# DISGUSTING! Guardian online has a pic of Saddam hanging from a rope on its main page **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 1, 2007, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283 "2007-01-01T09:38:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2007, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/41 "2007-01-01T19:13:12Z")
Your criticism of the Guardian is pretty much the same as of any major broadsheet. Having worked as a reporter, and been on the news-control side of marketing (and now delivery of government projects), they’re all the same lying cheating whores. It just so happens that the Grauniad’s editorial stance is in opposition to what you do. Could be a different paper, just happens to be the Guardian. As for putting the image on the front page: the Guardian didn’t “force” you to look at it; you visited the site voluntarily. The Guardian does this kind of thing - you should know that. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/42 "2007-01-01T19:32:25Z")
[QUOTE=El Cid Viscoso] As one who is required by his chosen profession to see the bona fide video (not the cell version), I must say his death was quite swift and merciful. In that regard it’s a far cry from our American methods. The grainy picture at the Guardian is really tame, though. How anyone could be offended by it is a mystery to me. [/QUOTE] I finally saw the picture the OP was talking about by hitting one of the linked articles, and I don’t know either how anybody could be offended by it. I guess my position on this is that a newspaper has a duty to preserve history and report the news. In my opinion, it’s not only a newspaper’s right to publish those pictures, it’s their _duty._ I think they’re historically significant enough, and visual confirmation of such an event is important enough, that a newspaper must publish it. I don’t respect newspapers who sanitize the news and are afraid of printing graphic images and publishing foul language when it is completely necessary, in my opinion of course, to do so. Should it be on the front page? I believe so. It’s the most significant news story of at least the week, if not the month and the year. I think it’s not unreasonable for a reader to realize that, hey, Saddam’s been executed, a newspaper may decide to run that image up front because, duh, it reports _the news._ If you don’t like the possibility of seeing a dead body, don’t read the paper or visit the website the day after a very major and public execution has occurred. Or just stick with the comics. My opinion is newspaper are _too_ sanitized. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2007, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/43 "2007-01-01T19:47:29Z")
Okay - I’ve got **Swallowed my Cellphone** saying I’m right and **pulykammel** saying I’m wrong for different reasons. All I was asking for was a warning saying “this article contains images that readers may find disturbing” as **cellphone** points out so I could decide for myself whether I wanted to see something I might not like, rather than sticking it at the top of the main page so anyone who goes to the site sees it straight away. I’m not prudish or in favour of censorship, just a bit of sensitivity to different people’s ickiness thresholds. **Pulykammel** - I also accept that some people might not mind seeing it, and that they can’t empathise with me. Fine, but it _did_ disturb me and I _did_ mind seeing it, even though I accept that I voluntarily went to the Graun site and I wasn’t forced to see the picture against my will or anything like that (again, I won’t be doing that again anytime soon if I can avoid it). Are you that callous to me being upset by this you’d rather argue that I should just “get over it” rather than concede that a warning wasn’t too much to ask for in this case? I won’t even get into the issue of the necessity of seeing such images with you as it looks like we’re not destined to agree. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2007, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/44 "2007-01-01T19:55:27Z")
[QUOTE=jjimm] Your criticism of the Guardian is pretty much the same as of any major broadsheet. Having worked as a reporter, and been on the news-control side of marketing (and now delivery of government projects), they’re all the same lying cheating whores. It just so happens that the Grauniad’s editorial stance is in opposition to what you do. Could be a different paper, just happens to be the Guardian. [/QUOTE] Point partially conceded as I agree with your description of this country’s press, but (to pick a tabloid) the Sun isn’t quite so self righteous as the Graun in its championing of the truth, nor does it have as its motto “the facts are sacred”. I reiterate, I’m not just talking about biased editorial, I’m talking about lying i.e. sayings that are not true, like “this person did this” when they didn’t, or “the government paid that for something” when it didn’t. That shouldn’t be considered acceptable in a modern society, and it depresses me how desensitised we are in this country to the fact that our media does it frequently. Lots of media sources in all countries state opinions that aren’t necessarily based in fact (or even rational) but to print lies as truth is overstepping the mark in my book. If I was in charge of government comms I’d set up an office of public facts or some such that actually did prosecute papers that were shown to be telling lies (i.e. enforcing the libel laws we already have and for good reasons) as recommended by O’Bourne in his book that I linked earlier. That would make the media a little less “creative” in its editorial and (hopefully) consequently a bit more useful in the process of constructive dialogue about public services and politics. I have a horrible feeling I’m now going to be labelled an enemy of free speech but what the hell, I’ve been called worse today. ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2007, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/45 "2007-01-01T20:09:13Z")
