I don't want to get into the death penalty debate again (having already expressed my opinion on that, and it hasn't changed), but on the topic of media and how much they should show on TV / photos, I do think that there should be a limit (I'm saying the media should limit themselves out of professional ethics, not the government) on what is shown.
That clearly doesn't affect the need to inform, i.e. who has been sentenced to death and when it was performed, number of deaths in a conflict etc.
But personally I don't agree with the display of dead bodies on TV. Surely we all know what is meant by 'death', 'atrocities', etc, and we don't actually need images to understand that. There are several reasons for that opinion, one of them being the respect of dignity, i.e. I wouldn't be too happy to know (forget about how ) that my dead body was shown on TV. And that goes for anybody else's, whether family, friends, soldiers or mass murderer.
As we always see in accidents on the road, the public in general has got a morbid appetite for those kind of things, and although most reckon they shouldn't watch, they will if it is available. (and that would probably include me in many instances ).
Now I reckon there is a difference between TV shows or newspapers that take the commercial approach to show the worst (with the scary thought that it will always go further, someday we will see the cannibal cooking and think of it as 'just news'), and those, which I think have a better professional ethics, who don't (at the risk of not feeding the customer's sad needs and making less money).
I know which ones I buy and watch.
So, to answer the initial question, no.
As a further note on UK/French news, I don't think there are that much difference in the way deaths and atrocities are shown, perhaps we're even more conservative in France. But I seem to remember that 10 years ago or so it was rare to see a dead body in the news, whereas it would be rare now not to see one. Anybody else who shares the same feeling?
It is said that one of the primary reasons for the US disengagement in Vietnam was news footage showing injured and dead soldiers and in particular, body bags.
In my view we are more insulated than any society in history from disease, disability and death, and there is an argument for suggesting that Reithian broadcasting principles have done nothing to erode that insulation. Whether that insulation is a good thing or not is the big question. I'm not sure that it is. I can remember watching the live footage from Belfast of the two soldiers being ripped from their car, mobbed, and dragged off to be killed. I think for many people that sort of shock changes attitudes, and maybe that might be beneficial to the country. It's so much easier to accept (or to resign yourself to) death and dismemberment of young soldiers if you never have to watch it.
Saddam execution took place in the morning on one of the most important days in the Muslim calender - Eid Al Adha (Info - Eid ul-Adha is a celebrated/commemoration of Prophet Ibrahim's (Abraham's) willingness to sacrifice his son Ismael for God). In all other musilm countries any executions are not performed on this day.
The execution was an act of vengeance rather than justice.
Good point. However can you not achieve the same outcome (changing attitudes) by different means? Why the need to show dead bodies?
How about interviewing soldiers who have come back and lost colleagues and friends? Wouldn't they be able to convey enough emotional content (since it's what most people react the strongest to) to create that change in attitude?
I think that you can still be confronted to the reality of death in a very powerful way, without showing death itself.
Hence I see nothing really wrong with that, provided the injured have given their agreement to be broadcasted on TV.
Well, I accept your premise, but simply breaching what might be seen as an important convention does not lead inevitably to the conclusion you reached.
Incidentally, how much does this sentence "In all other muslim countries any executions are..." tell us about cultural differences?
Well, in the USA, I believe they don't execute criminals on a Sunday, so it's not uncommon for religious interference to have an impact; it's not limited to Islamic countries.
And as China performs 90% of the executions in the world, I don't think Islamic countries are expecially at fault here.
------/-------
Any one for a game of hang man????
You're easily shocked, then. And you can keep your pity; I don't need it.
Context is everything. If that man happened to be my next-door neighbour, I would be shocked. As that man was Saddam Hussein, with all the crimes against humanity he has committed, I was not shocked at all. The only thought that crossed my mind was, "About time."
I can't say I've really noticed. However, what is so bad about showing dead bodies anyway? OK , a fairly strong case could be made for not showing mutilated bodies, but apart from that I don't see why dead bodies shouldn't be shown. After all, death is an inevitable part of life, and it is all around us every day. I really don't understand why we in the West are so insulated from the reality of death. I mean, TV programmes even shy away from showing animals being killed!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks