Personally, I’m prefectly find with seeing dead people on the news.
Folks in America (or at least those in my area, I won’t speak for everyone) seem to be pretty detatched from the rest of the world. They hear, “11,000 dead in Tsunami,” and go, “Well, damn. That’s a big number.” But when they see the faces of people who’ve died, and their family crying or performing burial rights, it finally becomes real. Then they feel like helping.
Does that make sense?
Additon to my post: While I’m okay with seeing dead folks, I still think the family should be respected. If they say, “Hey, fuck off,” then the camera folks should.
OMG I’m a total southern truth-stifling wank. I thought the little tinniest bit of respect should be reserved for dead children. At least I wasn’t crazy and suggest the images of their bodies not be shown at all, just their identities be protected with a little fuzzed out face. No, that would be a handicap to the folks that don’t have enough imagination to ‘get it’ without actually getting to see it all. How totally un-progressive of me.
Apparently only the children of US citizens deserve some privacy. fucking rubber neckers.
Silver > That puts a better spin to it. I like to think that I would have been just as effected if the boy hadn’t ben exploited, but maybe not. And maybe, if I were his parents, I would even be ok with it if it meant more help, understanding, acknowledgment, etc came pouring in
“Contributing” to your OP? You asked a question, you got answers. There’s your contribution. If you just wanted people to agree with you, you should have made a statement to that effect in the OP, not 13 posts in.
It strikes me as ironic that you seem to think GorillaMan has deliberately missed your point when you are the one who keeps deliberately missing his.
(IMO, of course: I might be completely missing both of your points.)
I mentally started to compose such a scathing reply when I read this . . . and then I kept reading and got the sarcasm. :smack: 
It makes perfect sense to me. When I first heard about the tsunami deaths and destruction, my reaction was much like you described: “Holy shit, that’s a lot of death and destruction.” But I don’t watch the news much anymore, so the enormity of what happened didn’t hit me until I looked at the “Aftermath” photo gallery on CNN.com this morning: I’m glad that my officemate is out this week, so no one saw me sitting at my desk with tears streaming down my face . . .
to contribute to my OP would be to say something along the lines of:
“It’s sort of been an informal taboo for a long time…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’.”
or anything Dance or Ferret Herder says in which they give me examples that ‘death shots’, even of children, have been shown for years
or:
“I still maintain that we certainly haven’t seen anything ‘extreme’ on any broadcast media.”
In which the person doesn’t agree that it was anything out of the ordinary.
But for people to imply that I am for censorship because some of those silly unenlightened sheltered ninnies can’t handle the truth… it’s got nothing to do with when the news stopped blurring faces if in fact they ever did. Which, once again, was what I was trying to find out.
I’ve seen dead people on the news frequently.
Usually there is a disclaimer before of something like “Warning, this footage may be shocking to those of you that are total fucking pussies” and then the footage of what actually happened is shown.
If you want the news sanitized for your protection watch CBN or something.
Ummmmm Didn’t the people used to come with picnic baskets to the public hangings? Did they not take the bad guys full of bullet holes and prop them up for all top see and also to get pictures for the front pages of the paper, the mail way to get news in those days…??
Heck, I’d go so far as to say that car wreck pictures of broken teenagers should be on the school bulletin boards.
I remember the Highway Patrol shots that I got to see in 1958 or so and that made a much better driver out of me.
The realities of war help me curb my desire to rush out so quick and try to start them.
The people in this last disaster help me pay more attention to what is going on around me when I’m near the ocean.
YMMV
Long before television families would lay out the dead in their homes.
One of the problems with society today is that people are too removed from seeing death in non-sanitized or fictional forms.
AFAIK there’s no “rule” about showing death on television news. The rules mostly tend to be about ratings. Old people having birthday parties, babies in nurseries, kittens and puppies and flowers – those tend to trump images of death, because there’s some notion in broadcast journalism that people would rather watch fluffy human interest stories instead of being exposed to reality. Call it the whole dumbing-down of America.
There was another, similar situation back in the early '80s, in which the Tribune published a photo of a child who had drowned in Lake Michigan, but elected not to run the photo of his father standing over the body, looking devastated, because that would be intruding on his private grief. (They did endorse the photographer submitting the photo for a Pulitzer, but that’s not necessarily the same thing.)
I’ll second what Silver said. If these photos spur people to make contributions to disaster relief, then that’s a good thing.
I can think of one instance, though, where I thought such photos were exploitative. Years ago, People magazine (yes, I know People is a rag. I was a teenager; I grew out of it), ran an extensive story, and later a followup on a girl who’d been burned on almost 100% of her body. Must have been ten or more photos of her, and I came away from that thinking, “What do you want me to do about it?”
The fire started when a spark flew out of a woodburning stove in her parents’ mountain cabin. A tragic, horrible, regrettable accident, and probably preventable, if there hadn’t been so many flammable substances around, but was their agenda fire safety? No, it was just, “This poor, brave little girl…look at her. Here. And here. And here.” Jeez…It didn’t happen in a drunk-driving accident; she didn’t have a disease that could someday be cured if enough money goes to research; she wasn’t the victim of abuse or random violence. It just happened. Very unfortunate, but not really something I needed crammed down my throat.
