Revolution in the middle east Page 49

  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

  • kalel 20 Oct 2011 16:59:58 86,240 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Anyway, beeb have made a calculated and tactical decision to do what they did, which imo may well have weighed up the possibility of causing lots of offence translating into more page clicks.
  • nickthegun 20 Oct 2011 17:00:36 58,782 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Blaketown wrote:
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    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?

    Same reason they would care if they showed a picture of a cock in a mouth.

    To be fair, I do actually expect to see that on a *lot* of sites I visit.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • bzzct 20 Oct 2011 17:01:11 1,725 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    bzzct wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    There is standadised ethical code of practice for the press.
    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.

    Agreed. But to say “There's such single entity as "the news", let alone a single set of guidelines” is inaccurate.
    It's really not. I assume you're referring to the PCC Code of Practice, but that a) is just a UK thing, b) is for newspapers and magazines and c) I don't think says anything about graphic content, so I don't really see how it's relevant.
  • kalel 20 Oct 2011 17:02:39 86,240 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Oh right, you're doing that thing again. Ok then.
  • Deleted user 20 October 2011 17:02:49
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    edit: Top left here

    Also
  • WoodenSpoon 20 Oct 2011 17:05:00 12,275 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    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?

    Wait...

    ...

    what

    Translation: man up.
  • nickthegun 20 Oct 2011 17:06:11 58,782 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah, you fags are acting like youve never seen a bloated and beaten dead body before.

    Uday Hussain anyone? Jesus!

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • kalel 20 Oct 2011 17:09:32 86,240 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    This does come up from time to time. I think the Beeb showed MJs dead body at one point, and there was some thing very recently about a documentary showing bodies of British soldiers in Iraq.

    It’s always hugely controversial and causes lots of offense, so I’d say it’s fairly evident that we’re not yet so blasé about this kind of thing that it can be considered the norm to show these images.
  • WoodenSpoon 20 Oct 2011 17:10:05 12,275 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    Yeah, you fags are acting like youve never seen a bloated and beaten dead body before.

    Uday Hussain anyone? Jesus!

    Essentially yeah. If you support military intervention in Libya I think it's a bit rich to whinge about seeing Gadaffi's corpse in the news.
  • Tom_Servo 20 Oct 2011 17:11:07 17,242 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I think it can be defended if you give the viewer/user fair warning about the content, but I'd say showing the image I linked with no warning whatsoever on the TV is a bit much.
  • WoodenSpoon 20 Oct 2011 17:12:19 12,275 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I would say that was a fair compromise.
  • Blaketown 20 Oct 2011 17:12:44 4,635 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    Essentially yeah. If you support military intervention in Libya I think it's a bit rich to whinge about seeing Gadaffi's corpse in the news.

    I see a glaring hole in your argument.

    I didn't support any military intervention.

    Brap, brap, old chap.

  • Tom_Servo 20 Oct 2011 17:13:12 17,242 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    I would say that was a fair compromise.

    Say what's a fair compromise?
  • WoodenSpoon 20 Oct 2011 17:14:02 12,275 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    A warning screen or whatever.
  • nickthegun 20 Oct 2011 17:14:15 58,782 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    Essentially yeah. If you support military intervention in Libya I think it's a bit rich to whinge about seeing Gadaffi's corpse in the news.

    I said to my dad the other day that anyone who supports capital punishment should be entered into a lottery to pull the switch. Like hardcore jury duty.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Deleted user 20 October 2011 17:14:30
    The Guardian had the tact to say 'WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGE' as a caption below the picture on their livefeed. They fixed it now though.
  • Tom_Servo 20 Oct 2011 17:19:08 17,242 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    A warning screen or whatever.

    They usually say a warning and then give the viewer a decent amount of time to turn over, but it was straight in on the BBC this afternoon. Now they've taken to showing it with no warning whatsoever.

