Publishing photo's of the dead

MrJoeSoap

Hi all,

I'm sure most people will have seen the video or still shots of Gaddafi in the news last week. It got me thinking about images of the dead in the media. I'm not talking about photo's of people from when they were alive and in their prime, I'm talking about corpses.

I think people may disagree with me on this point, but isn't it a bit sickening and bloodthirsty to be showing pictures of a person being kicked, punched and whatever-elsed to death in the street? Regardless of what that person did when they were alive, surely we shouldn't be living in a society where we triumph the brutal killing of, well, anyone...

What made me post this was seeing some pretty sickening photo's on the Daily Mail website this morning of Marco Simoncelli, the 24 year old Italian motorcyclist, being hit by two fellow competitors in yesterdays Malaysian MotoGP event which was later cancelled. Simoncelli died from his injuries shortly after the accident. They published at least 5 images of the crash where he was hit in the head by two following bikes whose riders were powerless to avoid him. One of the two that hit him, Valentino Rossi, was one of Simoncelli's best friends. They actually published a photo of his body lying motionless on the ground.

I realise that the Daily Mail are about as far from decorous as you can get in mainstream print media these days, but surely there are standards bodies in place to regulate this kind of thing? Is it not the ultimate in bad taste and judgement to publish photo's of somebody being killed?

Just interested to hear what people think on the issue.

Regards,
Mark

Melion

You should check out Mexican newspapers, front pages regularly have dead bodies plastered on them.

MrJoeSoap

Coincidentally, this is in the Irish Times today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/1024/1224306387122.html

Did we want to see Gadafy’s bloodied body on front pages? Media outlets must question their own motives

I DON’T particularly mind which candidate becomes our next president. But I really object to close-up photographic portraits of dead people being published in the newspapers. Even if the dead people were deluded homicidal tyrants. It’s wrong. That much used to be obvious.

irishh_bob

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm sure most people will have seen the video or still shots of Gaddafi in the news last week. It got me thinking about images of the dead in the media. I'm not talking about photo's of people from when they were alive and in their prime, I'm talking about corpses.

I think people may disagree with me on this point, but isn't it a bit sickening and bloodthirsty to be showing pictures of a person being kicked, punched and whatever-elsed to death in the street? Regardless of what that person did when they were alive, surely we shouldn't be living in a society where we triumph the brutal killing of, well, anyone...

What made me post this was seeing some pretty sickening photo's on the Daily Mail website this morning of Marco Simoncelli, the 24 year old Italian motorcyclist, being hit by two fellow competitors in yesterdays Malaysian MotoGP event which was later cancelled. Simoncelli died from his injuries shortly after the accident. They published at least 5 images of the crash where he was hit in the head by two following bikes whose riders were powerless to avoid him. One of the two that hit him, Valentino Rossi, was one of Simoncelli's best friends. They actually published a photo of his body lying motionless on the ground.

I realise that the Daily Mail are about as far from decorous as you can get in mainstream print media these days, but surely there are standards bodies in place to regulate this kind of thing? Is it not the ultimate in bad taste and judgement to publish photo's of somebody being killed?

Just interested to hear what people think on the issue.

Regards,
Mark

completley agree , the recent footage of gadaffi was gratuitious in the extreme

silvine

irishh_bob wrote: »

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm sure most people will have seen the video or still shots of Gaddafi in the news last week. It got me thinking about images of the dead in the media. I'm not talking about photo's of people from when they were alive and in their prime, I'm talking about corpses.

I think people may disagree with me on this point, but isn't it a bit sickening and bloodthirsty to be showing pictures of a person being kicked, punched and whatever-elsed to death in the street? Regardless of what that person did when they were alive, surely we shouldn't be living in a society where we triumph the brutal killing of, well, anyone...

What made me post this was seeing some pretty sickening photo's on the Daily Mail website this morning of Marco Simoncelli, the 24 year old Italian motorcyclist, being hit by two fellow competitors in yesterdays Malaysian MotoGP event which was later cancelled. Simoncelli died from his injuries shortly after the accident. They published at least 5 images of the crash where he was hit in the head by two following bikes whose riders were powerless to avoid him. One of the two that hit him, Valentino Rossi, was one of Simoncelli's best friends. They actually published a photo of his body lying motionless on the ground.

I realise that the Daily Mail are about as far from decorous as you can get in mainstream print media these days, but surely there are standards bodies in place to regulate this kind of thing? Is it not the ultimate in bad taste and judgement to publish photo's of somebody being killed?

Just interested to hear what people think on the issue.

Regards,
Mark

completley agree , the recent footage of gadaffi was gratuitious in the extreme

Nonsense, if they didn't show it, People would go to YouTube. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Although I'd have far more sympathy for the racer than a monster like Gadaffi.

MrJoeSoap

silvine wrote: »

Nonsense, if they didn't show it, People would go to YouTube.

Yes, by choice. I haven't purchased a newspaper in months but I've seen the Gadaffi images in several places.

silvine wrote: »

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Although I'd have far more sympathy for the racer than a monster like Gadaffi.

I don't buy it. That doesn't mean I can't comment on it.

opinion guy

Whilst I get where you all are coming from equally I don't think its up to the newspapers to shield people from reality. I think sometimes it is appropriate to show dead bodies cause the public should know what is happening in the world. I don't think there shoudl be any set rule as every situation is different.

MOH

silvine wrote: »

Nonsense, if they didn't show it, People would go to YouTube. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Although I'd have far more sympathy for the racer than a monster like Gadaffi.

Don't like it, don't buy it is fair enough, but it's hard to avoid plastered all over the front pages. At the very least, surely such graphic images should be inside the paper, not on the cover.

silvine

MOH wrote: »

silvine wrote: »

Nonsense, if they didn't show it, People would go to YouTube. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Although I'd have far more sympathy for the racer than a monster like Gadaffi.

Don't like it, don't buy it is fair enough, but it's hard to avoid plastered all over the front pages. At the very least, surely such graphic images should be inside the paper, not on the cover.

That'd never sell a paper.

Wildlife Actor

It's simply harvesting an economic benefit from our voyeurism. Watching gruesome death appeals to our dark side.

Not saying it's right but it's nothing new: the church has been at it for 2000 years...

monument

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/oct/31/muammar-gaddafi-national-newspapers

I agree with Greenslade on this.

It's one thing Sky showing video of the attack at first with little or no warning. But why are people so shocked newspapers would use still images to go along with a major story like this?How much do you want to be sheltered from the world?

MrJoeSoap

monument wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/oct/31/muammar-gaddafi-national-newspapers

I agree with Greenslade on this.

It's one thing Sky showing video of the attack at first with little or no warning. But why are people so shocked newspapers would use still images to go along with a major story like this?How much do you want to be sheltered from the world?

It's not a case of wanting to be sheltered, it is a case of having respect for the dead and recognising that not everyone who walks into a shop and/or opens a newspaper is old enough to properly process what these images show.

Furthermore, what is there to gain by publishing a sequence of four photo's of a dead motorcyclist being hit by another motorbike and subsequently laying dead on the ground? If this is the way the print news are going to report deaths in sport, I won't be taking part.

Joe10000

I think it is going too far, a photo of a dead body serves no purpose in a newspaper other then to sensationalise.