What happens when the protagonist of the news story is five years old?
From a news perspective, this week has been full of shocking images. Not only the trains reduced to scrap metal in Adamuz and Gelida, but also the ludicrous photograph of the Royal Household with the monarchs, politicians, and the Civil Guard standing before the wrecked train in Andalusia, like a Goya painting—a combination of horror and frivolity that surpasses any imaginable manipulation. Another image that has also caused consternation is that of the Five-year-old boy detained by ICE agents in MinnesotaWhat was striking was that we could see the child's face. Under European and Spanish law, minors must be protected. They must not be identifiable, nor can their image persist in the digital realm. The child's rights take precedence over the right to information. The child's specific face was not necessary to report the facts. The shocking aspect of the news lies in the fact that it involves a child, not in that it is that particular child.
The only channel that hid the face of the detained child was La 1. Newscast He placed a black band across the top of the child's face. In another photograph, the creature was seen from a distance and behind a fence, so it could not be identified. Antena 3 News nor to Newscast TV3 protected the child's identity. Telecinco News as The Sixth News They not only included the scene of the detained child, but also incorporated a passport photograph and the image of the child's drawer at school, where another photograph of him was attached with his name underneath.
When the media doesn't blur the faces of minors, there are usually two excuses. The first is that the law works differently in the United States. The First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, carries much more weight than the protection of privacy. The other pretext is that the photograph is already circulating everywhere, both digitally and internationally. The unpixelated image has become global, and it makes no sense to erase what can be found clearly and explicitly elsewhere.
But it's not just about what the law says. Pixelating a minor's face is also an editorial decision for each media outlet. It's a way of expressing each network's commitment to protecting minors. If it had been a Catalan child exposed to social and political conflict, in a vulnerable situation, they would have been protected. All children should be considered equal, and the law in the United States doesn't exempt television stations here from respecting children's rights. It's an ethical commitment. Perhaps it doesn't cause any harm to the child now, but we can't know the repercussions this image will have on this child's future.