[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus] Okay - I’ve got **Swallowed my Cellphone** saying I’m right and **pulykammel** saying I’m wrong for different reasons. All I was asking for was a warning saying “this article contains images that readers may find disturbing” as **cellphone** points out so I could decide for myself whether I wanted to see something I might not like, rather than sticking it at the top of the main page so anyone who goes to the site sees it straight away. I’m not prudish or in favour of censorship, just a bit of sensitivity to different people’s ickiness thresholds. **Pulykammel** - I also accept that some people might not mind seeing it, and that they can’t empathise with me. Fine, but it _did_ disturb me and I _did_ mind seeing it, even though I accept that I voluntarily went to the Graun site and I wasn’t forced to see the picture against my will or anything like that (again, I won’t be doing that again anytime soon if I can avoid it). Are you that callous to me being upset by this you’d rather argue that I should just “get over it” rather than concede that a warning wasn’t too much to ask for in this case? I won’t even get into the issue of the necessity of seeing such images with you as it looks like we’re not destined to agree. [/QUOTE] The thing is, you’re not the only one looking, and why does your level of sensitivity get to be the one that decides what gets a warning? Some folks wouldn’t mind a video of him swinging without a warning, while others upchuck their Cheerios at a pool of blood and bullet casings in the street after a shooting has occurred and the body has been removed. Newspapers make decisions like these from time to time (generally not every day, but depending on the size of the paper, often enough), and sometimes develop a policy – no dead bodies on the front page, no mutilated bodies, no dead children, etc. This is typically fine for local, regionally-significant or national/international-but-not-extremely-important deaths. Breaking, nationally- (or internationally-) significant news throws it all out the window. You don’t really have a policy in place for what to do if a dictator is hanged, because it really doesn’t happen all that often. Same deal with Oklahoma City (firefighter carrying the bloody baby) or 9/11 (numerous photos, including the people peering from the gashes in the buildings, and the ones of people jumping). Consider the famous photo shot by Richard Drew of the man falling headfirst, with the vertical lines of the still-standing WTC building behind him ([you probably know the one, but here it is](http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/drew.htm)). Here is part of what the photographer had to say about taking that photo: > [@](#): > > There are two newspapers that have had their ombudsman write stories about the picture, explaining why they used the photograph. The Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Fort Worth Star Telegram. They received a lot of complaints, and that is only two I know about that were complaining about the picture. Our readers e-mailed and phoned, and complained that they didn’t want to see this over their morning corn flakes. This was a very important part of the story. It wasn’t just a building falling down, there were people involved in this. This is how it affected people’s lives at that time, and I think that is why it’s an important picture. I didn’t capture this person’s death. I captured part of his life. This is what he decided to do, and I think I preserved that. So here’s a photo of a man who definitely isn’t dead, but will certainly be very shortly. He’s pretty well unidentifiable by the average reader in the photo. Was it wrong to run without a warning? Some readers thought so. Many didn’t. Anyhow, I guess my point is that everybody has a line, and why should the media pander to yours rather than mine, rather than the old lady next door, rather than the punk kid down the street, and so on. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who’s asking), yours really doesn’t matter much unless you own a press. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2007, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/46 "2007-01-01T20:09:44Z")
[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus] Are you that callous to me being upset by this you’d rather argue that I should just “get over it” rather than concede that a warning wasn’t too much to ask for in this case? [/QUOTE] Well, I guess yes. I think it’s not unreasonable to expect a newspaper to publish a gory image when news value dictates it, and by taking the chance of opening or reading a particular newspaper, you agree to that possibility. If not, stick with papers that, as a policy, do not publish such things. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2007, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/47 "2007-01-01T20:16:27Z")
[QUOTE=pulykamell] Well, I guess yes. I think it’s not unreasonable to expect a newspaper to publish a gory image when news value dictates it, and by taking the chance of opening or reading a particular newspaper, you agree to that possibility. If not, stick with papers that, as a policy, do not publish such things. [/QUOTE] Fine, although the more I read the UK’s press the more I wonder if it wouldn’t just be easier to give up reading them entirely and stick to blogs/non-established news sources (at least I’m not expecting them to be 100% accurate so won’t be disappointed). ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/48 "2007-01-02T02:08:09Z")
