A- A A+

Shielding kids from Grenfell Tower televised trauma

3 Comments
Barry Gittins |  15 June 2017

 

The tragedy at London's Grenfell Tower was marked by eyewitness accounts of people leaping for their lives or throwing babies out to people below. The unfolding grief sprawled over our screens, on the heels of terrorist attacks and losses of life.

Grenfell Tower aflameFor me, the tragedy triggered memories of a 5am wake-up call from my old man in Brisbane in 2001, asking if I'd heard. Heard what? 'Turn on your TV.' I quickly went from surfing free-to-air channels to the news channels.

The sight of planes repeatedly flying into New York towers stays with me, as does the eerie image of people choosing to leap from the buildings rather than burn. Those images are seared into the memories of billions of viewers. My father's bleary observation that 'this changes things' has proven apt, if not prophetic.

In those 'pre-children' days I didn't have to consider what to do about kids watching that scene and the countless others that have played out since in our 24-hour news cycles. But the visual playing and replaying of traumatic images have changed how we view parental responsibilities.

It's not that we had never grasped the power of the visual image. Painting and stills, photographs, had moved numerous generations prior to that of my children. Consider the 1963 images of Vietnamese monks aflame, the 1968 photograph of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan casually killing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon, the image of nine-year-old Phan Thi Kim Phuc crying in agony from a napalm dousing in 1972.

Those photographs are of course widely attributed as helping to bring about the eventual cessation of the Vietnam War. But the accumulated power of recycled horror — terror — on your television set? The impact on minds young and old? That's still comparatively new. It's still being processed and researched.

An article published online last June, focusing on the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, reported that people 'exposed to more than six hours of daily media coverage of the tragedy were more likely to experience symptoms of acute stress than those directly affected by the event'. Did you absorb that? News junkies, or those who saw extended coverage, were found to be worse off than those who actually survived the bombings.

'What was striking was the impact of this media exposure even for people who knew nobody, who weren't there that day,' said the study's co-author, Professor Roxane Cohen Silver. 'Media exposure was a stronger predictor of acute stress response than having been there.' Local academic Professor Beverley Raphael from the ANU's Australian Trauma and Grief Network specifically cited video footage as being 'much more unsettling' as it 'can stick in a child's mind more than the static images in print media or the audio in radio stories'.

 

"We choose not to sugarcoat the truth about the hatreds and inane insanities of this world, and how we treat each other. Neither, however, do we bathe masochistically in the blood that saturates our mass and social media."

 

The obvious, initial response is aversion. Obfuscation. That desire to protect your kids through denying them the means to comprehend just how sick and twisted some bastards are in this life. How bleakly and inanely some tragic situations will play out; while it remains to be seen just what went down in Grenfell Tower, some sources claim shoddy, flammable building materials contributed to the conflagration after renovations on the cheap. Who needs terrorism, when you have plain old venality?

But solely shielding children and teenagers from truths does them a disservice. I acknowledge the advice given in that ABC report: we are better off providing honest information to our kids that limits the graphic exposure, share whatever exposure to visuals and information we choose to allow with them; all the while providing balance, 'comfort and affection'. Depending on the age and maturity of the child or children, the article also suggests actively changing the subject with 'a game or a new activity'.

With our kids, aged 13 and ten, we choose not to sugarcoat the truth about the hatreds and inane insanities of this world, and how we treat each other. Neither, however, do we bathe masochistically in the blood that saturates our mass and social media. We know that they will find out what we try to hide from them, from their mates and from media. So we choose not to hide. We walk through the grief scapes with them. Turning off the bloody screens, we look them in the eye and talk about the world we are leaving them. Exposing them to life, in careful, 'shared doses', may be the lesser of ill options that ultimately protects them.

 


Barry GittinsBarry Gittins is a communication and research consultant for The Salvation Army.

 



Comments

Comments should be short, respectful and on topic. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Word Count: 0 (please limit to 200)

Submitted comments

So who shields the children of Iraq Afganistan Syria Yemen etc etc.

Irena 19 June 2017

Children should be protected from real-life horrors; nightmares, flashbacks and regression is common in these circumstances.

Eugene 19 June 2017

I agree that all children should be shielded from such horrors - whether they be in a tragedy like Grenfell Tower or the nightmares of Indochina, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, West Papua, East Timor, Libya and Syria. We can also prevent such horrors by demanding adequate safety regulations for buildings at home and that our politicians cease involving us in unnecessary wars abroad.

Andrew (Andy) Alcock 22 June 2017

Similar articles

Balance vs fairness in giving airtime to conspiracy theorists

4 Comments
Francine Crimmins | 19 June 2017

Alex JonesThe NBC has pushed ahead with its plans to air Megyn Kelly's interview with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones despite criticism from friends and family whose loved ones were killed in the Sandy Hook massacre, which Jones claims was 'staged by actors' and 'never happened'. This contentious interview has sparked a conversation about which forums should allow dissenting viewpoints and whether dangerous ideas should be given public airtime in a news context.


ABC devalues religion reporting at its peril

28 Comments
Rohan Salmond | 01 June 2017

ABC logoReports that the ABC will no longer require the head of the religion unit to be a religion specialist are more than a little surprising. The ABC has a commitment in its charter to 'reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community'. Without religion reporting from people with specialist journalistic backgrounds, the ABC jeopardises its ability to fulfil its ongoing functions and responsibilities. Like it or not, religion still plays a huge part in public life in Australia, which affects the lives of everyone.


Identity on the line in the fallout over Anzac free speech

35 Comments
Rohan Salmond | 28 April 2017

Yassmin Abdel-MagiedEven though the post was quickly withdrawn and an apology issued, the backlash has lasted more than four days. It was enough to warrant a front page story on The Daily Telegraph, a call for Abdel-Magied's dismissal by the deputy prime minister and public repudiations by half a dozen government front benchers and other politicians, including Pauline Hanson. It's ironic that the very commentators who constantly rail against political correctness are apoplectic about a woman being politically incorrect.