MH370 time since missing ticker - tactless and insensitive or not?

In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)
#1

http://www.news.com.au/

At the above link about halfway down the page is a banner with the running time to the second since MH370 went missing. This seems pretty insensitive and tactless to me. I’m sure the people who care the most about the missing airliner, ie the relatives of those on board, can work out the time without having it presented to them in that way. The rest of us can to.

What say you? Tactless or acceptable?

Screenshot, hopefully, https://www.dropbox.com/s/aldqikyz2mwggke/Screenshot%202014-03-20%2023.33.26.png

#2

I voted “Other”. I could see how it could be viewed as tactless, or could be viewed as keeping the issue alive so no one forgets. It strikes me as a cheap way for the news outlet to generate views.

#3

It’s mostly just stupid, but I voted for tactless because it’s not a race and the number of hours and minutes (and seconds!) the plane has been missing isn’t of any particular import. Counting the days will do just fine. CNN does this kind of meaningless countdown stuff all the time, but I don’t know if they’re doing it for MH370 since I quit watching them about a year ago.

#4

I went just for DJ’s “could be viewed as keeping the issue alive so no one forgets” because I deplore people’s & media’s short attention spans or the thinking that some silliness is worth the front page so to speak.

#5

Voted “Not”.

It at least seems tasteful ie not all flashy/sensational with colour or graphics. It’s an important story, and that’s a pretty sensible way for people to be reminded not only of the plane still missing, but of how long it’s been.

#6

Hooray for lower-than-dirt expectations.

#7

I have never once been disappointed.

15820 Days, 13 hours, 27 minutes, 56 seconds and counting!

#8

Tactless is too strong. It might be a bit overstated, but telling people about things that don’t affect their lives personally is what news organizations do. If we went by the logic that only those who have lost loved ones count, then why bring it up at all?

#9

I agree with Marley23 in that I find the inclusion of hours, minutes, and seconds to be unnecessary. I remember during the whole “government shutdown”, CNN had a counter going so far as hours, IIRC, and then after the shutdown occurred, it was how many days had passed.

I’d be fine w/ a counter updated daily. In a conversation, I could see myself saying “I can’t believe it’s been missing for 8 days.” I can’t see myself saying “I can’t believe it’s been gone for 8 days and 7 hours. 7 hours! Can you believe it?!”

#10

It’s not tactless, it’s just kind of stupid.

#11

Yeah, that.

I hope the families aren’t watching the news. I know if I had a loved one go missing (or, indeed, any other kind of public tragedy) I’d be wary about viewing any news source that hadn’t first been vetted by a trusted friend.

#12

It’s a Murdoch publication. Tacky is all they know.

#13

I voted Not, but I get the points being made.

It’s been 28,022 days since Amelia Earhart went missing.

#14

I see your counter and I raise you a British tabloid reporting the plane has been found…on the moon, after being hijacked by aliens.

#15

I heard last night that they had a countdown going in the opposite direction - time left until the transponders shut off, which we also can’t know precisely because we don’t know when they went on. We can guess, but you don’t guess to the minute and the second. This is the same network that, if the president is going to speak at 11 a.m., will give you a countdown showing how many minutes and seconds are left until precisely 11 a.m. - as if the White House was telling us the president will start speaking at 11 on the dot. It’s a ballpark figure and everybody knows it; these speeches are always 5 to 10 minutes later or more.

#16

Looks like an advertising banner that I normally just skim over and it would have been overlooked had I not been seeking it out. But it does seem tacky to me. Reminds me of an office pool.

#17

I’m not sure the OP is using the word “tactless” correctly. Tactless is when you ask someone on overly direct question without caring how they might react to it. The website in question is just obnoxious.

#18

Voted Not.

“Tactless” would be:

[ol]
[li]Showing the Tom Hanks film, Castaway[/li][li]Interviewing Tom Hanks about the incident[/li][li]“Recreating” what might have happened by using a plastic model of the plane and a large water tank representing the ocean.[/li][li]Flying the familes down to Australia to wait for any word and then filming their reactions while they wait.[/li][li]Interviewing a plane crash survivor to see if they have any “insight” into this situation.[/li][/ol]

#19

I don’t think it’s tactless at all. It calls attention to the fact that we have thousands of aluminum cylinders streaking through the sky every day, many with hundreds of people on board, and even with all the technology we have it’s still possible to lose one and not know within 1,000 miles where it is.

#20

And historically, crossing oceans has always be a bit of a higher risk than other travels. Even unto today.