Very very recently, in terms of the filming of this particular segment for Coursera, we have the tragedy of the Boston Marathon bombings. Now, I do look at other news sources than the BBC, but certainly one of the links that we are going to be able to put up for you, comes under the title from the BBC website, Boston marathon bombings: Life after limb loss. And this is actually taking it from the reaction of a Brit who had been in a similar position but in a military environment, as opposed to this indiscriminate killing and maiming of members of the American population. Now, reading through this, one of the things that I picked up was, it gives the principal image, which we're going to talk about a little bit and you'll see on the website. But it makes the point that that image is cropped. And I was not morbidly intrigued, but I did think, well, what has been cropped out of this image. And therefore this was done very briefly that I went through and checked on a number of different websites, about what has been used for the image. Now, talking about this with the crew, a number of them had seen this particular image. And I'm talking about it in general terms, because We may not actually use it. We certainly may not use the original image. And that's one of the reasons we're actually talking about it now, because- >> You may not use it on the actual course? >> Well, it's really your sort of decision. Certainly these three first references, we can use. The fourth one I'm not convinced and that's why. We're actually having this discussion now, and getting your reaction, someone has to make a decision about this. It's an image of volunteers and paramedics, responded to someone in a wheelchair who has, it appears, quite traumatic leg injuries, and in the literal sense of the word. So this is the BBC reference. And just checking back, here's The Daily Mirror in Britain that runs the same image. They have a banner across the bottom of it. And the headline here is, Boston Marathon bomb victim pictured in shock after aftermath photo had both legs amputated, says father. So we're looking at a photo that's already been put up and something that was immediately available, given our digital age. And then the following day we have the fact that the man legs couldn't be saved, okay? But doing a little bit of cross referencing to this further, this is the New York Times, it would appear that the father was aware of his son's plight from seeing the picture online. So it's a little bit of what is displayed in the media immediately as journalism, and how much this needs to be in the context of the way that the loved ones will react to seeing this in these firms. Now, each of those images had been slightly cropped. They are all distressing images in this respect. But in talking to the crew, and he said that at least in one image, that the face of the victim had been pixelated out. And there's another, which I've seen, where the actual part of the legs, which cropped here, had been pixelated out, okay. Now, this comes to sort of a critical decision on something which is going to take place after the event, ie people will be watching this Coursera unit for, at least a couple of years in the future. I did eventually find the original, and this is actually from a local newspaper, it's The Hour Online. I think it's dealing with issues in Connecticut, and it has Boston in photos, though, too. It has one major image, but like most of these things, you can click it through. And then, in the bottom, it has just a number of icons. Now, I honestly believe that someone at The Hour has forgotten to take this down. Because if I just bring you up now, I believe this is the unedited image. >> Wow. >> Yeah, I was just wondering if we were actually going to have to use a bleep on this, and I'm not downplaying it at all, because my reaction was one of horror when I saw that as well. >> Yeah. >> This is the photograph as taken. And that's disturbing. >> It's disturbing, yeah. >> It's very disturbing. But the point being, in the context of the course and what we're doing, from an editorial point of view, can we use that complete image? >> I don't know what the actual rules are, but my opinion would be that you need to give people the choice whether they're prepared to see an image like this. And I think that this paper, might be seen by demographic, might be very young people, might be women and children and stuff, and I think they gotta be very careful putting images like this on. And I don't think it's surprising the BBC, and the other publications have cropped their pictures. Because I think that, they're almost being polite to the people who might not want to see an image like this. It's a bomb, people understand what a bomb does. Do you want to see it this graphically? I think it's gotta be up to the person. So in terms of the course, I think it should be an option for them to go onto this website and to check it out. I don't think it's our responsibility to show this image necessarily. I think that if it was, say, two years ago this happened, I would say differently. I would say if this was a picture from Vietnam or something, I would say yeah, use this image. because I think people have become a bit more desensitized too, because it's further back in history, I think time does that. This is far too recent to show an image like this, and I don't understand what the paper is trying to achieve by doing it. >> Yeah and I get the general impression that this is actually still available, it's an accident. I thought they had put a montage of images up, and they simply haven't realized that that's there. And in fact I might take the opportunity over the weekend, just to say are you aware that this unedited image is still available? Right, my honest opinion is, not to put this up to shock anyone or to put you in an awkward position. But I do think materially, there is a difference between cropping and manipulating. Now, to crop is to manipulate an image. But, in this point, you're suggesting the further the distance is between the event and the photograph, the more it might be tolerated for showing images like this. As opposed to the ones from the New York Times, the Daily Mail, the Daily Mirror rather, and the BBC. >> For some reason, I think so. I think it's what are they trying to achieve. For us, if we're trying to make a point for educational purposes, that's another reason maybe to use the image. But this paper is doing it to sell more papers. I don't think it's telling you any more- >> No. >> About what's happened. We know that people died, we know that there was this horrible bomb, does this tell us anything new? Or is this just showing us something gruesome for the sake of it? >> Yeah, and I have to say that while I did pursue this to find out what the nature of the original image is, it's in the context of our discussions around the Battle of Mogadishu. Does it materially make a difference? While I would like to see reportage in its full measure being put through, I think with respect to the gentleman concerned, is this the way that he wants to be displayed? He doesn't have a choice, frankly, these images went out. And the fact, his father found out about the injuries to his son, in this medium, is also something that we might talk about, that the nature of medium per say. >> Could I ask you how you feel about these images? And whether you think, I mean, you've shown us a lot of pictures over the course, and I'm not sure, I can't really measure whether you, how happy you are for these to be seen. Whether they're right or wrong? Or did you just want the student to decide for themselves whether these images should be used in that way? >> Well, my view on this, is you have three responsible news organs. Now, I made comments about Time Magazine, drawn out of the analysis from undercover. That's really underexposed, okay. And looking at this, in this context now, I think probably there is an issue of responsibility that the BBC, The Mirror, The New York Times, any other media outlets, have shown. However, in exactly the same point that we discussed in the context of Stalin, and to a degree with regards to the battle of Mogadishu and that particular image I focused on, I don't want to see this image. And I don't really want it displayed, but I also want it preserved. Because I want the opportunity of those who do analysis about the nature of second decade of the 21st-century and our media representation, to know that the decision was made not to show that image in its fullness. So the reason I raised it with you is, I think it's actually beyond the bound considering what has happened to someone who's subsequently had his legs amputated, to actually show him in this condition. However it was done, I believe that there is good justification for this case, cropping, or when it was very obviously pixelated. Pixelated, this was not an attempt to manipulate and deceive. Whereas the point I was trying to raise with regards to the Battle of Mogadishu, is that something that was not materially affecting the overall composition of the photograph had to be changed. You still get an idea of the trauma and stress. But you don't need to see the extent of the injury, and therefore you've got that balancing point. I would want this archived, I would want it available to those who were doing research. I am not convinced this needs to be in the public domain. >> Yeah, I'd agree, I'd agree with you there. >> Yeah, Nico, thank you very much for spending the time going through this with me. >> No problem, thank you. >> And for those of you who are seeing this on Coursera, you will know whether Nico has exerted appropriate directorial control over the material, as to whether you can actually see the forth image or not. Okay, so thanks very much for that. That was appreciated. So this is not just a historical consideration, we are dealing with these issues more regularly in our day-to-day lives. This puts perhaps some of the course into a different context.
