In the news

There was a case recently where a pair of off duty squaddies made an unprovoked attack on a man in the early hours of the morning because they were drunk, captured on CCTV stamping and kicking him on the floor when he was already unconscious, and left him with serious head injuries.

Rather than being jailed however, and despite the obvious malevolence behind the attack, a letter vouching for their good character and utility to the army secured their release and re-incorporation back into their old jobs as if nothing had happened.

Watching the CCTV was distressing and frankly disturbing, and framed the incident in a much more real way; i.e it wasn't just a cheeky or provoked spot of brawling, it was malicious and wanton. I think even if the guy had died, the footage would be incredibly important in proving the real circumstances of the case, and would justify being released and shown in the media as it made the decision to free the soldiers and leave them unpunished look incredibly callous.

Compare this with the Charlie Hebdo attack where we see a more gratuitous sharing of what is cold-blooded execution surrounding an incontrovertible and obvious context i.e terrorist motivated mass murder and before even the families have been informed, seems incredibly wrong and sensationalistic.

However, it can be argued there's a lot more damaging and insidious forms of violence in the media that normalise extreme behaviour, be it Grand Theft Auto where you can knock hookers around for fun, or shitty action films reinforcing damaging stereotypes that are just another form of the instincts that lead to people sharing videos of beheadings or folk jumping out the twin towers for shock value only.

tl:dr media can appeal to our best and worst instincts, some representations of violence are sobering, others gratuitous. Most people will stare at a car wreck if its there to see...