I think we need a conversation about the ethics of representation of the dead and dying. Is it ever appropriate to capture and publish their images whether on mainstream or social media? Are there different rules for photojournalists and media firms as opposed to other citizens?
One study suggested images of graphic violence could motivate public demands for action to stop atrocities. If graphic images of accidents have a similar effect -generating GoK action to stop accidents and save lives - would it be ethical to publish them? researchgate.net/profile/Matthe…
There are few clear or easy answers. Choosing not to show images of the dead and dying is not consequence-free. Rather than blanket "thou shalt nots", maybe we should encourage more ethical and deliberative decision-making around the images people choose to publish and share.
There may be lessons from the approach of Kenyan newspaper editors, who, like their global counterparts, rarely publish graphic images. Even when they do, the decisions are not taken lightly and many recognize the potential harm such images can cause.
academia.edu/43029686/Ethic…
academia.edu/43029686/Ethic…
Social media folks could learn from an interesting aspect of newspaper editors' ethical decision-making which reflects, not a mechanical reliance on editorial policies but rather intuition and consultation with peers. Use common sense and talk to folks whose judgment you trust.
Also, as @nytimes demonstrated with its remarkable front page this past weekend, it is not always necessary to show graphic imagery in order to powerfully communicate impact. 
It is, however, crucial to note the role perception of who the audience is plays in decision-making. The @nytimes editors are publishing for their domestic audience. The same list of dead Americans would have much less impact here if published by @dailynation, for instance.
Still, in the age of the worldwide web, audiences are not as discrete or nationally bounded as editors may assume, which creates ethical minefields such as the controversy over the @nytimes use of graphic pictures in its coverage of the Dusit D2 attack in Nairobi last year.
It is interesting to note the rationale @nytimes gave for using the Dusit D2 pictures and to ask why the same did not apply to publishing pictures of COVID-19 victims, especially given the current debate in the US over social distancing restrictions.
nytimes.com/2019/01/17/rea…
nytimes.com/2019/01/17/rea…
One thing to note is the audience the editors had in mind. Clearly, a list of (mostly) dead Kenyans would not have the same impact on Americans as a photo would. And a photo of dead Kenyans would not be likely to be considered as controversial to them as one of dead Americans.
Kenyan editors make similar choices when faced with graphic images. The closer to home the incident, the less likely they are to use gory images. But the converse is also true. The further the cultural, geographical and racial distance of victims, the more likely the publication.
For example, one of the editors involved in the decision to publish the infamous Sunday Nation front page photo of a victim of the #Westgate attack in 2013 told me that the fact that the image portrayed a white victim rather than a black one may have made it easier to publish.
The reason? Like their @nytimes counterparts, @dailynation editors were publishing for a local audience. And this influenced their decision-making. The web, however, makes content instantly available to millions across the world whose reactions editors may not have accounted for.
This raises another issue. What counts as a disturbing image? Is it just photos of dead and dying humans or also dead and dying animals? What of images of hunger? One editor told me that they don't get complaints from @MediaCouncilK or from readers about photos of starving kids.
Some of the editors also pointed out the potentially disturbing effect of publishing pictures of animals being slaughtered for food (e.g. during festive seasons) on children, especially those from parts of the world where such realities are kept carefully hidden away.
A lesson for social media users wishing to act ethically is to recognize that the people who may see the images you post may not just be limited to those who share your background, values and experiences. Considering the potential harms, is posting the picture still justified?
Another thing to think about before clicking on the "Tweet" button is the effect posts by others may have on your own judgments of what is acceptable. Here too, examining how editors in Kenyan and Western publications have responded can be instructive.
Seeing images of dead bodies published elsewhere can make it seem legitimate to publish them yourself. Many Kenyan editors admitted to scanning the web to see whether other outlets, especially Western ones, had used similar images to the ones they were considering.
This can be a double-edged sword. Finding out that others have not used similar images can give one pause for reflection. However, you should beware suspending your judgment in favor of that of your peers or of the crowd, in which case dangers of acting unethically remain.
According to @dailynation editors, one of the factors that sealed the decision to publish the gruesome #Westgate photo was the fact that the image was already being distributed by news wires (and was published by newspapers in the West). Yet many think the decision was wrong.
There is thus no escape from actually thinking about and weighing the consequences and rationale for one's actions. Just because others are doing it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. Sadly, training in ethical reasoning is not something that news outlets have prioritized.
