Introducing the secret seekers and their eight-year quest
"If there's anything in reality that's not fun, we will change it."
Loading...hold tight!
Page
of 64 First / Last
99 problems and being ginger is one
MetalDog wrote:I was saying the same thing to my boss. I cant think of a single instance where regime change worked.
I can't shake the feeling that all our interference in this is going to bite us in the arse further down the line.
---------------------------------------------------------
AGP.SRPT
TheSaint wrote:Someone somewhere told me that when I was shooting the baddies no one actually died!
Call yourself a gamer? You should be totally desensitised to it by now.
-- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.
morriss wrote:
My actual real opinion is very insulting and unhelpful.
nickthegun wrote:Not a perfect example as it obviously eventually failed, but our meddling in Iran was pretty successful for a good while.MetalDog wrote:I was saying the same thing to my boss. I cant think of a single instance where regime change worked.
I can't shake the feeling that all our interference in this is going to bite us in the arse further down the line.
Even my boss, who is a devout muslim and up on middle eastern politics said 'some of these countries are genuinely better off ruled with an iron fist'.
kalel wrote:Does WWII count?nickthegun wrote:Not a perfect example as it obviously eventually failed, but our meddling in Iran was pretty successful for a good while.MetalDog wrote:I was saying the same thing to my boss. I cant think of a single instance where regime change worked.
I can't shake the feeling that all our interference in this is going to bite us in the arse further down the line.
Even my boss, who is a devout muslim and up on middle eastern politics said 'some of these countries are genuinely better off ruled with an iron fist'.
AcidSnake - He can't see your sig, avatar, images or vids and talks about himself in the third person because he's proper old-skool...UID 24017
AaronTurner wrote:You're approaching the question back-to-front. The picture(s)/video(s) is news - you publish by default, unless there's a reason not to. Something that's going to make people vom on sight would be a reason not to, but a picture of a dead body with some blood on the face is clearly fine to most people.
Surely you don't need a picture of a bloodied, dead body on the front page as evidence of his death though? By all means make it available to those that want to see it, but constantly showing it to everyone? Maybe I'm weak but I'm still shocked by seeing a dead body and it still makes me feel uneasy and sad no matter who it is.
---------------------------------------------------------
AGP.SRPT
nickthegun wrote:Cambodia, Japan, Germany and the fall of the Soviet Union to name but a few. Regime change is always fraught with danger but there are success stories.
I was saying the same thing to my boss. I cant think of a single instance where regime change worked.
bzzct wrote:I'm not so sure it is fine to most people. Just on a very basic anecdotal level, it's certainly not considered fine by most of my office right now.
...but a picture of a dead body with some blood on the face is clearly fine to most people.
nickthegun wrote:There's such single entity as "the news", let alone a single set of guidelines. Outlets will have their own internal discussions about it. Some, e.g. the BBC, have clearly decided a pic of Gaddafi dead is fine on a story about Gaddafi dying.
Actually, the news follows fairly strict guidelines and that is fairly close to the line of acceptability, if not completely over it.
bzzct wrote:There is standadised ethical code of practice for the press.nickthegun wrote:There's such single entity as "the news", let alone a single set of guidelines. Outlets will have their own internal discussions about it. Some, e.g. the BBC, have clearly decided a pic of Gaddafi dead is fine on a story about Gaddafi dying.
Actually, the news follows fairly strict guidelines and that is fairly close to the line of acceptability, if not completely over it.
MetalDog wrote:Yup.
I think it should always be sad when someone dies violently, no matter how much a bed of their own making it was. That's a life failed. When people are throwing a party because you're dead, you've really fucked up. That should always be sad.
AaronTurner wrote:I'm also against it, but not just for decency; we wouldn't like it if British soldiers were killed by the Taliban and then they published the pictures of the mutilated bodies across Afghanistan as a form of triumphant entertainment. If the Libyans want to see Gaddafi dead, then fine, it's their prerogative, but we shouldn't break our broadcasting standards.
Dunno why news outlets feel the need to show brutal and grim videos or photographs of a dead body. He's dead, I can get that just from the news outlet telling me, I don't need to see a bloodied body to confirm it. It's not like a report where they have to show horrors so that people understand what is happening.
TheSaint wrote:There's another one that's more explicit.
Is everyone talking about this image?
Obviously they should warn people but it doesn't show any blood or wounds.
kalel wrote:Whether or not pics of Gaddafi's body are on the front pages of the websites of major news outlets are based on internal decisions from those websites. I promise. I was in one such a discussion an hour ago.
There is standadised ethical code of practice for the press.
bzzct wrote:Agreed. But to say “There's such single entity as "the news", let alone a single set of guidelines” is inaccurate.kalel wrote:Whether or not pics of Gaddafi's body are on the front pages of the websites of major news outlets are based on internal decisions from those websites. I promise. I was in one such a discussion an hour ago.
There is standadised ethical code of practice for the press.
---------------------------------------------------------
AGP.SRPT
WoodenSpoon wrote:Wait...
I don't really see why people care anyway. People are dying all the time, everyone goes about their business knowing that; why does it become an issue if a news website carries a picture of it?
WoodenSpoon wrote:Same reason they would care if they showed a picture of a cock in a mouth.
I don't really see why people care anyway. People are dying all the time, everyone goes about their business knowing that; why does it become an issue if a news website carries a picture of it?
Brap, brap, old chap.
Page
of 64 First / Last
