The idea of self-regulation in the Arts is an interesting one and given the process through which Magnum photos is currently going to cull unacceptable images and their tags from their million strong collection, an apropos one.

There is nothing new about self-regulation, but it has always been seen by media outlets, particularly television, radio and print, not so much about applying a set of grey moral or ethical standards but as a means of testing the boundaries of audience acceptability. Television in Australia, and I assume elsewhere, was subject to a set of codes which designated programs G-R18 based on content. The R18 one always interested me in the way it was written. Nudity and violence were acceptable if in the context of the story – in other words gratuitous sex and violence were unacceptable. Of course, TV networks took this as a challenge and were more than happy to print a retraction or apologise after the event, having established a new normal. If only a handful of people complained then the majority were obviously in favour, cynicism or indifference notwithstanding. A handful of critics could be consigned to the ‘looney’ category or at best to the religious right – neither group seemingly likely to respond to advertising messages, the lifeblood of the station. In fact, a guaranteed way to increase audience share and hence to please advertisers was to drum up a bit of controversy by overstepping loose boundaries. Live television was a particularly prevalent breeding ground of oversteppers and whatever might be said now about smutty humour, salacious jokes or even so-called practical ones played out on camera, chances are that they are seen with nostalgic rose-tinted glasses these days and a certain regret that television is now so buttoned-up. This doesn’t stop people complaining though and the advertising industry cops a regular beating over TV ads from ardent boundary riders eager to establish firmer guidelines. One I recall, for whatever reason, was a mother complaining that her toddler was traumatised by the seeming death of the Sorbent duck in a toilet paper ad. Why a toddler was watching ads in the first place raises all sorts of questions let alone of having a toddler so prescient that he or she understood the concept of death. But then again, parenting style is a personal decision.

Radio is no different. Each capital city has at least one shock-jock whose job it was to get people complaining. In the US the rights of such jocks to say anything, however offensive, is guaranteed and protected under freedom of speech. Shock jocks being sued or sacked is a rarity. They ae too good for the bottom line of the station to censure. It’s all about ratings after all. Alan Jones of 2UE in Sydney, rode out any number of complaints over decades on the basis of the public’s right to know. He certainly earned his million dollar salary as the voice of the station.

The problem currently facing Magnum though is somewhat more complex. Live television and live radio are of the moment. Whatever was said and done was consigned to history the next day as the news cycle moved on and more than likely never seen or heard again. A photo archive begins in just the same way – a news story consigned to the bin and the newspaper turned into fish wrapping that same day – but as hard or digital copy it is there as a permanent reminder of man’s injustice to man or in the case facing Magnum, man’s injustice to children.

But just where do you draw the line. Photojournalists have a moment to capture the essence of an event. Take for instance Nick Ut’s picture of the naked girl running from her burning village as it was bombed with Napalm during the Vietnam war. Pornography? Child exploitation? Voyeurism? Nick Ut simply recorded the moment as much as a testament to violence as anything. The later analysis which found fault with vaulting imperialism would not have entered his mind. The same is true of Baby and Vulture. It is a photograph of a frail famine-stricken boy, initially believed to be a girl, who had collapsed in the foreground with a hooded vulture eyeing him from nearby [Wikipedia]. The moral and ethical tribulations that subsequently surrounded this picture with accusations of inhumanity levelled at Kevin Cater, were not of the moment. Carter was there to record history, as with any photojournaiist, and not make moral judgements,. Do you now remove both of these photos from the archive on the basis that they offend public morality? Some would argue that they did more to contribute to the end of the Vietnam Wat than all of the protests put together. And what of those that tell different versions of history other than the ones promulgated by the reigniing power at the time? Every picture of WW2 concentration camps is horrific. The ones of the aftermath of liberation are one thing but the ones the Nazis took as commemoration, are something else.

Censuring the media has seldom been productive and basically has changed nothing. For all the photos of war atrocities, famines and human exploitation I doubt any of it has impinged on the collective consciousness to the extent of creating change. That the Magnum archive is being sifted for unacceptability on the basis of justifiable criticism from sections of the community, is little less than hypocrisy when the world’s porn sites continue to proliferate with impunity. Actual statistics based on web pages viewed or visitor numbers have always been hotly debated but it is suggested that the number of images on view at any one time is but a fraction of those archived. I somehow doubt that the porn industry is going to be going through a process of moral self-flagellation any time soon but then again, you never know.