[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus] Fine, although the more I read the UK’s press the more I wonder if it wouldn’t just be easier to give up reading them entirely and stick to blogs/non-established news sources (at least I’m not expecting them to be 100% accurate so won’t be disappointed). [/QUOTE] You sound like Marvin the Robot from “Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy”… Marvin: How am I? Depressed. A brain the size of a planet and all they get me to do is open doors… ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/49 "2007-01-02T02:26:28Z")
> [@glee](#): > > Firstly comparing the Guardian to tabloids, then saying you meant ‘they both have an agenda’ is still silly. > English tabloids publish stories about a Princess Diana conspiracy, about Freddie Starr eating a hamster and about a WW2 bomber being found on the Moon. They have daily topless pictures of women and advertise porn services. They give far more space to horoscopes and gossip columns than to foreign news. They are owned by tycoons who have personal financial and political objectives and will sack editors who fail to toe the line. > [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > The Guardian ran a story fairly recently about my policy area that was positive for a change - my colleagues and I were quite surprised. It transpired that it had been written by a new journalist who didn’t realise the paper had an editorial position on my policy and was reported to have been bollocked by one of the editors for putting out a piece that was positive against without him having had a chance to change it. Not fired for failing to toe the line, perhaps, but there is clearly as much a line to toe at the Guardian as there is in other publications, charitable trust or no, and the facts clearly be damned. So you ignore my point about the difference between the tabloids and the Guardian? Also your claim that the Guardian is a ‘pack of lies’ seems to rest on the fact you don’t like their stories about your department. Have you got any other stories which show the paper is constantly lying? How does Private Eye treat your department? > [@glee](#): > > The Guardian is owned by a trust and has the motto ‘comment is free but facts are sacred’. it was the first English paper to have a corrections editor, dedicated to spotting, correcting and admitting mistakes. > [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > Quite so, however it doesn’t stop them printing lies and factual inaccuracies (the two are effectively the same) as well as unbalanced and prejudiced journalism which is often at odds with reality (which is different but just as bad in that it misinforms people). Our press office has many times pointed out their errors and when they blatantly twist the truth, and sometimes they print the letters we send them demonstrating that. They’re duly printed in small type on page 85, usually without any context to indicate why the paper said something that was wrong. So you still see no difference between the Guardian and the tabloids again then? Do you see many retractions in tabloids? Also how often do they get successfully sued? As for admitting mistakes, how good is your Department? > [@glee](#): > > Next comes your anonymous opinion that the Guardian lies about the area of Government policy despite being briefed by you directly. > I can sympathise that there is a reason to stay anonymous on the Internet, but you damage your own case by admitting that there are damning facts and Departmental fuckups that you are keeping secret from the press. > You could also explain what you mean by ‘technically factually true without being in any way factually accurate’. > [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > Every organisation in the world fucks up - fact. There is not a single organisation, malevolent or benign, that is run effectively 100% of the time without making a single mistake. Believe it or not it’s quite difficult to govern a country as developed and complex as the UK with it’s 55 million population without things going wrong, or hindsight showing that we didn’t always make the right decision. Gosh. Actually I read the Guardian, so I do know how the country is governed. :rolleyes: So you admit your Department fucks up and you don’t like the Guardian pointing it out? And what do you mean by ‘technically factually true without being in any way factually accurate’? Give an example. > [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > It’s because of the extremely hard efforts of people like me and my colleagues that this country is in as good shape as it is - and I just know you’re going to start throwing things at me in the form of “what are you talking about, this country is falling to bits!” or some such, but last time I checked no-one was being killed here for speaking out against the Government (in fact you can make a career out of it, look at Richard Littlejohn), people don’t die in the gutter because they can’t afford medical treatment and it’s generally considered wrong to hurt other people, and our almost entirley uncorrupt legal system makes sure people that do are punished as much as they can be - most countries outside of Europe can’t claim the same thing. The fact that the government fucks up, like everyone, doesn’t mean the Guardian is telling the truth about what the government does. We hide these fuck ups because the public outcry against them doesn’t actually fix them. You must be a speech writer for John Prescott. 😃 This is a load of strawman arguments, followed by a repeat of your confession that you hide your incompetence from the public. You think that your efforts make the country wonderful because no-one gets killed for speaking out against the Government? :smack: Is that your job? 