Media desensitisation(sp)

KdjaCL

With the recent death of Marc Foe i thought the coverage on TV and in print was a disgrace with pictures of him been stretchered off with his eyes rolling in his head and the sheer fact that with 30 minutes he was dead.

Now as news it could have been shown better without pictures of a dying man on the front page of every newspaper and every 20 minutes on Sky news seeing him been carried off.

Reminds me of when 2 kids drowned in D 22 and over 100 people stood looking at the lough waiting for the fire brigade to drag 2 11 dead yr old kids.

Is what being saturated with horrific images has done to society and is this how news is portrayed?

</rant over>
kdjac

davej

Is what being saturated with horrific images has done to society and is this how news is portrayed?

I think there has always been an appetite for this type of thing. People are fascinated with death, in all of its forms. Be it cheering at lions ripping Christians asunder, medieval mobs watching people being drawn and quartered, or couch potatoes looking at Iraqi's being obliterated live on Fox News.

The Romans realised that this type of thing sells, and so does Rupert Murdoch.

davej

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by KdjaC
With the recent death of Marc Foe i thought the coverage on TV and in print was a disgrace

Too right! This was voyeurism of the worst kind ........... a ghoulish pictorial recording of the final moments of a human life before its extinction. For no justifiable purpose -- only sensationialism and the agenda of increasing sales. Front page of Mirror and Sun "proudly" display the image ......... and underneath, in bold print, invite U to turn to pages 3/4 for "more pics" ??? Scraping the barrel in offensively bad taste IMO.

At least the pictorial images we see of starving people in Africa and victims of terrorist bombings raise awareness of the underlying issues but this was just pure sicko obscenity without merit or social purpose.

Chaos-Engine

Depends what type of dead people are shown on the tele...

Most people don't even bat an eyelid if that person that is burnt and dead is a non-cocasian. But if they are white you can be guarenteed they will give warnings and later recieve complaints and you will only see it on C4 documantraies

bizmark

Is what being saturated with horrific images has done to society

Every one want,s to see what happened in all its "sickness".It,s human nature and will never change .And it has notting to do with "tv and newpaper saturation"

let,s be honest here If this was 60 year,s ago we would all be up to our ball,s in our friends blood and brain,s as a 60 ton tiger tank role,s by.
Did it effect all those people in a bad way no of course not (well unless you where one of the 50 million killed) and being their is a lot worse that seeing it on tv

Then again i guess the best way to stop all the "problums" in the world is ban all "evil" pictures game,s vid.s I mean they didnt kill anyone in time,s where their where no tv,s computer,s or newpaper,s did they?

<rant over>

sorry if this got a bit of topic but im a bit sick of people saying that all the ill,s of the world are tv,s etc fault cause it not

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by bizmark
Every one want,s to see what happened in all its "sickness".

Even if "everybody" wants to see this (which I sincerely doubt) surely the media has a responsibility to exercise moral judgement in the portrayal of such images. This is about respect for the dignity of another human being on the brink of death. Even a racehorse terminally injured on the course has a screen erected around it.

You refer to the 2nd WW. Images of war in pictorial essays were very rarely focussed on the death-throes of an individual. I've no doubt that such pictures were taken but they were rightly denied publication in magazine/newspaper/newsreels of the time.

Marc Vivien Foe was a very good soccer player, a decent family man, and an all round sound fella by all accounts. He deserved better than this. His death was, of course, newsworthy but a print report of the circumstances of his death would have been sufficient. If pictures were required surely some images celebrating his life and achievements would have been more appropriate.When my time comes I would hope that my final moments were not protrayed publically for titillation and shock value.

A bit more humanity, compassion and sensitivity should have been shown by certain news orgs in this instance.

Xterminator

Originally posted by pro_gnostic_8
Even if "everybody" wants to see this (which I sincerely doubt) surely the media has a responsibility to exercise moral judgement in the portrayal of such images. This is about respect for the dignity of another human being on the brink of death. Even a racehorse terminally injured on the course has a screen erected around it.

I understand your view, but to be honest, these things are self policing.

If the average punter found the images to be offensive, they wouldnt buy the papper in question, and they will complain to the editor.

But vice versa if having graphic images sells more copies, then the next time they will print even more graphic images, in a bit to out-do the competition.

Really the morbid facination is part of the human psyche. I dont think it is new, getting worse, or anything like that. It just seems that as our media gets more technologically advanced, eg color news papers, live interactive sky news etc, then the images will be of a greater 'quality'!

X

Hip

I remember reading somewhere recently about the BBC refusing to show images of dead British soldiers. Quick search brings up:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,924949,00.html

As far as the war is concerned, I'm all in favour of showing these types of photos. A war is not a glorified fireworks display, real people die, so the consequences should be shown.

Sparks

So showing pictures of the horrific things man can do to members of his own species is outrageous and not to be tolerated - but actually doing them is okay?
:rolleyes:
I'm with al-jazera on this. Start a war and you have to see the carnage that results, lest you develop this idea that wars are clean things.

bizmark

Start a war and you have to see the carnage that results, lest you develop this idea that wars are clean things.

INDEED! war is hell but it,s a hell we should all be VERY awere of.those who watched sky,s one sided war coverage should be very awere that war isnt fought from a color tv on the front end on a 2000 pound warhead .... EVERYONE should know what that warhead can do to a human if we know the true horror of our own weapion,s we mignten be so eager to use them

cutting such coverage turn,s a real war into what apears notting more horrible than a game of counter strike with very expensive computer platforms, (A-10 anyone?)

GuanYin

Imho.....

I despise the media. I really can't help it.

I think they get away with murder. Free speech is a good thing, but when it is abused as the media in this and other countries is it makes you wonder whether or not censorship might be a good idea.

You have gross irresponsible mis-reporting and distortion of the truth, Invasion of privacy of celebrities, normal people, often in grief being harassed..the list is endless.

The sick way in which jouro's cite free press, freedom of speech and the "peoples right" is a disgrace.

Ohh now I'm angry.

Bold thread!!!

bizmark

Invasion of privacy of celebrities, normal people, often in grief being harassed

very very true such crap shouldnt be allowed im not for total freedom just not a Clean version of a dirity subject