    Similarly, it's on the front page of The Guardian's web site. It feels a bit like the news sites/channels aren't really thinking that these images and videos might offend/disturb some people in their scramble to get the latest news on his death.
  • mrpon 20 Oct 2011 17:24:54 28,411 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    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?

    Wait...

    ...

    what

    Translation: man down.
    FTFY

    Give yourself £5 or ½ gig, you're worth it.

  • AaronTurner 20 Oct 2011 17:25:37 7,591 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    News reporting has really plummeted in recent times, they tend to concentrate on gruesome imagery and lewd details more than the actual story itself. I remember when Derek Bird was still on a rampage killing people and the BBC reporter was describing in detail what was happening "and we can see from the body that this person has been shot with a shotgun directly in the face", how insensitive can you get? Then Sky later on zooming in on a foot of a dead person that had poked out from the covers that the police had put over the bodies. The pictures of Gaddafi sit alongside that kind of mindless reporting.
  • bzzct 20 Oct 2011 17:25:40 1,725 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I'm surprised how serious many people think an image of a dead body is.

    Edit: that sounds sardonic - I just mean I'm genuinely surprised at where some people think the gruesome line should be drawn.
  • kalel 20 Oct 2011 17:27:10 86,240 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Would you be suprised at how many people would be offended by an image of an erect penis?

    It's about how out of the norm it is, not how normal/natural the image is.

    Incidentally the cock would be considered more offensive weirdly.
  • Blaketown 20 Oct 2011 17:27:20 4,635 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I'll get over it. Not sure my 10 year old will. Hopefully my 2 year old wont understand what it is.

    Brap, brap, old chap.

  • AaronTurner 20 Oct 2011 17:28:58 7,591 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It's just a pointless image that is likely to shock and offend, there is simply no need for it. The story is "Gaddafi is dead, what next for Libya?", not "Gaddafi is dead let's all point and look at his remains".
  • MetalDog 20 Oct 2011 17:32:27 23,708 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It's a tricky one.

    On the one hand, I suspect given the chance the media would turn into Rotten.com in a heartbeat.

    On the other hand, I think in our society we have a serious disconnect with our own mortality that probably isn't helped by the tabooification of death.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • bzzct 20 Oct 2011 17:34:27 1,725 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Edit: @AaronTurner

    I think you're misinterpreting how big an issue visual evidence of a capture/death has become in circumstances such as this. The NTC previously claimed they had captured Saif, and then a day later video of him out and about appeared. Hence, them claiming Muammar had died, and them claiming he had died plus a picture of his dead body, is a huge difference.
  • Tom_Servo 20 Oct 2011 17:36:05 17,242 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    AaronTurner wrote:
    It's just a pointless image that is likely to shock and offend, there is simply no need for it. The story is "Gaddafi is dead, what next for Libya?", not "Gaddafi is dead let's all point and look at his remains".

    As bzzct says, people need visual evidence of something like this. TV news and websites should be able to show these images and videos, but with a decent amount of warning applied to them. That seems to fallen a touch by the wayside today, and IIRC happened when Bin Laden was killed as well.
  • Khanivor 20 Oct 2011 17:38:35 40,349 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Nobody has broadcast a pic of Bin Laden.
  • Tom_Servo 20 Oct 2011 17:39:33 17,242 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Okay.
  • Deckard1 20 Oct 2011 17:45:21 27,049 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Blaketown wrote:
    I'll get over it. Not sure my 10 year old will. Hopefully my 2 year old wont understand what it is.

    What on earth you showing them pictures of erect penises for?
  • WoodenSpoon 20 Oct 2011 17:46:01 12,275 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    kalel wrote:

    It's about how out of the norm it is, not how normal/natural the image is.

    I think the media is often overeager to show us the macabre in order to bump their readership figures, but I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing that we're more readily shown the grisly reality behind a foreign policy decision made by our government. That's the point I was making originally, rather obtusely.
  • Page

    of 84 First / Last

Log in or register to reply