😕 When did someone last get killed for speaking out against the Government? When did people die in the gutter under a previous administration? When was it considered right to hurt other people? As for the wonderful legal system, perhaps you could comment on the deaths at Deepcut barracks, or the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes: ‘For the last eight months reporter Ross McWilliam has had exclusive access to the families of the four dead soldiers, as they have fought to uncover the truth.’ > **[BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Bullied to death?](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/2512001.stm)** > > Panorama investigates the deaths of four young soldiers found shot dead at Deepcut Army barracks and asks if a culture of bullying is driving new recruits to suicide, or worse - if there is a killer on the loose. ‘The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which investigated the case, had recommended that the two officers should face criminal charges according to the BBC. But earlier this month prosecutors decided to take no action.’ > **[Latest news and today's top stories | Yahoo News UK](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/)** > > Keep up-to-date with what's going on in the UK and around the world with the top headlines and breaking news from Yahoo and other publishers. > [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > The media called for the head of Charles Clarke by repeatedly shrieking he was personally responsible for everything that was going wrong in the immigration service, and it got it. Does that mean that the problems in the immigration service are instantly gone? Nope, it means there was a new Home Secretary appointed; that actually changes a lot less than you think, and what it does change isn’t necessarily good - John Reid wasted no time in scoring a few points publicly by saying the Home Office wasn’t “fit for purpose”, thereby damaging the morale or an already beleaguered organisation and consequently probably making things worse. So tell me, did the media’s contribution to the issue of immigration make the situation better or worse in the name of the truth? Please, I’d like to know what you think on this. How does this prove the Guardian writes a pack of lies? Why do you introduce such waffle? > [@glee](#): > > Sadly I can tell you that I believe the Guardian is far more likely to be truthful than the current Government. I offer Robin Cook’s resignation speech, faithfully reported by the Guardian, as opposed to the Government’s complete assurance that the Iraq war was about WMD’s, especially those ready to fire on UK bases within 45 minutes. > [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > I need to make an important distinction, one that is often lost on most people who work outside politics (please pay attention to the letter cases used from this point onwards as it’s very relevant). There is the Government (the body composite of politicians, namely MPs and Lords, who are currently the party in power and act as the main executive - at the moment New Labour headed by Tony Blair) and there is the government (the civil service and subsidiary administrative offices that actually run things). I work in the latter, and I can assure you that we in the civil service have to be truthful and honest at all times because if we don’t we’re nailed to the wall for it (professionally and publicly). Civil servants who are corrupt or lie are very quickly found out and removed or assigned to “special projects” where they can’t do any damage if it’s not possible to get rid of them - knowing you could lose your job is a pretty powerful disincentive against lying. Given the sheer number of monsters who run the private companies and corporations of this planet, happily and very visibily destroying the world for their own benefit and enrichment and getting rewarded for it financially (or in some cases being elected into positions of power) I sleep quite soundly at night knowing that I’m on the right side. Oh, for fucks sake. How old are you? I’ve worked in three Government departments. I’ve discussed education with William Hague (when he was Leader of the Opposition). I’ve helped push a successful campaign through Parliament. I’ve watched ‘Yes, Minister’ and read various political memoirs. And in other professions, people get fired for incompetence. You admit that it’s not possible to do that with some civil servants. And I repeat: How does this prove the Guardian writes a pack of lies? Why do you introduce such waffle? > [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > I’m sorry if my desire to remain anonymous annoys you, but given that I could potentially be fired for stating any views of the Government (not the government) that contradicts the public line I’m clear it’s the right thing to do. Read this for more detail on why I’d be breaking the rules of my profession to say who I am whilst saying what I really think. Given that the latter is more important than the former to me, I’ll stay nameless. Have you even bothered to read what I wrote? :rolleyes: I sympathised with your reason for staying anonymous. And I’ve signed the Official Secrets Act several times and know what the implications are. I would tell you about the time MI5 approached me to spy on the Soviet Embassy 🆒 , but your security clearance is undoubltedly too low. ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/50 "2007-01-02T04:40:33Z")
