I realize that there is a “Why no gore” thread, but it seemed to me that tempers were getting a mite warm in there. I wondered if it might be appropriate to discuss the degree to which our news media ought to manipulate, if not censor or sanitize, the images it provides?
All too often the credo - for local news at least - seems to be “if it bleeds it leads.” I generally avoid watching the local news if for no other reason than to avoid such sensationalism. In recent years, efforts by the local CBS station to de-sensationalize the news led to disastrous ratings and was soon abandoned. I believe most news media would claim they portray events accurately and completely. But it is clear that lines are constantly being drawn.
These are some questions that may spur debate:
-How do news outlets decide what images are appropriate, and how should they make such decisions?
-Why do certain papers and news shows feel it is appropriate to show a falling body, but not the aftermath?
-Why do they show a critically injured person, but not an obviously dead body?
-How different is it, really, to show burning wreckage which you know caused and contains death, as opposed to portraying the dead bodies themselves?
-Is it out of concern for the emotions of survivors? If so, assume the US were at war. Would it be more acceptable for US news sources to show graphic images of the enemy dead instead of US military dead?
-What do these types of choices say about the news media, their target audiences, and our society as a whole?
As I stated in the other thread, I personally have no desire to view such images. I am not proud to admit, however, that the horrendous images of falling people appealed to some morbid curiosity on my part, and I am disturbed that those images are indelibly etched on my mind.
I do not pretend to have the answers to these questions. I would appreciate your opinions.
I don’t think there really is much gore to be seen. Everything in the tower was ground into pieces about 6 inches across. The worst gore I’ve seen was on Consumption Junction, showing a dismembered hand. Really though, one soot-covered body part looks about like any other random piece of NYC garbage.
This is GD, not the Pit, so I will refrain from saying what I think. I will limit myself to saying that a soot-covered body part is NOT “any other random piece of NYC garbage.”
Don’t be an idiot. I never said these body parts were garbage, I said they LOOKED like random NYC street garbage. There is no gore to be seen. What little gore there is, now is covered by a layer of papier mache.
I don’t know who said it when in the mindnumbing amount of coverage I watched over the past week, but one person who purportedly was at the scene early described a horrendous scene worthy of Bosch, with many bodies and dismembered body parts.
Can any journalists out there explain how “transparent” television news claims to be? You often hear of what I consider inexcusable invasions of personal privacy defended in terms of “the public’s right to know.” To often, I consider it more like appealing to the public’s appetitie for titillation.
Graphic violence was partially responsible for “Saving Private Ryan” winning awards. What does it say that we celebrate such images for entertainment, but do not permit in terms of news?
A. Calling names isn’t allowed in GD, dude, which is why I refrained.
B. Thank you for the clarification, but the phrasing in the part I c&p’ed comes off as lacking compassion, to say the very least.
Please calm down, guys. I would really appreciate an intelligent discussion of these questions. As I noted in my OP, tempers got pretty frayed pretty quickly in the other thread. Could we please try to avoid that here?
Chas, perhaps your use of the word “other” was unfortunate, but perhaps gobear could have requested clarification before assuming ill-intent.
I dont think Saving Private Ryan was too gross. It depicted a war and did it rather well. It didn’t pretend to be anything else. I don’t consider it “entertainment” but something much more. I didn’t want to see people hold their chest and drop dramatically like on a TV western.
What do you call those movies that are good but not intertaining? (Elephant Man, Schindler’s List,…) .You don’t trivialize the facts.
Ya might want to loosen the strap on that mod hat, David. Seems to be interfering with your reading ability! Although I agree, if you say them both really fast, gobear does sound an awful lot like Chas. E.
I’d be very interested in hearing your views concerning the OP.
The guy at the editing table says "This is acceptable/not acceptable. We don’t usually have a chart or any written guidelines.
The upchuck factor. Have you seen a corpse that fell off a building? You don’t want to <shudder>
One is a heroic struggle for life. The other is a corpse, and it would totally suck if you turned on the television to see your dead child.
Turning on the tube to see your injured child is slightly more acceptable.
Again, it’s the ick factor. Charred corpses ain’t pretty. They’re absolutely disgusting.
Flames and a tumbled building are, well, flames and a collapsed building.
We do make decisions out of concern for who is watching.
I wasn’t around to watch lots of TV then, but I understand watching US soldiers getting hurt in 'Nam was highly demoralizing for the US populace.
As for seeing corpses-- I think it’s unacceptable to see 'em on the nightly news be they ‘our’ side or the ‘other’ side.
That we have sensibilities and sensitivities. We’re human. We care. And we have limits.
I have to say that what still sticks in my mind is the jumpers. I can understand and empathize with almost everything about this disaster, but the jumpers still throw me. I intellectually understand that jumping is a form of control-- choosing how you die-- but going to a place where my only choice is deciding on my form of death is just too much at the moment.
Actually, what still creeps me out the most is the interview with a rescue worker who had seen a friend killed by being struck by the falling body of a jumper.
