How much death do you want?
Discussion
Maybe I'm just getting old and the acknowledgement that life is bloody short has really started kicking in, but over the last year or so I've found myself becoming increasingly sensitive to what appears to be a push by newspapers to share death in the most graphic way possible with their readers.
Earlier this week, a newspaper carried an article about an airshow stuntman. His show involved wing-walking on a bi-plane and then jumping up to grab hold of the skids under a helicopter flying above him. He'd then be whisked away by the helicopter, whilst hanging underneath.
His show had gone fine the first day, but the second day it was windier. The article recounts eye-witness statements about the weather and how it seemed that he was having to try too hard to achieve the jump. In fact, he missed the first couple of attempts. Third time, big jump, misses the helicopter and falls away from the plane too. The newspaper carried a photo which showed a helicopter above the plane and then this guy twenty feet or so below the plane. Reasonably sharp photo...of a guy falling to his death.
I didn't want to see that photo. As far as I was concerned, the bit between leaving the 'security' of the plane and hitting the ground should have remained entirely personal to him. I'm sure no-one would have wanted to be one of the immediate crowd at such an occurence.
A day or so later, there was a report from Tripoli. The article reported that Gaddafi-loyal snipers had killed two young boys. The photo showed the two bodies in the back of a pick-up truck, covered up to their necks; they looked 7-11 years old.
One of the boys had his head held up/supported by a man I assume to be his father; clearly distraught. As is usual, a large crowd were gathered round this scene. But, this poor lad, innocently shot dead and paraded before the world, the colour drained from his face, had his eyes slightly open. The photo was macabre, I can think of no other word.
I didn't want to see such a photo of a murdered child. I'm happy to have such atrocities reported, but do we really need the photos?
A year or so ago, I wrote to the London morning free-rag 'Metro', complaining of a similarly inappropriate (IMHO, naturally) image. The paper is as popular with kids on their way to school as it is with commuters and I just didn't feel it was acceptable. The editor's response was along the lines of 'yeah, sorry about that, but we get much worse pics turn up here in the office'.
Has the Press' approach changed over the last few years?
Does anyone else recoil at such open publication of these images?
Earlier this week, a newspaper carried an article about an airshow stuntman. His show involved wing-walking on a bi-plane and then jumping up to grab hold of the skids under a helicopter flying above him. He'd then be whisked away by the helicopter, whilst hanging underneath.
His show had gone fine the first day, but the second day it was windier. The article recounts eye-witness statements about the weather and how it seemed that he was having to try too hard to achieve the jump. In fact, he missed the first couple of attempts. Third time, big jump, misses the helicopter and falls away from the plane too. The newspaper carried a photo which showed a helicopter above the plane and then this guy twenty feet or so below the plane. Reasonably sharp photo...of a guy falling to his death.
I didn't want to see that photo. As far as I was concerned, the bit between leaving the 'security' of the plane and hitting the ground should have remained entirely personal to him. I'm sure no-one would have wanted to be one of the immediate crowd at such an occurence.
A day or so later, there was a report from Tripoli. The article reported that Gaddafi-loyal snipers had killed two young boys. The photo showed the two bodies in the back of a pick-up truck, covered up to their necks; they looked 7-11 years old.
One of the boys had his head held up/supported by a man I assume to be his father; clearly distraught. As is usual, a large crowd were gathered round this scene. But, this poor lad, innocently shot dead and paraded before the world, the colour drained from his face, had his eyes slightly open. The photo was macabre, I can think of no other word.
I didn't want to see such a photo of a murdered child. I'm happy to have such atrocities reported, but do we really need the photos?
A year or so ago, I wrote to the London morning free-rag 'Metro', complaining of a similarly inappropriate (IMHO, naturally) image. The paper is as popular with kids on their way to school as it is with commuters and I just didn't feel it was acceptable. The editor's response was along the lines of 'yeah, sorry about that, but we get much worse pics turn up here in the office'.
Has the Press' approach changed over the last few years?
Does anyone else recoil at such open publication of these images?
There is increasingly a need for sensationalism and bad news in order to sell papers/incease viewer numbers, or so the industry seems to think. It's not just you who's noticed mate. It seems that even the "quality" newspapers have gone this way to a certain extent.
I don't bother reading the paper very often anymore. It's either depressing or celebrity s
te, occasionally someone has left a copy of the sun or the metro in the khazi at work, this passes the time and goes with the current affair I am dealing with at that moment.
I wake up to the news, see what's going on in the world in a 6/7am snapshot of headlines and then get on with my day.
IIRC somebody tried to set up a "good news" paper some years back and it was a total flop. People are addicted to bad news, media hype, celebrity trash and all sorts of other bks I have no inclination towards.
