The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Taylor West is a U.S. Air Force veteran and journalist living in Winslow.
Media literacy matters just as much as media history. If we only learn how to spot misinformation — and ignore how bad actors have used it before — we risk confusing aesthetics for authoritarianism. History often repeats itself when powerful entities control information and target specific people. Media history follows this same pattern.
Throughout modern American history, each media rupture has empowered new storytellers. Recent cultural shifts have forced the industry to hand over cameras, microphones and distribution channels to the public.
The media landscape generally understands that “whoever owns the camera owns the narrative.” Before we discuss why consumers demanded this handoff, we must examine the rise of “everyman journalism” — the phenomenon we are currently experiencing.
Despite the rise of everyman journalism, major media outlets maintain business as usual — as I believe they should. Career journalists and established media organizations carry a greater responsibility than independent content gatherers. Media companies follow long-standing ethical standards, editorial guidelines and broadcast regulations to minimize harm and prevent the public from involuntarily seeing graphic violence. These safeguards emerged in part as a cultural response to the unfiltered coverage of the Vietnam era, when images of violence confronted Americans without their consent.
The Society of Professional Journalists created ethical codes of conduct because frequent exposure to unprompted violence impacted viewers. Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission issued regulations governing when and how stations may broadcast certain imagery to protect viewers from accidental trauma at home. These institutions respected the fact that our minds and families were not ready for that information. Our bodies have not physiologically evolved to allow for the gratuitous consumption of violence.
I share this analysis as a mother currently living it. I cannot simply flip from witnessing an execution to bathing my children. The jarring reality of seeing extreme violence online, only to immediately return to my children coloring dinosaurs, creates a profoundly unsettling, dystopian disconnect. This sudden shift from witnessing a murder to seeing joy highlights a disturbing truth: the digital horror embedded in everyday life is not for everyone to handle.
We can educate each other about global horrors without traumatizing one another. We must find that balance.
Families and community members now experience Secondary Traumatic Stress (STS) daily. Minor moments add up. Adults struggle to maintain composure while staying brave for their families. This repression intensifies STS. Well-documented evidence shows that children experience their caregivers’ stress. We are creating a generational wound that we must address when our children are old enough to process their own traumas.
We call this emotional burden “compassion fatigue.” The Academy for Professional Excellence and other organizations develop scales to help people determine whether they have STS. Nurses and first responders use these tools to manage their mental and emotional well-being.
Our view of camera footage often reveals our differences in media literacy. While camera footage is complex, the endorsement of specific angles is even more nuanced.
Consider police body cameras. This footage provides the officer’s perspective and “lens.” While this perspective is crucial and legislation now mandates that officers wear them, we rarely acknowledge that it is inherently biased. The person the camera points at usually does not have a camera. We cannot see the officer’s body language or the factors playing out behind the lens. This may seem like common sense, but we must address the physiological influence this footage has on viewers.
Evidence shows that body camera footage creates anxiety. Filmmakers deliberately use this perspective to create unease. When viewers watch scenes through a body-cam lens, they feel tension. Some viewers empathize with the police because they view the subject’s defensiveness through that specific lens.
By contrast, cellphone footage from everyman journalists offers the “lens” of the bystander — a wide-angle view that complements the close-up. Bystander footage provides a bigger picture: the color of the tear gas, the breathing of the person filming, the gunshots and the screams of people fleeing. This imagery impacts us just as much as body-cam footage.
Today’s media landscape requires both views. Without both angles, viewers lack a complete story and will only seek out the angle that supports their bias. We see this reality when “judge and jury” play out in comment sections and news segments before anyone has even been arrested. We should ensure the public sees as many angles as possible. Otherwise, a lack of transparency creates a vacuum that state-sanctioned ideologies will fill.
Media hegemony occurs when elite groups use mass media to spread specific ideologies and narratives, thereby shaping public perception and maintaining power. We see this today when a president denies media access to press conferences or when the secretary of defense guts the Pentagon press corps without a second thought.
Violence broadcast from different angles helps create a well-rounded scene, allowing viewers to decide for themselves. However, the subtext of this persistent viewership may tell us that federal agents do not fear using deadly force for reasons beyond self-defense. It may tell us that weapons take precedence over de-escalation. Regardless of your politics, that message is dangerous, as is the weaponization of influence to create fear.
