KEY POINTS:
The killing of Austin Hemmings on Thursday afternoon was an instance of violence that shocked the nation.
Murders have become dangerously common in New Zealand over the past few years but this one was different. This wasn't a gang-related killing in South Auckland or a domestic incident that got out of hand.
The killing of Austin Hemmings took place in the centre of our biggest city, in broad daylight, at the hands of a stranger. From the outset, this senseless slaying was set to be a major media event.
By Friday morning our newspapers and television screens were displaying images of Austin Hemmings' body covered in a white sheet - blood was everywhere. On the six o'clock news, pictures were shown of his distraught family leaving the crime scene in a police patrol car.
But is it really appropriate for the media to provide their consumers with graphic images of human suffering, with almost voyeuristic pictures of a family's grief? Wouldn't a simple verbal report suffice? Modern media consumers have come to expect graphic pictures in their news.
In New Zealand such images usually come to us from Iraq, the West Bank or Afghanistan. It's hard to admit but the fact these pictures come from such faraway places probably lessens the disturbance they cause. The images in Friday's news were much closer to home and people were indeed disturbed. The story didn't fail to hold the public's attention.
So why do the mass media utilise graphic images of violence and death? The answer lies in the inherent morbidity of human nature.
People, though they won't admit it, can't help being captivated by this kind of stuff.
This fact was proven to me on Friday. My workstation behind an espresso machine gives me a clear view of a Herald that is available to customers. Usually the largely male clientele head straight for the sports section. But Friday was different. Adorned with the image of Mr Hemmings' body, the front page received considerably more attention than usual.
My parents can remember a time when such images weren't commonly used in the media. Murder was far less prevalent 30 or 40 years ago, so it's possible it would have been even more newsworthy then.
Despite this, the media would usually refrain from publishing graphic images. Sadly, in today's society violence is becoming dangerously "normal" - something for us to gape at in a newspaper while eating our toast.
Like many in my 20-something age bracket, I hold ambitions of having a career in journalism. So popular is the aspiration that one has to jump through hoops to get into a graduate diploma in journalism programme at an institution such as the Auckland University of Technology. Undergraduate grades must be produced as well as published examples of the applicant's writing. A two-hour entrance exam must then be sat. If the applicant does well, he or she might then be called for an interview with AUT staff, who make the final decision. Many apply but only 25 are admitted.
My application is in, but I shudder at the thought of becoming the journalist chasing those graphic images behind the cameraman. Or hunting down bereaved family members for a statement.
Such morbid media events - the likes of which we saw on Friday - really put me off becoming a journalist. Sometimes I think my soul will be safer serving flat whites.
* Christopher Adams is from Auckland.