I don't bother reading the paper very often anymore. It's either depressing or celebrity s
te, occasionally someone has left a copy of the sun or the metro in the khazi at work, this passes the time and goes with the current affair I am dealing with at that moment.I wake up to the news, see what's going on in the world in a 6/7am snapshot of headlines and then get on with my day.
IIRC somebody tried to set up a "good news" paper some years back and it was a total flop. People are addicted to bad news, media hype, celebrity trash and all sorts of other b
ks I have no inclination towards.The media and its obsession with grieving relatives is quite macabre (sp?)
I really dont get why we need to see a dead child or his/her mother/father clearly in a state of total grief its sick IMO.
ETA: I very rarely watch the news or read newspapers too as its far too depressing or vapid.
I really dont get why we need to see a dead child or his/her mother/father clearly in a state of total grief its sick IMO.
ETA: I very rarely watch the news or read newspapers too as its far too depressing or vapid.
Council Baby said:
IIRC somebody tried to set up a "good news" paper some years back and it was a total flop. People are addicted to bad news, media hype, celebrity trash and all sorts of other bks I have no inclination towards.
ks I have no inclination towards.
But I'm not on a crusade for good news. And I love that we have a press that can print whatever their journalists discover is going on here or abroad. It's really just this approach of replacing or adding inappropriate images on top.
The 'what has been seen' memes are so appropriate in this sense.
It's tricky isn't it?
Some shots, for example of the many bodies in the extermination camps, show humanity in its worst state, and hopefully prevent such things happening again (of course they don't but we have to try!).
I would just say if you don't want to watch/see this kind of thing, then don't look. Society has always been brutal, life is brutal, we are about the most civilised we have ever been (hard to believe but there we go), people used to go to Gladiatorial games to see death in action.
Some shots, for example of the many bodies in the extermination camps, show humanity in its worst state, and hopefully prevent such things happening again (of course they don't but we have to try!).
I would just say if you don't want to watch/see this kind of thing, then don't look. Society has always been brutal, life is brutal, we are about the most civilised we have ever been (hard to believe but there we go), people used to go to Gladiatorial games to see death in action.
Jasandjules said:
It's tricky isn't it?
Some shots, for example of the many bodies in the extermination camps, show humanity in its worst state, and hopefully prevent such things happening again (of course they don't but we have to try!).
I would just say if you don't want to watch/see this kind of thing, then don't look. Society has always been brutal, life is brutal, we are about the most civilised we have ever been (hard to believe but there we go), people used to go to Gladiatorial games to see death in action.
Is it as easy as 'just not look', though? I love the news - have it on all the time - and love reading the paper. If, god forbid, the worst happens, then I'd like to at least be informed about it. I just don't want to see grotesque pictures without warning.Some shots, for example of the many bodies in the extermination camps, show humanity in its worst state, and hopefully prevent such things happening again (of course they don't but we have to try!).
I would just say if you don't want to watch/see this kind of thing, then don't look. Society has always been brutal, life is brutal, we are about the most civilised we have ever been (hard to believe but there we go), people used to go to Gladiatorial games to see death in action.
Jasandjules said:
It's tricky isn't it?
Some shots, for example of the many bodies in the extermination camps, show humanity in its worst state, and hopefully prevent such things happening again (of course they don't but we have to try!).
I would just say if you don't want to watch/see this kind of thing, then don't look. Society has always been brutal, life is brutal, we are about the most civilised we have ever been (hard to believe but there we go), people used to go to Gladiatorial games to see death in action.
But there's the thing, they chose to go. Some shots, for example of the many bodies in the extermination camps, show humanity in its worst state, and hopefully prevent such things happening again (of course they don't but we have to try!).
I would just say if you don't want to watch/see this kind of thing, then don't look. Society has always been brutal, life is brutal, we are about the most civilised we have ever been (hard to believe but there we go), people used to go to Gladiatorial games to see death in action.
I've seen all manner of gruesome human acts on the internet, but I chose to view them. It's pretty hard to read a newspaper if you're not really sure whether you want to turn the page.
I disagree to a certain extent. Yes the stuntman death was a little un called for, and was voyeristic in nature. However, the press of western countries has for years failed to adequatly show images of death to its readers/viewers, to the extent that we could care less when our governments drop bombs on 'forign' people far away.
Perhaps if we weren't so well 'protected' for our own good, we might be a little bit more concerned when 'our' government sticks it nose in somewhere it really shoudln't? War is brutal, but most people only see far off images like a video game.
Our press often censors the very worst material, and I wonder how much is government led?
On the other hand, many forign media often show the brutal reality in all its gore.
Theres always the off button on course.
