pictures of dead children on the star

paul666

Why does the irish star newspaper feel the need to publish pictures of 2 dead children who have been just dug up from the bangladesh landslide.
the pictures were on the 12th of june edition. I think its very wrong.
May i ask if u knew in advance that this picture was in the paper would u buy it?
May i ask do u think if it were a landslide in Ireland and if there were two dead children would they publish these pictures also?

county

do you also think its wrong to publish pics of anyone dead or just children?

tbh i dont buy any of the tabloid papers and anyone who does should expect these sorts of things in it

walshb

county wrote:

do you also think its wrong to publish pics of anyone dead or just children?

tbh i dont buy any of the tabloid papers and anyone who does should expect these sorts of things in it

I'm not too sure of your stance on the issue, but there is definitely a difference, IMO anyway.....

silvine

To sell papers and bring a more human element to an otherwise foreign and unfamiliar story.

What is your issue with the pics? Do you have a moral objection, and if so why? Some would argue that a pic like that would bring home the scale of the tragedy. Also I'm sure that pic was one of the more tamer ones they selected.

That kind of graphic reporting is quite common in the Israel and parts of the Middle East.
In the age of youtube the media is constantly debating what not to show.
Look at Saddam Hussein's execution. Fair more graphic footage probably exists elsewhere.

If it were two Irish kids they probably wouldn't publish it as the public would be more familiar wit the names, places, event etc.

There's a old rule in journalism:

"One dead Englishman is worth five dead frenchmen, a hundred dead indians and a 1000 dead Chinese" or something to that effect.

If you really object to it, don't read it, watch it or buy the paper.

Anyway, it's The Star. What did you expect?

flogen

Hmmm... not sure where I stand on this (on showing the bodies of those who died in a natural disaster - not just children).

After the Indonesian Tsunami I remember a tabloid (could have been the Star, think it was the Mirror though) showing pictures of bloated bodies on the beach. I felt it was un-necessary as the deaths weren't as a result of human cruelty (so they weren't trying to show what horrible things we're doing to each other), and the entire western world had reacted instantly to the disaster and understood the scale of it (so it's not like they needed a wake-up call).
To that effect there was no need to remind readers of the tragic events, we already knew about it and many were doing something (even just donating to charities).

In this instance there is an argument that the public weren't taking notice of the tragedy and needed to be reminded of it - but that could be said for countless incidents where 100+ people are killed by human hand or other.

I think it's a bit of a tightrope issue but I think it's fair to point out that this tragedy was reported in plenty of other places, so it's not like the public didn't react because they didn't know about it. Also I've not really noticed any call to action after people were made to realise that children were dying, so I can't see any positive effect coming from it.

haz

county wrote:

do you also think its wrong to publish pics of anyone dead or just children?

Pictures of foreign dead people are routinely published. The media (tabloids included) are far more sensitive of the dignity of local people. The same applies to people in many distressing circumstances, not just death. Dead kids definitely have a greater shock value, which is probably why they used them.