiar burning sensation of disgust found it's way through my throat, where it formed a lump, tickling annoyingly. There is no other way to explain it, it situation is absolutely disgusting and appalling. Even more so, are the comments from people who claim they are fighting for peace and justice in the world ;
"The United States is deeply concerned about the escalating violence in Gaza. We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there. " - Condaleeza Rice
"The only way to achieve lasting peace in Gaza is through peaceful means. Whilst we understand the Israeli government's obligation to protect its population we urge maximum restraint to avoid further civilian casualties.
"We also call on militants in the Gaza Strip to immediately cease all rocket attacks on Israel." - British Foreign Office Statement
Don't even get me started on the rest of them. I actually couldn't believe how quick the international community were to point fingers at Hamas, than casually mention, almost as if an afterthought, the fact that Israel had been forced to react in such a manner, or that they should show "Maximum restraint".
Does the fact that power, fuel, food, money, health supplies and equipment, have all been tightly restricted by Israel for goodness knows how many years in the Gaza strip mean nothing? Does the fact that the 1.5m people living in Gaza have been living each day as prisoners in their own homes unable to work, leave or even feed their families mean nothing? Does the fact that in two days, 300+ of them have been brutally murdered for no apparent reason mean nothing?
Then there is the censorship part of editing. The part where you have to take out the gruesome details because they're deemed "Unsuitable" to be aired, because they are simply to disgusting, outrageous or even controversial to be aired.
It's not odd to hear a presenter on a channel such as Sky News or the BBC, mutter the words "Some may find the following images disturbing" or something along the lines of that. Their idea of "disturbing" would often be a body wrapped in a cloth, a body somewhere in the distance, maybe a little blood here or there. But nothing I've ever seen on mainstream media from the UK or US has really managed to "disturb" me. Maybe it's because I've grown up seeing the other side of media coverage, from the Arabic news outlets, where it seems that there is nothing too gruesome or disturbing. Switch on Al Jazeera, any of these news channels, and look at the difference in content. You don't get the "look away it's disturbing warning" instead you're faced with images of mangled, wounded and destroyed bodies, almost instantly.
When you work behind the scenes in the media, you're exposed to the raw footage with all the gory detailed shots too. And it becomes your job to remove what is deemed unnecessary or too-gruesome.
At work I'm often faced with the bits of video we don't want to see, decapitated bodies, mangled limbs, bits of human littered about the streets after a blast or accident, In fact, one of the images I remember a little too clearly, was a man in Gaza after an Israeli attack a few months back, lying on a stretcher with his intestines exposed through a gaping wound in his chest, they were reaching onto the floor below.
What has been seen, cannot be un-seen. As inappropriate as the below lolcat may feel, it's entirely accurate in a serious manner.
For an hour yesterday I alternated the TV screen between three channels, Sky News, BBC News and Al Jazeera International. It was interesting to see the different censorship going on with each channel in its coverage. Sky News chose to focus more on the general shots of the smoke filling the sky above Gaza, and the occasional closer shot of a wrecked building. A couple of times I saw pictures from the chaos just outside the hospital, and maybe a shot or two from inside, with the slightly injured visible. The BBC was a little more detailed, the report reflected a little more of the chaos going on, and from what I remember, it seemed to capture the mood a little more than the Sky report, with a little more emphasis on the scenes of the wounded. Of course Al Jazeera was no comparison, the images were as raw as it appears one can be when they're broadcasting in the UK, there was blood, there was chaos, there was screaming, and they weren't just relying on the Associated Press for the pictures they used. It is interesting to see how each channel approaches the topic, in what they discuss, and what they show, no wonder many people in this country think the way they do. The media is perhaps one of the biggest influences in modern life, when you're constantly sheltered from whats really going on, can we blame them for being selfish, self-obsessed, ignorant people?
Tomorrow I'm going to go into work. I'm going to sieve and sort through hours and hours of raw, hardly-edited footage, I'm going to be given requests to find images reflecting certain things, I'm going to be asked to edit footage on any given topic, and once again I must rely on my common sense to reflect what needs to be shown, what the channel wants me to show, and more importantly, what people should know. What about what's simply too graphic to show? The world won't hear their stories.
May god help all those in need, and protect the innocent in such disgusting and disturbing times.
Images : AP, Reuters
Understanding where to draw the line between what was okay to show and what wasn't, proved to be one of my biggest challenges when I slipped into the editing chair at work. On one hand you have to abide by the chosen angle of your employers and on the other hand, you have to remain neutral and allow enough space for the viewers to form their own opinions or ideas of the subject matter. I believe it's the point where your work begins to reflect your own personal beliefs, that you've begun digging yourself a dangerous little grave. The media is unforgiving, it is no surprise that the people working in it are following suit.
