How often do you come across articles in newspapers and you wonder,
“Why is this allowed to be published? Is it ethical?”
These questions did strike readers of Berita Harian, when the local newspaper published a controversial cartoon of the fictional Japanese superhero character, Ultraman fleeing from an approaching Tsunami. The cartoon was issued in the newspaper not long after the Tsunami disaster hit Japan. It resulted in public backlash against the newspaper, as the cartoon was deemed as “inappropriate” and “distasteful” (The Star 2011).
Berita Harian eventually issued a public apology for publishing the cartoon and explained that it had no intention to disrespect the Tsunami victims in Japan. The caricature could have possibly disrupted diplomatic relationship between Japan and Malaysia, but fortunately it did not.
To some, the cartoon may seem to depict nothing but a witty remark, and I am personally one of those readers who responded by merely smiling at the caricature and flipped to the next page. This leads to the question; why individuals interpret visuals differently from one another?
Kress and Leeuwen (2006) see images in the realms of realizations and instantiation of ideology for articulation of ideological position. In other words, every image conveys a contested ideology. According to social semiotic theory of representation, signs or visuals are produced based on cultural, social and psychological background of the designers, or also called ‘social actors’. Aside from several aspects of the readers’ background, designers need to also take situational context into consideration to ensure the message is delivered to the viewers.
Publishing ethic involves media outlets to self regulate in deciding on which materials considered as ethical to be published. If media outlet were proven to be responsible for unethical publishing, government would take action by possibly revoking or suspending the publishing permit.
This case happened before to one of the Tamil daily newspapers in Malaysia, Makkal Osai in 2007 when it published a caricature of Jesus Christ holding cigarettes and beer in its Quote of The Day section. The drawing was intended to convey to that those who repent would go to heaven. The Tamil daily was charged under section 6(2) of the Printing Presses and Publication Act 1984 (PPPA) and suspended for one month by the government (Malaysia Kini2007).
References:
Kress, G and van Leeuwen, T 2006, ‘The semiotic landscape: language and visual communication’, Reading Images, pg.16-44.
Malaysia Kini 2007, Makkal Osai Suspended, viewed 8th June 2011, <http://www.indianmalaysian.com/sound/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=602>
Mei, WP 2011, Berita Harian issues public apology over tsunami cartoon, The Star, Malaysia. viewed 8th June 2011, <http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/3/14/nation/8262608&sec=nation>
0 comments:
Post a Comment