Pornography of crime

[Dogbert]

I would like to start a thread about a big debate here:

Is it right for the media to show dead people / body parts or any other hard sights to the people ?

a few problems automaticly arise:

1. privacy of the wounded / dead

2. pornography (not sexual but bloody)

two examples that serve this debate are:

1. In terrorist actions here in Israel, the media shows a lot of the scene (too much to many people's taste) and have reporters waiting in the hospitals to talk with the wounded and their families.
In the Dolphinarium, then even went as far as trying to talk with the families at the patological institute when they came to identify their precious ones bodies.

2. In the terrorist action in NY, it was the extreme opposite, no faces, no bodies, nobody interviewing the families at the hospitals etc.

There are many reasons to go the first way and many against. Same for the other way.

What do you think about it, and please try to stay on topic: Pornography of crime by the media.

[The PIT]

Hard to say first reaction is no but then how do you show the crimes of the world. If you don't show pictures the people commiting the evil say it's never happened and you making it all up.
I did see people jumping out of the towers waving for help before the buildings collasped.
Should the media keep the camera rolling when a tragedy starts like the bradford fire, hillsborough?

[Dogbert]

The Pit,

A crime like fire raging is an easy one, but what about filming the last living seconds of a man shot during an armored bank robbery ?
Or in a case of a psycopath who kidnapped children and dismembered them, would it be ethic to show pictures of his deeds ? Would it be ethic to run and interview their parents as soon as they come out of the morgue ?

Should the media really jump into the bloody mess and show faces and human bits. Or like in NY, keep filming the "action" in general and not hurting the privact of the 'person'.
It may look more sterile, but it's still 'real'.

[GT98]

I know for one thing the Press in the USA (to me at least) seems to be driven by ratings, which in turn drives more adversting, which in turn means more money! If showing shocking/senslized news gets more viewers, that means that the press will do it. I have a big problem with is....the Press isnt supposed to generate news...its supposted to report it as it happens....

Scott

[Joel]

the Press isnt supposed to generate news...its supposted to report it as it happens....

In a way I see that as exactly what Dogbert is talking about.

Joel

[Dogbert]

GT98,

News means telling you that: children were kidnapped by a pedophile, telling you the background story, publishing pictures of the house and the pedophile etc.

Should the media also publish the pictures of the dead / tortured children. Should the media publish pictures of their families as they receive the dreadful news ? Should they be interviewed at once even before they have time to fully understand what happend ?

1. Isn't there a point where the media should stop and a person's privacy gets more important than "the people's right to know" ?

2. Shouldn't there be an ethical stop to what is allowed on TV ? Is it ok to show horribly tortured people/animals during hours children watch TV ? Is it ok at any other time ? Some people can be very offended by such pictures.

A line should be drawn somwhere, where would you put that line ?

[GT98]

Re: Pornography of crime

Originally posted by Dogbert
2. In the terrorist action in NY, it was the extreme opposite, no faces, no bodies, nobody interviewing the families at the hospitals etc.

Dogbert,

Just reread this...I live less then 50 miles from NYC/Ground Zero and the local news had reports of Families looking for their loved ones after 9/11, and it was the most heartbreaking things I've ever seen on TV, plus the Press coverage was 24/7 for nearly 2 weeks before some sort of normalisly came back, making it even worse to try and escape the suffering that was going on. It seems like a really bad verison of that moive "groundhog day" was happening.

Scott

[GT98]

Originally posted by Dogbert

1. Isn't there a point where the media should stop and a person's privacy gets more important than "the people's right to know" ?

2. Shouldn't there be an ethical stop to what is allowed on TV ? Is it ok to show horribly tortured people/animals during hours children watch TV ? Is it ok at any other time ? Some people can be very offended by such pictures.

A line should be drawn somwhere, where would you put that line ?

Sorry for letting this get a little off topic with what I saying in my first reply...I was stating a generalization with the US Press there and not answering your question.

Yes I personally believe that there should be some limits on what the Press should cover or show, as sometimes their reporting can turn into bad taste at times. Though I think ethics takes a backseat to Ratings when it boils down to it.

Scott

[Dogbert]

Ok, so you really understand what I mean.
The difference is that the media here would get much deeper into the interviews and shocking pictures in order to deliver the hardest punch to the people at home.

What would your reaction be if the American media would be so heartless.

I'll repeat one of my worst examples:

The morning after the explosion in the Dolphinarium in Tel Aviv the media was waiting for the families in the entrance of the pathogical institute. You could see people who didn't sleep all night long after running from one hospital to another coming to this horrible place (half a mile from my house) with last glimps of hope, and you should have seen them on their way out after their world has shattered.
Mothers were crying for their 14 year old daughters saying that parents shouldn't be burying their kids.

the next day there was a huge inslaught on the media for showing this, for turning those people most private moments into media pornography.
I think this onslaught was justified.

[Technoid]

In sweden the tv chanel 1 used to send the news right before the childrens show....(sometimes rather gory pictures)

It took only 20 years for them to wise up and move it to another channel, and it wasd know that children did watsh the news while waiting for their programs

[spoogenet]

Should it be filmed? Yes.
Should it be aired on prime time news? No.

I think it's important to document such tragedies through the filming of such horrific scenes. However, I do not feel it is appropriate to be aired during prime time news, or on any news channel for that matter. I feel the news channels should stick to the gist of what's going on, show some relevant shots that don't delve into the true horror or magnitude of the event. While the people have a need to know what's going on, the news companies do NOT provide adequate coverage to truly convey the magnitude of events, thus they should not show footage that is too in-depth for what their coverage permits. The news companies are merely trying to profit from others tragedies, they do NOT strive to help the people. They make celebrities out of mass murderers while simultaneously undermining the plight of the victims.

Documentaries, on the other hand, tend to go much more in-depth and provide a much better understanding and feel for the event, and thus should use footage that is appropriate. They are more geared towards providing the public with knowledge and understanding rather than simply profiting from other peoples' losses.

Interviewing relatives of victims, etc. is ethical, but there is a time and a place. Interviews ought to be offered without being thrust in someone's face, some people take more time than others to come forward. People will tell their story when they're ready.

Quite frankly, when I watch the news and see some of these peoples tragedies, if I were in a similar situation and a reporter came up and hassled me as they hassle other people....I'd be very tempted to smash the camera and turn the reporter into a victim. News reporters are spineless.

Where to draw the line? I say the line should be drawn at the motive. To educate the public and help them understand to prevent future tragedies, go for it. To simply profit, hassle, annoy, make celebrities, and blindly show scenes in an inappropriate setting, no camera for you!

b

[KvHagedorn]

I know for one thing the Press in the USA (to me at least) seems to be driven by ratings, which in turn drives more adversting, which in turn means more money!

Yeah worshipping god money is the de facto national religion here. Don't even mention ethics where they conflict with the "rights" of already filthy rich media organizations to squeeze more money out of people. It's a losing battle.. you're committing blasphemy against their god.

[Bohrn]

yea, seems wierd that we can show bloody horrible deaths on tv etc, but we can't show healthy happy people makin love (or at least pretending to )

[Guru]

On thing in the NY accident pissed me off and that was when a woman had just escaped from the burning towers and the first thing the fvcking reporter did (after sticking the mic up her nose) was ask did you see any blood!!!! What a freking stupid question to ask did they want her to describe how much blood and dead people she had seen or what?