[QUOTE=Illuminatiprimus] Fine, although the more I read the UK’s press the more I wonder if it wouldn’t just be easier to give up reading them entirely and stick to blogs/non-established news sources (at least I’m not expecting them to be 100% accurate so won’t be disappointed). [/QUOTE] That would probably be a good choice. You certainly wouldn’t be in danger of being duped by fabricated stories like the ambulance the Israelis supposedly destroyed by missile fire in the recent Lebanon conflict. Perhaps about half SDMB members have one or more newspapers that they fervently believe tells them the truth. A popular pick for dopers would be the Washington Post (owned by Katherine Meyer Graham, to mention an irrelevent fact). The taxpayer subsidised (via the BBC) Guardian would probably have a similar level of emotional support. You’d get more sympathy attacking a paper similar to the Washington Times (owned by Rev Moon. This is considered by many dopers to be a highly relevant fact and a sure fire ad hominem debate winner for those who try to “refute” any quotes from that source). I have also worked in government for many years. The media have never once reported anything about the areas with which I’m familiar with anything approaching accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/51 "2007-01-02T05:26:57Z")
The OP’s behaving like a child. Grow up, please. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/52 "2007-01-02T08:01:55Z")
[QUOTE=Aquila Be] \*\*The taxpayer subsidised (via the BBC) Guardian \*\* would probably have a similar level of emotional support. [/QUOTE] Eh? Gotta cite for this? ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/53 "2007-01-02T09:19:47Z")
**glee** Okay so you know the reality of working in government - so why did you spend your entire post saying everything I wrote was wrong simply because it wasn’t addressing the question “is the Guardian a tabloid”. I was trying to widen the discussion but clearly that wasn’t welcome. **Bryan Ekers** - is it a regular strategy of yours to dimiss anyone you don’t agree with as a child? Or have you just done it to me? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/54 "2007-01-02T09:37:42Z")
I’m missing something here. Why is the OP wrong to suggest that photos of a corpse (and the Guardian were showing this for at least some period of time) are a tad inappropriate for direct display on the front page of an online newspaper, and it would be more reasonable to post a link instead? ---
**Author:** ![Garfield226](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Garfield226](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Garfield226)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/55 "2007-01-02T09:48:26Z")
> [@Gary Kumquat\[/quote](#): > > I’m missing something here. The first page of the thread? [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108785&postcount=42](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108785&postcount=42) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108872&postcount=45](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108872&postcount=45) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108874&postcount=46](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8108874&postcount=46) ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/56 "2007-01-02T10:01:02Z")
Well… reading today’s letters pages in the Guardian suggests that the OP is not alone. > [@](#): > > I was utterly shocked to see your front-page photograph of Saddam Hussein hanged (January 1). You are playing along with a culture of public executions. You might at least have put the picture inside the newspaper instead of forcing me to see it - but you should have had the decency to refrain from publishing it at all. This is not the path to peace, but the culture of vengeance. > **Helena Paul** > London > > Capital punishment ceased to be a public spectacle in this country in 1868 and you should respect that. > **John and Ann Saville** > Duffield, Derbyshire > > By publishing the ghoulish front page picture the Guardian is dragging us all into a new year that I thought could not become more brutal. > **Ken Cordingley** > Williton, Somerset > **[Letters: Shocked by Saddam](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/02/iraq.leadersandreply)** > > Letters: I was utterly shocked to see your front-page photograph of Saddam Hussein hanged (January 1). I would expect to see an explanation / justification from the Readers’ Editor in the next few days regarding the decision to show the images. For me, this is what sets the Guardian apart - their willingness to publish dissenting opinions from readers, and to justify their editorial decisions. You are unlikely to see this in the tabloid press. ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/57 "2007-01-02T10:15:17Z")
[QUOTE=e-logic] Eh? Gotta cite for this? [/QUOTE] Sure. From Hansard (equivalent to congressional record): - [Hansard link](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050309/debtext/50309-10.htm) > [@](#): > > 9 March 2005 House of Commons > > Dr. Julian Lewis: Could that institutional and cultural bias have something to do with the fact that the BBC advertises for recruitment purposes far more in the media columns of The Guardian than in all the other newspapers put together? > Mr. Whittingdale: That could certainly have a great deal to do with it. I believe that the BBC is finally trying to put that right, but of course generations of BBC employees have already been recruited through the pages of The Guardian. Pigs will fly before the BBC “puts that right”. Quite a nice safety net for The Guardian, which invariably urges its readers to vote for the Labour Party every election. (On well reasoned and rational grounds, of course. They’re unbiased, like the BBC, y’know.) ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/58 "2007-01-02T10:29:44Z")
