LIVE BY DESIGN | The dark allure of the Zanzou videos – what are the ethical questions?

Horror movies are the most watched and most profitable genre. What allures us to watch disturbing movies? At least they are fiction, and in choosing to watch them, we think we are not harming anyone else.

But what about when horrific videos circulate on social media that depict real life with real people? How do we, as people, as media professionals, and as society at large, choose to engage? How do we live our lives with a design that includes an ethical framework that guides our choices?

I was faced with such a situation in the newsroom this week. Two people came to my office on Monday to inform me that there was content they wanted to share – potentially newsworthy but of a graphic nature. It sounded like something horrible. Their preamble was lengthy. Eventually, I agreed to watch.

Despite their attempts to forewarn me, I was ill-prepared for the material they shared. The videos depicted five young men being assaulted at a Pretoria nightclub, allegedly by bouncers. The reason? A dispute over the bill. I failed to watch all the way through – fifteen seconds on each was enough.
To distribute or not? Following what due process? We needed to gather facts and inform the authorities about the videos. We needed to protect ourselves from accusations of sharing pornographic material.

At the same time, I had the editorial responsibility to consider these young men and how they would experience the public response to the content once it was aired. I thought of their state of mind, their parents, and their friends.

Their traumatic experience had become a social media spectacle. What will happen to them after this horrific incident? How do we show news without creating more harm?
These troubling videos, characterised by their explicit nature and the abhorrent acts being committed against these people, sparked outrage and disgust across social media platforms. What makes this situation even more infuriating is the blatant disregard for the victims’ identities.

In a world where personal privacy should be prioritised, allowing such images to circulate without any effort to protect identities raises ethical questions. It forces us to confront a disturbing societal trend: an inclination to share and watch human suffering without consideration for those involved.

We live in an age where sensationalism often overshadows empathy. The young men in the video are not mere subjects for our entertainment or shock value; they are victims of violence.
The very act of sharing these videos raises ethical dilemmas about consent and agency. How were we to ensure that our coverage would not further exploit these young men’s suffering?
Our news organisation decided to do the story. We tried to frame a conversation that extended beyond the immediate horror of the violence depicted. We wanted to provoke a reflection on the systems that allow such brutality to occur, the societal norms that condone or reinforce it, and the platforms that amplify these acts without regard for the humanity of those involved.
I’m still grappling with the implications of these videos. How do we transform our collective horror into a catalyst for change, ensuring that the stories of these young men are met with an unwavering commitment to justice and support?

Much like how we slow down to gawk at the wreckage of a car accident, these videos lure us in with a morbid curiosity that often strips away our decency. We may tell ourselves we are merely spectators, but in reality, we become complicit in a culture that thrives on the torment of others.

Each view, each share, transports the suffering of the victims into the public domain, transforming their agony into entertainment. We must look inward and ask ourselves: how can we actively protect ourselves from exposure to such graphic material and foster a culture that discourages its circulation? Firstly, we must establish boundaries regarding the types of content we consume and share online. Engaging in open discussions with loved ones about the implications of sharing such videos is crucial. By collectively deciding to refrain from sharing this content, we send a unified message that victimisation in any form is unacceptable.

Secondly, we can support organisations that advocate for the dignity and privacy of victims, ensuring they have a platform to voice their concerns without being subjected to further humiliation. Reflecting on the devastating consequences of such acts of violence brings us to the issue of shame. These young men have already endured severe trauma at the hands of their aggressors, and now, with the proliferation of these videos, they face a second victimisation—the loss of their dignity and privacy.

Sharing these videos communicates a sense of indifference toward their plight, reducing complex human beings to mere spectacles of suffering. The psychological impact of such shame can be catastrophic, leading to long-term emotional scars as they grapple with their identity in the wake of being publicly exposed. Thirdly, it is therefore vital to initiate conversations with our loved ones about the ramifications of sharing violent content. We must emphasise the importance of empathy, urging each other to consider the victims’ humanity behind the screen. Discussions can focus on how sharing such content can perpetuate a cycle of violence and desensitisation, undermining our collective responsibility to protect those who are vulnerable.

Let us shift the narrative from voyeurism to compassion, encouraging one another to support victims and seek justice rather than indulging in sensationalism. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting the dignity of those affected by such tragedies.