ARTICLE MAY OFFEND

Is it Real?

Image assumed to be of Jamie Gao[1]

The media hype over the last few weeks has been the death of the Jamie Gao who was found dead wrapped in a tarpaulin floating off the NSW coast.  One of the most significant media factors to this story is the fact that several newspapers/electronic mediums published the image of the deceased and identified the deceased. Such an image apparently outrageous and explicit. Yet no more graphic than seen in many M rated television programmes. Is it that the person was once a part of the community that the visualisation of the deceased is so socially taboo?

[d1] 

Man being eaten alive by tiny dinosaurs in Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World: Rated PG  http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhxjjkkDB51qciujko1_500.gif

The next relevant factor is that they were a victim. If they were a perpetrator of a heinous crime would society be as offended? And furthermore the intersection of fictitious and non-fictional media must be broached. Under which circumstances would this image be less offensive? There are many Hollywood films which have shown much more graphic and detailed imagery to a significantly larger audience with much less attention. The film Jurassic park, I have chosen for its complete removal from reality, rated PG without any legal restrictions placed on who can view its content shows characters being graphically maimed by fictitious recreations of dinosaurs. We have from each of these characters a context and an audio/visual relationship with them from the beginning of their journey until their usually grizzly demise.

Such content is deemed as television. Yet, compared to Hollywood’s standards, this insignificant and bland photo appears to be drawing controversy.  The ability for the media to manipulate the perspective of its readers is incredible. What is even more incredible is the pliability of media. If exposed to an image ignorant of the circumstances, a situation can be constructed. Yet such the simple image of a man in a tarpaulin, when rooted within reality is enough to start an outcry.  This is the by-product of rationalisation[2], which sees that the information provided visually will be processed differently to information provided within a fictitious context. 

This is a still from the film Se7en which is accessible to anybody who can type on a keyboard. There is no warning present on the search engine and the image is freely accessible.

Unlike many other sights which contain much less graphic imagery, but of actual occurrences which provide disclaimers such as:

☠☠ WARNING! ☠

The stories mentioned on this site are of real deaths (famous or otherwise), and may contain graphic pics, text and/or videos. This site is NOT for the squeamish or Faint of Heart! You have been warned.

http://themanyfacesofdeath.blogspot.com.au/p/real-deaths-captured-on-film.html

The outrage occurring due to the publication of the image of Gao in such mediums which are access so easily by the mass, mediums also not associated with imagery of such contexts, was a shock value move on behalf of the news companies. It has been studied that shock value in mediums such as news and advertising significantly increases attention, benefits memory, and positively influences behaviour among affected people.[3] In regards to presenting the image and the impact it holds on many people well it is the next step in the desensitisation of society. In the 1960’s Alfred Hitchcock’s thriller psycho was refused classification due to its graphic content and was awarded an X rating, but now it is sold with an M15+ rating.[4] Unfortunately Gao is the poster child for the next step of media shock value

---

[1] Mullaney, A (2014). Wrapped body found floating near Shelly Beach, Cronulla may be missing student Jamie Gao. Available:Wrapped body found floating near Shelly Beach, Cronulla may be missing student Jamie Gao. Last Accessed Date:1/6/2014.

[2] Burton, L; Westin, D & Kowalski, R (2012).Psychology. 3 .Australia: John Wiley & Sons. 432-434

[3] Dahl, D. W; Frankenberger, K. D. & Manchanda, R, V, (2003).Does It Pay to Shock? Reactions to Shocking and Non shocking Advertising Content among University Students. Journal of Advertising Research. 43(3), 268-280.

[4] Filmsite (2013). Psycho (1960). Available:http://www.filmsite.org/psyc.html. Last Accessed Date:1/6/2014.

---

 [d1]