Emotions Rise as a Mardi Gras Celebration Turned into a Possible Sexual Assault
I have analyzed “Debate Grows over Use of Sexual Assault Photo” by Michelle Goldberg. Michelle Goldberg, the author of this article, is the senior contributing writer for The Daily Beat/Newsweek. In 2002, Michelle Goldberg published the article about the sexual assault photo in Women’s eNews. The article she wrote discusses the debate over a photo that was taken of a woman being sexually assaulted during a Mardi Gras celebration. This photo was never released or published until Mike Urban, the photographer, won a photo contest with another photo he had taken and he gave all of his photos to the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) on a CD. The NPPA believes this photo strongly speaks about the level of violence in today’s society. After several days of debate, the judges made a decision to publish the picture with the victims face digitally obscured. Other publishers’ think this is a terrible idea because if the victim sees the photo, it could cause her emotional trauma. However, the victim has never came forward and it is possible that she does not even know of all the debate stirring over her photo.
Goldberg explains the impact this photo has on showing the violence of today’s society but she also explains how the victim could be emotionally damaged if she were to view this photo. The article appeals to emotion because it discusses the emotions of the victim of she were to see her photo published. This makes you feel sympathy for the victim because the author talks about how damaging it could be for the woman. As a woman, I consider myself in the situation. It makes me think of how I would react in a situation like this one and I would definitely be emotionally damaged if I were to see a photo like so of myself. However, as I mentioned before, the woman has never came forward so publishing the picture does more good than bad.
The article depicts the ethics of what kinds of photographs should or should not be publicized. Michelle Goldberg doesn’t only consider the victim of that specific photo but victims of public photos in general. This article debates what should be ethically acceptable and what should not. Michelle Goldberg is trying to encourage people to really think about what should be ethically okay in a society by stating the views of people on both ends of the spectrum and encouraging thoughts on the subject.
The article appeals to women more than men because the fact that it debates over the use of a photo of a woman-not a man. Women usually feel very strong about situations like this. The author tries to persuade people to question what is ethically acceptable and if they agree with the ethics of today’s society. Someone who disagrees may think the victim should not be digitally obscured, or maybe they think the picture shouldn’t be published in any way. Goldberg discusses how the senior editors for the magazine that Mike Urban works for think this photo should never be publically viewed. They think it is a “bogus comparison” to use the photo to speak out abuse in today’s society. Since Michelle Goldberg doesn’t specifically state her opinion on this case, it seems to me as if she is on the fence. She doesn’t seem to lean any particular way; she just wants people to question their thoughts on this subject.
I believe that Michelle Goldberg’s purpose or exigency for writing this article is to make the issue known and to get people- especially women- to question the ethics of today’s society and even possibly voice their opinions. I believe her reason for writing was to make this specific issue known but her overall purpose was to make people think and to question not only this situation but similar ones. Michelle Goldberg talks about how the photo “captured something that words couldn’t.” By saying this, I believe that she may have thought the photo was a strong speaker of today’s society, just like the judges on the board of the National Press Photographers Association. Michelle Goldberg never really plainly stated her purpose but I know her purpose because of the way she explains the situations and all possible opinions on the subject. To me, it seems as if she simply wants people to question their thought and formulate an opinion on such subjects. However, I believe she served her purpose of making women question ethics.
In my personal opinion, the photo should be published as long as the victim’s face is digitally obscured. I feel like the world does need to know about all of the sexual assaults that occur. I agree with the National Press Photographers Association employees when they say that the photo strongly speaks about the level of today’s violence. This photo specifically speaks because it isn’t photoshopped and it isn’t just an advertisement with words about protecting women against sexual assault; it is a real life picture of a real life assault that took place. In my opinion, this makes people realize that it is a real problem. Seeing the photo of a specific occasion helps to make it seem real in your head. Also, the victim never came forward and identified herself. Therefore, she didn’t technically say she didn’t consent to the photo being published. As long as her face is digitally obscured, I don’t think it will do any harm to her because she probably doesn’t even know about the debate over her photo. In the rare event that the victim would come forward, she won’t necessarily be upset. Maybe she will agree with using her photo to speak about violence. I believe something needs done about this issue and if publishing this photo with the victims face obscured can possibly help to decrease the issue of sexual assault, then I fully support publishing it.
Works Cited
Goldberg, Michelle. Writing Situations. Pearson. 2013. Print.