[QUOTE=Aquila Be] Sure. From Hansard (equivalent to congressional record): - [Hansard link](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050309/debtext/50309-10.htm) Pigs will fly before the BBC “puts that right”. Quite a nice safety net for The Guardian, which invariably urges its readers to vote for the Labour Party every election. (On well reasoned and rational grounds, of course. They’re unbiased, like the BBC, y’know.) [/QUOTE] lol - that’s hardly “subsidised”! When I worked in Local Govt we used to recruit in the Guardian almost exclusively - we tried the Times and the Telegraph, but the readership ain’t public-sector focused so we literally got no replies. The BBC needs literate, educated recruits who support not-for-profit enterprise. The Guardian’s readership tends to be literate, educated and in support of not-for-profit enterprise. The arms-industry don’t tend to advertise in the Guardian - are you saying this is also something that should be “put right”? It’s like saying the Daily Mail is “subsidised” by dodgy tarot lines and the tacky porcelain figurine industry. :rolleyes: And the Guardian often encourages a vote for Lib Dems / Greens etc, and actually does a much better job of holding New Labour to account that the cartoon-Tory approach of the Telegraph or Times. ---
**Author:** ![Aquila\_Be](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a698b9/32.png) [@Aquila\_Be](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aquila_Be)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/59 "2007-01-02T11:03:21Z")
[QUOTE=e-logic] When I worked in Local Govt we used to recruit in the Guardian almost exclusively - we tried the Times and the Telegraph, but the readership ain’t public-sector focused so we literally got no replies. [/quote] Literally? I doubt that. > [@](#): > > The BBC needs literate, educated recruits who support not-for-profit enterprise. > The Guardian’s readership tends to be literate, educated and in support of not-for-profit enterprise. Do you even think about what you’re typing? For one thing the Guardian (which has a pitiful circulation BTW) readership does not have a lock on supporting literate, educated and loser enterprises. Since you have no idea what the function of a profit is I suspect you’ve never studied economics. As you’re from the UK you probably only studied its idiot third cousin, geography, where you look through books with illustrations that show icons of bushels of wheat (agriculture) lightning flashes (power stations), smokestacks (industry) appearing on a map without rhyme, reason, context or explanation of how they actually came into existance. (Hint: it was not under any “not for profit” scheme). > [@](#): > > And the Guardian often encourages a vote for Lib Dems / Greens etc, and actually does a much better job of holding New Labour to account that the cartoon-Tory approach of the Telegraph or Times. So you’re happy with the Guardian’s MXist approach? Then you’re probably even more happy that non MXists who are forced to pay the BBC that TV licence fee are not so pleased. Hell, I don’t even live in your country, but I consider the principle that people who do not support your political views should be forced to subsidise a paper like the Guardian, stalinist and abhorrent. ---
**Author:** ![Wallenstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b5a626/32.png) [@Wallenstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wallenstein)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2007, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283/60 "2007-01-02T11:23:00Z")
[QUOTE=Aquila Be] Literally? I doubt that. [/quote] Fuck off… I said “literally” and I meant “literally”. We advertised for a Director of Finance and got zero responses from the Telegraph advert (it has a reference number for tracking). That advert cost us several £1000s for zero return - utterly pointless waste of money. > [@a tosser](#): > > Do you even think about what you’re typing? For one thing the Guardian (which has a pitiful circulation BTW) readership does not have a lock on supporting literate, educated and loser enterprises. Where did I say it did? However, the Media Recruitment section is now the _de facto_ source for media appointments - you may not like it, but that’s demonstrably the case. Their online readership is also much higher than their print subscribers. > [@dickcheese](#): > > Since you have no idea what the function of a profit is I suspect you’ve never studied economics. As you’re from the UK you probably only studied its idiot third cousin, geography, where you look through books with illustrations that show icons of bushels of wheat (agriculture) lightning flashes (power stations), smokestacks (industry) appearing on a map without rhyme, reason, context or explanation of how they actually came into existance. (Hint: it was not under any “not for profit” scheme). Cunt… take your racist generalisations elsewhere. The BBC has no shareholders and is publically funded - you’re suggesting there’s no difference bewteen this and the Fox Network’s business model? :rolleyes: > [@arsenugget](#): > > So you’re happy with the Guardian’s MXist approach? Then you’re probably even more happy that non MXists who are forced to pay the BBC that TV licence fee are not so pleased. Where did I suggest this? Now you’re just being a dick. Spanner. > [@](#): > > Hell, I don’t even live in your country… Thank Christ for that… perhaps you should fuck off and find a topic you know something about then? > [@](#): > > …but I consider the principle that people who do not support your political views should be forced to subsidise a paper like the Guardian, stalinist and abhorrent. I presume then that your suggestion would be that no public body should be allowed to advertise in the press, or should advertise in all papers equally? Explain how this is remotely cost-effective, given that (as I have mentioned) Telegraph readership shows little interest in careers in the public-sector, and adverts in the Guardian have a high success rate? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disgusting-guardian-online-has-a-pic-of-saddam-hanging-from-a-rope-on-its-main-page/386283.md?page=4)