I've been checking the BBC website every half hour or so for updates on the situation going on in Gaza at the moment. This is something I've rarely done with a news story, in fact, I can only recall a few events that kept me glued to the BBC's website waiting anxiously for updates. Despite my young age at the time, the events of 11th of September had me hitting the "refresh" button on internet explorer repeatedly, then there was the build up to when the US first entered Afghanistan. I clearly remember the day I read about how Bush had given Saddam a warning that he must surrender within 72 hours or so...and then the day that the US/UK forces first entered Iraq and begun the despicable bloodshed that continued for years. The Tsunami that devastated Asia back in 2004 also had my eyes glued to the computer screen, and finally, the Lebanon/Israel war in 2006 had me unable to sleep because of the constant need to check for updates on the catastrophic situation that was getting worse by the minute. They were all the kind of stories that managed to
It was something new, something completely different when I found myself refreshing the BBC's home page every few minutes yesterday, because this time, it was Palestine.
My reaction to the news that almost 300 innocent civilians had been wiped out in less than two days in the city of Gaza even managed to shock me. The familiar burning sensation of disgust found it's way through my throat, where it formed a lump, tickling annoyingly. There is no other way to explain it, it situation is absolutely disgusting and appalling. Even more so, are the comments from people who claim they are fighting for peace and justice in the world ;
"The United States is deeply concerned about the escalating violence in Gaza. We strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there. " - Condaleeza Rice
"The only way to achieve lasting peace in Gaza is through peaceful means. Whilst we understand the Israeli government's obligation to protect its population we urge maximum restraint to avoid further civilian casualties.
"We also call on militants in the Gaza Strip to immediately cease all rocket attacks on Israel." - British Foreign Office Statement
Don't even get me started on the rest of them. I actually couldn't believe how quick the international community were to point fingers at Hamas, than casually mention, almost as if an afterthought, the fact that Israel had been forced to react in such a manner, or that they should show "Maximum restraint".
Does the fact that power, fuel, food, money, health supplies and equipment, have all been tightly restricted by Israel for goodness knows how many years in the Gaza strip mean nothing? Does the fact that the 1.5m people living in Gaza have been living each day as prisoners in their own homes unable to work, leave or even feed their families mean nothing? Does the fact that in two days, 300+ of them have been brutally murdered for no apparent reason mean nothing?
Then there is the censorship part of editing. The part where you have to take out the gruesome details because they're deemed "Unsuitable" to be aired, because they are simply to disgusting, outrageous or even controversial to be aired.
It's not odd to hear a presenter on a channel such as Sky News or the BBC, mutter the words "Some may find the following images disturbing" or something along the lines of that. Their idea of "disturbing" would often be a body wrapped in a cloth, a body somewhere in the distance, maybe a little blood here or there. But nothing I've ever seen on mainstream media from the UK or US has really managed to "disturb" me. Maybe it's because I've grown up seeing the other side of media coverage, from the Arabic news outlets, where it seems that there is nothing too gruesome or disturbing. Switch on Al Jazeera, any of these news channels, and look at the difference in content. You don't get the "look away it's disturbing warning" instead you're faced with images of mangled, wounded and destroyed bodies, almost instantly.
When you work behind the scenes in the media, you're exposed to the raw footage with all the gory detailed shots too. And it becomes your job to remove what is deemed unnecessary or too-gruesome.
At work I'm often faced with the bits of video we don't want to see, decapitated bodies, mangled limbs, bits of human littered about the streets after a blast or accident, In fact, one of the images I remember a little too clearly, was a man in Gaza after an Israeli attack a few months back, lying on a stretcher with his intestines exposed through a gaping wound in his chest, they were reaching onto the floor below.
What has been seen, cannot be un-seen. As inappropriate as the below lolcat may feel, it's entirely accurate in a serious manner.
For an hour yesterday I alternated the TV screen between three channels, Sky News, BBC News and Al Jazeera International. It was interesting to see the different censorship going on with each channel in its coverage. Sky News chose to focus more on the general shots of the smoke filling the sky above Gaza, and the occasional closer shot of a wrecked building. A couple of times I saw pictures from the chaos just outside the hospital, and maybe a shot or two from inside, with the slightly injured visible. The BBC was a little more detailed, the report reflected a little more of the chaos going on, and from what I remember, it seemed to capture the mood a little more than the Sky report, with a little more emphasis on the scenes of the wounded. Of course Al Jazeera was no comparison, the images were as raw as it appears one can be when they're broadcasting in the UK, there was blood, there was chaos, there was screaming, and they weren't just relying on the Associated Press for the pictures they used. It is interesting to see how each channel approaches the topic, in what they discuss, and what they show, no wonder many people in this country think the way they do. The media is perhaps one of the biggest influences in modern life, when you're constantly sheltered from whats really going on, can we blame them for being selfish, self-obsessed, ignorant people?
Tomorrow I'm going to go into work. I'm going to sieve and sort through hours and hours of raw, hardly-edited footage, I'm going to be given requests to find images reflecting certain things, I'm going to be asked to edit footage on any given topic, and once again I must rely on my common sense to reflect what needs to be shown, what the channel wants me to show, and more importantly, what people should know. What about what's simply too graphic to show? The world won't hear their stories.
May god help all those in need, and protect the innocent in such disgusting and disturbing times.
Images : AP, Reuters
1 comment:
Hmm, well said... I think the reason why there is such outrage amongst 'our lot' is because there is no injustice worse than this going on elsewhere in the world today; sure, there are people suffering and dying, but not to the extent where the world becomes silent and takes the side of the aggressors, supporting the military effort to suppress the cries of the victims.
Post a Comment