Perhaps if we weren't so well 'protected' for our own good, we might be a little bit more concerned when 'our' government sticks it nose in somewhere it really shoudln't? War is brutal, but most people only see far off images like a video game.
Our press often censors the very worst material, and I wonder how much is government led?
On the other hand, many forign media often show the brutal reality in all its gore.
Theres always the off button on course.
V8mate said:
But I'm not on a crusade for good news. And I love that we have a press that can print whatever their journalists discover is going on here or abroad. It's really just this approach of replacing or adding inappropriate images on top.
The 'what has been seen' memes are so appropriate in this sense.
Council Baby said:
V8mate said:
But I'm not on a crusade for good news. And I love that we have a press that can print whatever their journalists discover is going on here or abroad. It's really just this approach of replacing or adding inappropriate images on top.
The 'what has been seen' memes are so appropriate in this sense.
I agree, I found these two images very disturbing, especially the bearded father raising the lifeless head of his dead son. Very very hard to shake that image this week.
That along with a video clip I saw once on the News at Ten some years ago of a father and son being picked off by snipers in or around the Gaza strip. I think the son went first and than the father was holding him until he was picked off too.
I cried watching that.
That along with a video clip I saw once on the News at Ten some years ago of a father and son being picked off by snipers in or around the Gaza strip. I think the son went first and than the father was holding him until he was picked off too.
I cried watching that.
Agree 100% with the OP
Also utterly fed up with charity doom and gloom adverts
Yes, I know people/children are dying/starving/abused etc but I really dont need to be reminded of this fact EVERY set of adverts without fail, if anything it makes me LESS likely to donate
All this, in newspapers and ads just utterly depresses me
Also utterly fed up with charity doom and gloom adverts
Yes, I know people/children are dying/starving/abused etc but I really dont need to be reminded of this fact EVERY set of adverts without fail, if anything it makes me LESS likely to donate
All this, in newspapers and ads just utterly depresses me
AngryApples said:
Agree 100% with the OP
Also utterly fed up with charity doom and gloom adverts
Yes, I know people/children are dying/starving/abused etc but I really dont need to be reminded of this fact EVERY set of adverts without fail, if anything it makes me LESS likely to donate
All this, in newspapers and ads just utterly depresses me
I agree totally with regards to charities advertising strategies.Also utterly fed up with charity doom and gloom adverts
Yes, I know people/children are dying/starving/abused etc but I really dont need to be reminded of this fact EVERY set of adverts without fail, if anything it makes me LESS likely to donate
All this, in newspapers and ads just utterly depresses me
Its probably only used to get the gullible/guilty or even the ignorant to donate.
V8mate said:
But there's the thing, they chose to go.
I've seen all manner of gruesome human acts on the internet, but I chose to view them. It's pretty hard to read a newspaper if you're not really sure whether you want to turn the page.
I don't read newspapers..... I didn't know they had such macabre pictures in them such as this I must confess.I've seen all manner of gruesome human acts on the internet, but I chose to view them. It's pretty hard to read a newspaper if you're not really sure whether you want to turn the page.
IMHO we have progressed to far down the so called "freedom of the press" " people have a right to know" route. We are bombarded daily with truely shocking images to the point that I find myself mindlessly watching Treehouse TV with my 3 year old instead of so called mainstream adult TV.
Why do I need to see graphic images of any nature ( death, sex. pain, suffering etc ) we all know it exists, we are all pretty much aware just how bad it can be so leave it there. Some things are best left up to ones imagination!!
Why do I need to see graphic images of any nature ( death, sex. pain, suffering etc ) we all know it exists, we are all pretty much aware just how bad it can be so leave it there. Some things are best left up to ones imagination!!
Council Baby said:
There is increasingly a need for sensationalism and bad news in order to sell papers/incease viewer numbers, or so the industry seems to think.
From an album released in 1989Nothing new, sadly.
Its only in the west we are so hidden, or removed, from death. Go most other places in the world and you see a lot more of it, its just accepted as part of life. Personally it doesnt really bother me, there are lots and lots of horrible things in the world, but hiding them from us doesnt help resolve them. As long as articles are balanced (im talking mainly about animal rights articles where ALL farmers are murderers and ALL chickens are kept in super small cages etc) then images should be published.
Some of the most famous images of our time deal with death, people dying, or abuse. If they were hushed by the media nothing would happen, nobody would care - which would be a far sadder state for humanity rather than someone being offended by seeing a dead body. One day you will look like that too.....
Some of the most famous images of our time deal with death, people dying, or abuse. If they were hushed by the media nothing would happen, nobody would care - which would be a far sadder state for humanity rather than someone being offended by seeing a dead body. One day you will look like that too.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff