The document discusses a film that depicts graphic scenes of violence and human rights violations. It raises questions about when images of this nature provide necessary witness to such events versus acting as "trauma porn" that re-victimizes those depicted. Viewers are advised to skip violent scenes if needed for their well-being. The film and another work examine how the medium used, such as cameras or television, can impact the message as much as the content itself. Viewers are prompted to consider how these ideas may still apply or differ with today's technologies like smartphones.

1. First off, be aware that the film is difficult to
First off, be aware that the film is difficult to watch at moments, including the very first
scene. Please take care of yourself and feel free to skip over the scenes of violence if you
need to. This raises the questions we’ve already talked about in class: when do images
provide a necessary reality check and witness (there’s a reason the organization in the film
is called “Witness”) to human rights violation, and when do such images only serve as
“trauma porn” or to re-violate the rights of those being victimized. Feel free to comment on
this issue in your e-response.What does the film tell us about why or how the form of media
can sometimes matter as much as the content of media?The film is making similar claims re:
handicams and human rights as Meyrowitz is making re: television. Both are dated, but
what do they tell us about the various affordances of different media? What can they tell us
about television (Meyrowitz’s focus) today? How can we extend their arguments into our
current mediascapes — either in contrast or in similar ways — of smart phones, etc.?As
always, these prompts are intended only as a start to the conversation; feel free to diverge
from them in whatever way you wish.