Sometimes tragedies are exploited, for no reason except that they tug at heartstrings.
But that’s not the case here, of course. We don’t even know the full extent of the tsunami damage yet, but we already know it’s way bad. If photos and videos of individual victims can give us an idea of the scope of this disaster, then by all means, print them and broadcast them.
Mdm. President, you’ll want to avoid seeing the front page of Tuesdays L.A. Times. I just got hold of it. Dead baby- visible face.
Just want to say I’m excited that Mdm. President has found a topic she is so passionately interested in. In almost two years she’s had 86 posts- but SEVEN of those posts were made in this Thread in ONE DAY. Congratulations, Mdm. President, that’s nearly a 9% post count increase in a single day!
You’re entitled. Still, if your son was dead - much less your home and much of your country wrecked by a tsunami - it would be the least of your fucking problems.
You may have a point here, but it’s about how we view American vs. international deaths. If we see other deaths as less tragic, it’s perhaps understandable but definitely a poor reflection on our own media.
Anyway, tell me you haven’t seen this photograph. It’s very famous. Yes, it’s gory. I’m not aware that the family objected.
When I was 10 years old, I was bothered by a small picture on the front page of the New York Times. It was from Afghanistan, and it showed Taliban members dragging the body of the country’s murdered President though the streets as they swept into power. You could hardly make anything out and this was before the paper switched to color, but I still thought that was gross. I’m glad I never got around to writing a letter to complain. I’m a journalist now and I am extremely opposed to censoring photographs of that kind. It’s a huge part of our responsibility. The NYT has a lot of pictures from India, Thailand, and Sri Lanka online right now, and I think they’re vital. They add a lot to the story that “35,000 Dead” doesn’t cover by itself.
That’s the main thing. Kevin Carter’s horrifying picture of a vulture eyeing up a Sudanese child personalised the famine, and did more in my opinion to raise awareness, and thus raise money, than thousands of words could do.
The mother’s on record as hating the photo, understandably. However, I don’t think she’s actually objected to the way it was used, and she’s not shy of publicity for her own campaigning.
Mdm. President, at least 40,000 people were killed and you’re whining about seeing one dead body on TV? What, do you want to just pretend that when 40,000 people all die at once that their bodies just disappear and everything is pretty? Or do you want to just ignore the situation? If so, then don’t watch TV or read the news.
40,000 bodies is a lot of bodies. Of course you’re going to see some bodies when looking at coverage of the disaster. Get the fuck over it, or don’t watch the news.
You can’t appreciate the full enormity of the disaster unless you see real coverage, uncensored. If you can’t handle it, don’t look.
For me, it depends on the reasons for the pic. I do hate to shock all those here who defending the media, but upon occasion, the media has been known to well, sensationalize matters. Shocking to hear, I know.
Unlike the other posters, I do not think that these images will help disaster relief–I think that many trogdolytes will love being creeped out by the sight of dead child on TV. “Ooh, look, Marge–it’s like FearFactor, but this shit is REAL! Pass the Cheetos!”
I apologize for my cynicism about the mainstream American media–but “if it bleeds, it leads” is still very, very true. TV news is an oxymoron, really.
I do think that TV news has gotten more “daring” over the past few decades. OK-I am all for non-sanitized news. BUT since the “reporting” is still soundbites and slogans–ie, shallow as hell, and break for commercial, it adds up to “freak happening of the day”–which IMO, is disrespectful to the dead, their families and to the disasters, frankly.
There was just a huge fire in dowtown Chicago recently,–took out a large portion of LaSalle Bank. I turned OFF the TV coverage after a “reporter” said, “Noone seems to have died here.” OK-bad for your news segment, but how about good for the firefighters and the people who work in the building? This remark was followed immediately by his anchor saying, “but there are any number of people injured, right?” Effing vultures.
I would not and do not give TV journalism “pure” motives, such as increasing awareness of the need for disaster relief.
See enough images like the tsunami one and sure, some may feel the urge to help. Most will become inured.
Just my opinion.
“Shove a big old bastard in it you ape!”–Mom.
Not at all, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with broadcasting it, motives aside.
Man, I can sooo hear Judy Woodruff saying that.
That’s exactly the picture I was thinking of when I read the OP, not the NV soldier being executed, or the girl running from napalm. And while I’ve seen many of Brady’s Civil War pics, I seem to recall they weren’t published until long after the war, and possibly after his death.
At any rate, I can’t say that I’m shocked or horrified by the images being shown on TV, as opposed to the real horror and shock of so much destruction and death. Compared to that, a little putatitve disrespect seems to be trivial.
The victims of the Jim Jones massacre were Americans and included children. Their bodies were shown on television in piles.
The victims of a Korean airliner that was shot out of the skies over the ocean were shown before they were “harvested.”
I am one who believes that showing photographs does make a difference. The famine in Ethiopia is an example on a personal level. Also, on local news programs, when people who have been burned out of homes or other disasters are interviewed, offers of help are likely to come in.
When people can grasp the desperation of the situation, why wouldn’t they be more likely to open up? A lot of people want to know how they can help.
I can’t claim to speak for anyone at the networks, but I know at least one ABC correspondent who has spent his own time and resources trying to make people more aware of the growing devastation that AIDS has on the children of Africa.
