The repeatedly broadcast images of his beaten and bloodied corpse say it all: Muammar al-Gaddafi is dead. And whether or not you were there, the world has witnessed his death countless times, largely thanks to the power of the global media.
Images of al-Gaddafi's death have been emblazoned across TV screens, newspapers and websites for the past week, reiterating the same message that has already been made clear: al-Gaddafi died a squalid death in the gutter at the hands of an enraged mob.
Whether further proof surrounding al-Gaddafi's death is found, the message remains unchanged: the world is now rid of one more oppressive dictator. But if the message isn't going to change, then why is the proof still being replayed, regurgitated hourly like some sort of grisly highlight reel? What point is the media trying to make by repeatedly showing al-Gaddafi's brutal demise, flaunting his battered torso like a hunting trophy? Whatever the reason, this man's death has been deemed newsworthy enough to abandon all previous standards of what is considered "appropriate" content.
A time-tested rule of journalism is that "if it bleeds, it leads." And yet, the mainstream media's hesitance toward publicizing and broadcasting images of the dead seems contradictory to the rights granted to them in the First Amendment. Newspapers and broadcast networks routinely engage in the practice of self-censorship, choosing to relay only highly packaged and ethically sound content to avoid possible controversy.
But if it is legally defensible to show such graphic depictions of death through other pop culture media (e.g. the Internet, music, film, etc.), then why are news networks hesitant to convey them through journalism? Clearly, the public has no outstanding aversion to the concept of death when it is conveyed through other mediums of entertainment, so why should journalism be considered the black sheep of spreading this type of information?
It appears that images of the dead played on network news, or splashed across the margins of page one, seem to invoke more of a feeling of discomfort than most people are prepared to tolerate. Seeing the image of a dying man, woman or child is already inherently unpleasant, but with longstanding social and economic issues already dividing our society, it seems that showing overly graphic content on the evening news is like pouring salt into an open wound. And yet, al-Gaddafi's bloodied corpse remains the focal point of countless media outlets.
The media have effectively portrayed al-Gaddafi as the devil, the (supposed) clear and unmistakable enemy of democracy and personal freedom, ideals upon which our society is built. His death at the hands of those whom he oppressed for more than four decades should mark a significant achievement confirming the power of the people over a tyrant.
There is nothing logical for us to celebrate about in this case. We haven't actually achieved anything. Achievement would include holding al-Gaddafi accountable for his crimes against humanity, by making an example of him through the process of law. Instead, the media have been dedicated to parading the latest slaughter around for all the world to see, stripping the late dictator of any dignity that should be afforded to a human being, regardless of their past.
The images are clear, the point resolved: Muammar al-Gaddafi is dead. And yet, the mainstream media have seen fit to remind the world of this man's brutal end frequently in the days following, but the purpose remains unclear. Is there still some question as to whether the images are authentic? If not, then why has it continued? It seems today the media hold the ultimate power in determining who is entitled to an honorable demise.