ABC’s coverage of the tsunamis. A young man caries his 5 to 7 year old boy by the arm and leg. You see the boys face, his stiff bloated body. I don’t remember this being ok.
I don’t remember when it was ‘OK’ to think such things should be censored, just because some of us find them a little unsettling.
You really don’t? Then happy birthday! And congratulations on your fortune, since I’m quite positive you will be rich and famous for already being able to control your limbs and speak and type etc…after just being born yesterday.
So is anyone else old enough to remember how long ABC has been broadcasting such unnecessary extremes?
I dunno. It’s sort of been an informal taboo for a long time. But maybe not here. Certainly there were such scenes after the Oklahoma City bombing. And those shots of people jumping off the WTC were pretty harsh to me.
But at the same time I can recall the old TV series ‘When Disaster Struck’ where showing bodies was avoided as being ‘in poor taste’.
I’m lacking a cite regarding network broadcasting of these, but I do remember the pictures of a NV soldier being shot through the temple by the police chief in Saigon, and the shot of naked children with burn injuries running from a napalm deployment. My facts re place and person may be off, do don’t keel haul me, please-anyone over 40 knows the two images of which I speak.
News isn’t necessarily pretty, but then again, neither is life-and that’s what news reporting is about.
And congratulations on apparently not having watched TV in the past thirty or so years. :rolleyes:
OK, as this is the pit: Fuck you for your ignorance (and fuck you again for your meaningless insults). I’ve never seen ABC. Want to know why? Just guess.
And I’m confident in stating that ‘bloated faces’ are hardly an extreme, given what’s happened. It’s just the ‘extreme’ of what you’ve been exposed to in your closeted mainstream-media world.
I agree with GorillaMan. And, by the way, I was born in 1957 and can remember seeing not very pleasant sights from Vietnam reported on the news.
I can understand your being unsettled, and I can sympathize to some extent, but you need to either understand that the news will report such things or stop watching the news.
I dunno, the Chicago Tribune within the last year published at least once a photo of a dead child (whether due to war or disaster, I don’t recall) in its front section. There were a few complaints, but the paper - and supporters - defended their decision and said they felt it was important. (The one I remember had a parent washing the body of his/her child, in preparation for burial. I found it very moving and not exploitative.) I didn’t think it was that uncommon.
I agree with GorillaMan’s first post. Whether I agree with his second remains to be seen.
I should clarify that my second post was in response to Mdm. President’s second one, and that I hadn’t then seen those posted in between.
I still maintain that we certainly haven’t seen anything ‘extreme’ on any broadcast media.
My first reaction the the thread title before even opening it was pics from VN (Guy being shot, monk self-immolating, napalmed girl running naked down a road). I suspect it goes back even further to WWI and WWII. Possibly even photos published somewhere during the Civil War.
The OP is is looking for something to be mad or offended about and this is the most current thing to do it over. :rolleyes:
I wasn’t pitting the news/ABC for showing said image. I was trying to find out how long it’s been socially acceptable. I placed it here in case it got nasty. No… so it could get nasty. It is in fact distasteful to me so, along with getting an actual answer to my actual question, I wanted to enable other like minded folk to speak freely. And in fact I don’t watch much TV hence my curiosity. Which, thank you to the folk that attempted to answer. And to the folk that just wanted to be contrary; Go eat shit, I’ll try to keep it from unsettling me.
As for my very humble opinion…I always remember the news having the good taste and respect to blur the faces of the dead. Blurring the face of dead children isn’t exactly censoring is it?
Well, excuse the fuck out of the people who interpreted that four sentence OP in the wrong way. :wally
‘Socially acceptable’: which society? acceptable to whom? Without qualification, the phrase is meaningless, so you can’t get a meaningful answer.
So you’ve no problem seeing a corpse, somebody you never knew from the other side of the world, with their face blurred…but OMG if you should see their face :eek: that’s horrible!!!
Yes, I’m being facecious. I’m wondering how you expect anybody to be able to create hard, exact and specific guidelines of what is ok and what is not. Being able to say “that’s wrong” after the event is very much easier than getting it right as things are unfolding.
duffer > just wanted to say my post was not in response to yours. We must have been typing at the same time. I posted because I honestly do not recall when ‘The News’ stopped blurring faces. Or maybe I just never noticed until it was a child’s glazed bulging eyes that I saw. Either way, I was curious.
And before anyone points it out… “wanted to enable other like minded folk to speak freely” I am not surprised or offended or whatever that non-like minded folk can speak freely. But if they are an ass about it, with out contributing jack shit to my OP, don’t be surprised when I slap them.
Then best not be surprised when some of those you have slapped retaliate in similar, yet more (metaphorically) violent behavior. Especially here in the pit.
It’s not ME seeing THEIR face that is IMHO inappropriate. It is the awareness that, at the very least, I wouldn’t want my sons distorted face broad-casted around the world.
And since I was referring to an USA broadcasting network it seemed obvious I was speaking about that society. I guess some need every detail spelled out. I could on about how you are repeatedly missing my point but… I’m done with you.
Does anyone think this would have happened to an American family? Am I completely wrong in thinking that the parents would go ape shit over it?
And your excused. See, you’ve learned that it’s a good idea to have a little patience and see what direction something is going before posting shmuckery right off the bat.
Qad > not surprised. Just ready for a fight. I guess that image did indeed piss something inside of me off quite a bit.
Mdm. President, I am so grateful for the opportunity to speak freely about the unpleasantness that was shown on ABC News.
These people seem to have forgotten that they are broadcasting at a time when we are getting home from work and want to relax and unwind a bit. Some of us in the South may be having an early supper. We have come to expect some filters on the news so that we don’t end up with indigestion or bouts of fretting.
Besides, it’s the holiday season. We are supposed to be merry and bright! Couldn’t they just not go into so much detail? What good does it do to show dead babies? I can’t do anything about them now. It’s too late. Besides, my grandchildren are safe.
Broadcast news should take into consideration what is socially acceptable to the defining layer of American society. You know what I mean.
Why not blur those faces out? If you’ve seen one dead baby, you’ve seen them all.
If they start letting this sort of thing on the news, before you know it they will be wanting to show the reality of the war in Iraq-- the corpses, especially the ones that look like dried up smashed eggshells. Those empty husks that used to be human beings – definitely not socially acceptable.
Eeeew! Ick!
That’s not clear from your OP.
Which society? I asked that before, but didn’t get an answer. You need to be more specific than a whole damn continent.
Of course you are, dear.
If you mean ‘would it have been broadcast’, then no, it wouldn’t have been. But isn’t that the problem and perhaps the point, that we can deal with death more easily when it’s more distant?
[/QUOTE]