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.
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.
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.
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.
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). Here is part of what the photographer had to say about taking that photo:
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.
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.
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).
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?
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?
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.
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.’
‘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.’
How does this prove the Guardian writes a pack of lies? Why do you introduce such waffle?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Well… reading today’s letters pages in the Guardian suggests that the OP is not alone.
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.
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.)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
Where did I suggest this? Now you’re just being a dick.
Spanner.
Thank Christ for that… perhaps you should fuck off and find a topic you know something about then?
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?
, but your security clearance is undoubltedly too low.