1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is there any need...

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by dream_police, May 30, 2019.

  1. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    steveandthedogs likes this.
  2. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    They pixelated his face then put his face picture next to it. I'm not comfortable with one picture, let alone several that the Mail think is suitable. :(
     
  3. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    I agree. It has, what appear to be videos too. I have not clicked on those so no idea what they show. I am to some extent numbed to horrible images and sights, I have seen enough trauma and death in real life, it’s the family and friends coming across this that I feel for, because they will look. After Hannah’s death I looked and saw the media reports.
    Other than that, they are exposing normal folk, young and old to such images. Yes one can search the web for all sorts if you want to. Keep it out of mainstream media though is my opinion.
     
  4. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    It might be regarded as a warning about taking hallucinogens however people who do so most likely think that they will never harm themselves.
    I am more concerned about the police or security staff who dealt with him.
    They chose to try and save him( the right course?), but prolonged his agony. If they were armed and had put him out of his agony with a close head shot then they would probably be charged and convicted of murder. What a decision.
    A popular method of suicide in London seems to be throwing oneself in front of a tube train. That is a very selfish self centered act. Drivers are traumatised by that although they never see the mangled body, and were powerless to prevent the death. How much worse was it for that chap with the fire extinguisher?
     
  5. Geren

    Geren Well-Known Member

    I used to occasionally look at the Daily Mail website, on the basis of 'know your enemy', but more and more I find it too unpalatable. This is just one example of them pushing at the boundaries of what is acceptable and actually just trampling the boundaries.
     
    steveandthedogs and Zou like this.
  6. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    The media loves barrel-scraping for a story, with little regard for the people it impacts on. In Greece many years ago, they had accident-chasers on mopeds to hopefully get photos preferably of injured or dead accident victims with as much gore and blood as possible. Somewhat more unethical versions of what the famous Weegee used to photograph?
     
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    If we're going to have a free press they must be given the right to be utterly obnoxious. Take away that right and you will soon have "rightspeak" instead of the right to speak.
     
  8. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    Nobody has said that the story shouldn't have been reported, just that nature and quantity of the images go way beyond what is necessary.
     
  9. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    ...which is why I'm saying they must have the right to be obnoxious. We all have the right to ignore them or even lambast them as we are doing here.
     
  10. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    You’d still have that thought if your wife was involved in a serious RTC with massive trauma which ultimately cost her her life, you’d accept that they are entitled on the fact that they can be obnoxious, to post any such images of her body? Try and ignore that, see if her friends and family can also avoid looking at them.
     
  11. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    When your target market is no right in the heid?
     
  12. Catriona

    Catriona Well-Known Member

    No, there is no need.
    I'm pretty old, but some things I just don't need to see.
    I'm the same with those pictures of shot wild animals that appear regularly on FB with a plea to share this monstrous act so others can see. I don't. I hide the post. We don't need to see sick-making tragedies to know how awful they are.
     
  13. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    You clearly feel strongly about this and that I can understand. I feel sympathy as well.

    The problem is that (as you probably know better than most of us) hard cases make bad law. I'd have no issue with a law against causing suffering through harmful publication but it would have to be ringed with safeguards to prevent it being misused by the Robert Maxwells and Jimmy Savilles of this world.
     
  14. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    If such images that we see on a regular basis of death and injury etc in the press, were in a film release and it was only make up and prosthetics it would carry an age limit advisory. A burning man, who is not an actor is however acceptable to show in the media (and it wasn’t only The Mail). Just seems wrong. Ok it might not be against the law, but their moral compass(if they ever had one) seems to have drastically changed. Not that long ago you would never have seen such an image on mainstream media/press.
    I thank you for your sympathy, I was only affected by a story following the inquest, and telephone calls from a publication. The story, without relevance to anyone really, appeared in news media from around the world. That is why I mean people will not avoid it.
    My thread wasn’t about my story though, as Martin said, there is nothing stopping them from doing that, but why the grotesque image? I have a couple of colleagues who have come across burning people. It is, they said, one of the most horrendous things to witness. If we want we can use our imagination, but to see dead and damaged people?
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2019
    Footloose and steveandthedogs like this.
  15. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    As Nigel has said, does the media take into account or even care about the impact that posting images and videos - even if the person's face is pixellated - is going to have on the relatives of this individual?
    What makes this report even more unsavoury, is that also included, is a photograph of the individual. One has to wonder who went to the trouble of tracking that down and indeed if the Editor can cite any justifiable reason why it 'needed' to be included in this article?
     
    steveandthedogs likes this.
  16. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    "Public interest".

    Interpreted to mean that (some sections of) the public are interested, rather than it is in the public interest to publish.
     
  17. Footloose

    Footloose Well-Known Member

    I meant to say - If the Editor can cite any justifiable reason why this mans photograph also 'needed' to be included in this article?
     
  18. beatnik69

    beatnik69 Well-Known Member

    Would we say the same about the photo of the monk self immolating in Tibet or the Viet Cong soldier at the moment the bullet enters his head?
     
  19. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Yes

    S
     
    Catriona likes this.

Share This Page