Why do television news broadcasts not have to use the TV Parental Guidelines rating system or at least provide a disclaimer when disturbing images are shown? 

          

I awoke this morning, turned on the television to CBS’s morning news and was luckily able to avoid the rundown of the horrible world events that had occurred in the last 24 hours.  When I caught the program it was in the midst of an interview with Aetna Insurance’s new-age CEO, who was discussing how its customers’ ever-rising insurance premiums were being used by the company to provide gourmet cafeterias, massage parlors, and exercise and yoga facilities for Aetna’s over-taxed and stressed employees.  Nearly any story regarding the insurance industry in the United States can be found disturbing on some level - particularly the blithe admission of those in the know that the system is not working, but it’s our system – but this was not the objectionable news item for me.

Following the insurance/new-age work place lionization, the broadcast switched to a story regarding an effort to increase wi-fi bandwidth and “Vehicle to Vehicle” (V2V) technology and the tension between the two.  The premise behind the story is actual journalism and the main reason that I tune into CBS in the morning rather than the schmaltzy morning news shows offered by other networks.  The concept that news regarding proposed Congressional action and how it may impact a current government program is fit for morning consumption is one that I applaud.  I was grateful for the discussion, it made me think.  It was during the discussion of V2V technology, and the imagery used to present the concept, however, that I was left appalled.

Per the CBS story, V2V technology is currently in development and would allow new cars to use a government provided bandwidth to “talk” to each other and help the driver be more aware of nearby traffic and traffic conditions.  The story described that if the technology was in place today studies showed it could reduce traffic accidents by up to 80 percent and prevent more than 1,000 accident-related deaths per year.  I appreciate information in news programming presented to me in a manner that allows me to use facts to determine whether government funded research, development and dedicated bandwidth should be devoted to V2V, or whether the country would be better served by opening that bandwidth up to enhanced wi-fi availability.  The information in the story was great, the part of the story that I could not comprehend was the images of auto accidents used as the debate was being framed. 

Any American that has traveled in a car is aware of auto accidents.  You see them on the way to work, you hear about them on television and the radio, occasionally there will be footage of an accident that reinforces how truly dangerous highway travel can be.  I don’t object to footage of highway accidents being shown in principle.  Being aware of dangers can help people to be more cautious in the hopes of avoiding those dangers.  What I do disagree with is sensational images used out of context and because they are there rather than being necessary to driving a story.

I believe that CBS used graphic footage of a gruesome traffic incident simply out of a desire to shock rather than drive a story, and in its context I strongly disagree with the images’ use without a disclaimer.  To drive home that V2V might be able to prevent traffic accidents, CBS used the image of a t-bone auto accident, at high speed, at an intersection that a pedestrian happened to be crossing.  The presenter noted that the pedestrian was “only” injured, presumably they would have had better discretion than to show the video had the unlucky pedestrian not survived.  The horrific video however, showed two large trucks rolling out-of-control through an intersection and literally obliterating a human being.  Erasing him from the video.  I am uneasy describing the story as I think back to it.  That sort of imagery is simply unnecessary to further the discussion of whether a dedicated bandwidth should be reserved by the government for V2V technology.  Not being a television producer, I really do not know what the motivation was for including disturbing video in a story that really did not concern the objectionable image.  As a television consumer, I strongly object to being exposed to such pre-planned, disturbing footage without a disclaimer before the story is presented.

Very slight research before writing this shows that the TV guidelines are a voluntary institution and have not been applied to news broadcasts, I am not sure whether this should be the case, but responsible news agencies ought to inform their viewers of the images that accompany their stories.  It’s probably not a new phenomenon, but the news these days is a parade of horribles that from an outsider’s point of view seems designed to shock and disturb.  For the most part I think viewers have come to terms with this and can conform their viewing habits if they wish to avoid stories they don’t care to consume.  I know that I do this.  I don’t care to hear about the latest shocking atrocities, crimes, and diseases.  They don’t make me feel good.  Because of that, I generally do not watch the first part of a news broadcast, or simply switch the channel when one of those topics is being broached.  The news caters to all types of viewers, some of whom presumably are interested in stories that I am not, so changing the channel is not a big deal. 

My hackles have raised this morning because of what I feel was an ambush of shocking imagery in a story that did not call for it, and in a story in which viewers should not rightly expect graphic images.  I expect to be shocked by certain news stories, and so I choose not to follow them.  In a story regarding congressional funding for V2V research and opening up wi-fi bandwidth, I do not expect to see images of a pedestrian getting horribly injured in a traffic accident.  It is pure excess on the part of the broadcaster and is unfair to the viewer. 

In stories such as that presented by CBS News this morning, something must be done to inform the viewer of the images that they can expect to accompany the news item.  Had I been forewarned going into the story that graphic imagery would have been used, I likely would have turned the channel.  It’s my right to determine what I want to see and hear in the morning as I attempt to get caught up on the news of the day.  Starting a day with seeing a pedestrian get maimed is not my idea of fun, nor is it necessary or informative for me.  Had CBS’s presenter disclaimed before the broadcast that the story included graphic images of a traffic accident, I would have changed the channel I think, or at least have been braced for what was to come.  Not being told that, I was shocked by the imagery’s inclusion, and my right to determine how I start my day was taken in a way by an unnecessarily sensational news story.

One could certainly say, ‘Get over it, it may not be the best, but it’s how we do things’, and there would not be a lot that anyone could do, but really who is served by including sensational footage in a relatively bland news story?  There is enough awfulness in the news.  It does not need to be implanted without warning in a story that does not call for it.  

Here's a link to the video from the March 26, 2015, CBS morning news broadcast that I found bothersome.  http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/wi-fi-expansion-could-threaten-v2v-safety-tech/.  Is it going overboard to think that CBS should have warned viewers of the traffic accident footage?