DISGUSTING! Guardian online has a pic of Saddam hanging from a rope on its main page

I had absolutely NO desire to see Saddam freshly executed, but I did - I made the mistake of going to the Guardian online and as a stub to their headline they’ve got a picture of Saddam’s lifeless face, the noose clearly visible around his neck.

I have written a very strong email to the website saying that whilst by all means they can publish whatever pics they want, if someone is particularly disturbing (like that) can they do it in a way so people can choose whether they see it or not.

Guardian online

Agreed. The reasons for executing this person are myriad, but I don’t want any part of looking at it. Executions should be private matters.

I read somewhere that there’s a video of the execution floating around. I wonder if the Guardian pics are part of it.

BTW, isn’t the Guardian a tabloid?

Nevertheless, I agree. The man was a monster, but even monsters deserve the tiniest shred of public dignity.

No, it’s a broadsheet, and the self-professed thin blue line between us and a totalitarian New Labour dictatorship state at that. I work in government in an area the Guardian dislikes so I know what a pack of lies it is, and therefore consider it as bad as any of the tabloids.

My point was that I didn’t want to see Saddam executed but got to anyway thanks to the Guardian online. I’m less concerned about Saddam’s dignity.

The photo on the Guardian website shows Saddam in the moments before death. May not be of much comfort to you, but that isn’t his lifeless face.

It’s news. You’re reading a newspaper. What do you expect? And it’s not in bad taste. It’s the noose being put on Saddam. He’s alive and well in the pic, unless it’s been changed.

Ah. The main page (which is what I thought you were talking about) has the pre-execution photo. The article about his execution has the post-death photo.

Carry on.

Oh well that’s much better - whenever I let my mind wander and suddenly see it in my head that will make it feel far less nauseating.

I was talking about the main page - my entire point is that any pictures like that should be in areas people knowingly go into aware of what they’re going to see. The first part of the main page doesn’t fit that description.

Ah. I see. I still think it’s legitimate to publish that photo. Perhaps it should have a warning beforehand, but, c’mon, even friggin CNN has video of the exucution on their website. And I mean the cell phone one, where you see Saddam actually die. (At least they did yesterday).

Hmm. When I first followed the link (around 1:00 AM my time), the front matter showed the post-execution photo. Now (about 2:30 AM) it shows a pre-execution photo, with the previous photo available at the linked article.

I’ve seen much worse pictures on the front pages of news sites than a guy with a rope around his neck.

That doesn’t make it any better! :mad:

No, but I honestly don’t see any problem with it. What, do you just want puppies and rainbows on the front page?

Can I not have the right to choose whether I see someone executed or not, rather than having to see it inadvertantly? I was already planning to avert my eyes from all the newspapers stands for the next few days for this very reason but I didn’t expect the Guardian to mug me with it.

I really don’t think I’m being hypersensitive about not wanting to see the face of a freshly executed corpse without having decided to do so first.

I agree that such pictures are not what I want to see either.

However describing the Guardian, a respected independent newspaper with the motto ‘comment is free but facts are sacred’, as ‘a pack of lies’ is just silly.

And you seriously want to compare the Guardian with the Sun, Mirror and Star?
Strewth. :rolleyes:

The original photo was that of a face beside the knot of a noose. No eyes bugging out, no contorted expression of last agony … If it was truly horrific, I’d have said the Guardian was going for shock factor. But – not in this case.

Okay. If you don’t like seeing the fact that hanging kills people, don’t go looking at the pictures.

No, it isn’t - it’s based on my direct experience of interacting with the Guardian. I’ve spoken to their journalists and given them information in the course of my job and then read what they printed - the two nearly always bear no resemblence to one another.

Obviously I can’t say too much without giving away exactly what I do (and potentially who I am), but again I work in government in a policy area the Graun has taken upon itself to persecute mercilessly. I know the real facts about this policy and what goes on (including the damning facts the Guardian wished it knew) and I can tell you without unfairly generalising that what the paper prints about my policy is nearly always lies.

Not spin, not unbalanced journalism, lies. They have repeatedly stated as fact things that are not true, and that is nothing compared to all the comment, opinion and general journalisitic musing the Guardian has done which has been technically factually true without being in any way factually accurate or unbiased.

I’m not a government lacky or spindoctor, nor am I a zealot who believes what I do for a living is by virtue of being something I do always right (I know full well all the fuck ups that go on in my Department and if the public knew there would be mass outcry). As I’m not disclosing my identity there is no benefit in lying about this to prove a point. As far as I’m aware the Guardian lies as much as the tabloids do to further it’s own agenda. The fact that it claims to be doing it in the name of truth and justice (and at the same time saying that facts are sacred) doesn’t mean it’s not a completely hypocritical publication. You say the Guardian is respected - not by anyone who works in government who often has the bear the full brunt of its assaults.

It’s quite difficult in our current society to get the real low down about what is really true and what isn’t (especially in politics and the media), and I’m giving it to you free of charge (admittedly not in a way you can easily verify for yourself) - I hope you accept it and not think I’m just trying to paint my own picture.

It was interesting to watch the gamut of reactions leading up to and following Saddam’s execution, especially as it related to whether or not media of his death was too violent or too obscene.

Example:

I was reading Fark the other day. I’m not proud of it. I was bored.

Of particular interest was a discussion on Saddam’s conviction. Although… well… discussion might not be the appropriate word. The majority of Farkers were ecstatic this brutal dictator had been brought to justice. They made celebration. They gloated. They cheered. And made profane comments, using all manner of colourful and deragatory descriptions to paint a picture of just how much hate they had for the guy.

But they won’t actually post any articles with pictures or video of the execution, referring to them as ‘snuff’.

You had the same people who had celebrated his conviction in obscene detail just a day earlier applauding this decision. Because to some of them (and I’ve found this is true of the people I work with, too), it’s one thing to hunt a man down and gloat over his imminent death but it’s an entirely different thing to see the visceral denouement of your actions.

Okay, I’ll use words of mo more than one syllable.

I did not know that the pic of him dead would be on the main page of their site when I went to it. I had no choice to see it. I had no chance to choose. That is why I am mad.

Clear enough?