Where to draw the line?
Discussion
Today saw the running of the Grand National, tragically 2 horses died during the running. The Mail website has a picture of one of the horses meeting its doom.
My thoughts are that this shouldn't be published, however it is, in photography terms, a good picture and I'm sure it'll earn the taker a few quid.
If it was a human, inches from death, then I'm sure there would be condemnation of the image. Where would you draw the line?
My thoughts are that this shouldn't be published, however it is, in photography terms, a good picture and I'm sure it'll earn the taker a few quid.
If it was a human, inches from death, then I'm sure there would be condemnation of the image. Where would you draw the line?
tank slapper said:
In the public interest and of interest to the public are two quite different things. The press often have trouble making that distinction.
It's a tricky call. I do a fair amount of press work (mostly at local paper level). TS sums it up very accurately. A house burning down is always a tragedy for someone, very much more so if there are fatalities. But this is news and people expect it to be reported - and illustrated. A horse dying in a race is certainly newsworthy, and should be reported, but I don't like to see a picture of it. That's unnecessary and voyeuristic in my view. But.
Millions of people had watched the race and seen the horse fall, so I think it legitimate to publish the picture.
Sometimes shots of tragic events can be useful - remember Leah Betts?, or Nick Ut's shot of a naked girl in Vietnam running from a napalm attack?
There's a very fine, and blurred, line between press freedom and state censorship. Who should draw it?
The world is a tough place.
Why do we need to sanitise everything we see? It's a vague pretense that bad things don't ever happen. No wonder we can allow genocide to happen if we never see the effects. I mean, who wants to see a dead body on the 6pm news when you're having tea?
Definitely don't watch the news if you ever head to places like Thailand, where they will show pictures of dead bodies in cars with gunshot wounds, maybe the odd splattered brain on a side walk.
Ask yourself the other question - when did we lose our backbone to view these images?
Why do we need to sanitise everything we see? It's a vague pretense that bad things don't ever happen. No wonder we can allow genocide to happen if we never see the effects. I mean, who wants to see a dead body on the 6pm news when you're having tea?
Definitely don't watch the news if you ever head to places like Thailand, where they will show pictures of dead bodies in cars with gunshot wounds, maybe the odd splattered brain on a side walk.
Ask yourself the other question - when did we lose our backbone to view these images?
tinman0 said:
Ask yourself the other question - when did we lose our backbone to view these images?
That is beside the point. Why would you want to see them? There is plenty of gore on the internet if you want to see mutilated and shot people. I think most people are capable of understanding the concept of a murder or a car crash without having the explicit details shoved in their face. It serves no purpose other than voyeurism.tank slapper said:
That is beside the point. Why would you want to see them? There is plenty of gore on the internet if you want to see mutilated and shot people. I think most people are capable of understanding the concept of a murder or a car crash without having the explicit details shoved in their face. It serves no purpose other than voyeurism.
Tank Slapper, you make my point better than I can! I understand that bad things happen yet when I open my Sunday paper I don't want them shoved in my face. I remember vividly the day Ayrton Senna died, I watched it happen, I'm sure pictures and film were taken of the aftermath, I certainly wouldn't like to see close up pictures/film of Sid Watkins doing his best to save his life, or graphic images of his injuries. Likewise with the Grand National, I knew 2 horses died, I don't want to see how they died.tank slapper said:
tinman0 said:
Ask yourself the other question - when did we lose our backbone to view these images?
That is beside the point. Why would you want to see them? There is plenty of gore on the internet if you want to see mutilated and shot people. I think most people are capable of understanding the concept of a murder or a car crash without having the explicit details shoved in their face. It serves no purpose other than voyeurism.
t happens.I don't go out of my way to view it, and nor would I, but pretending it didn't happen is just trying to live out life in denial.
Everything we see or do these days is sanitised, there is always a higher authority saying what we can and can't do, what we can and can't see, and now people want pictures removed because of what happens after the picture was taken.
We trivialize actions because it's never shown. How would anti-death penalty people feel about the death penalty if they had to view some monster murder that US family last year (where they raped the 13 year old and killed her, raped the mother, and killed her, and so forth).
How would people really feel about the punishment if they actually saw the images of the brutality carried out against innocent human beings?
Take it to a more current theme, if we weren't actually seeing pictures of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, would we be more or less partial to sending help?
Look at the huge difference in coverage between the tsunami that rocked Indonesia vs the one that got Japan? How about the earthquake that knock that island over last year (name escapes me). Indonesia got covered on tv, but Japan got total coverage because the cameras were there at the start of the disaster.
Do we empathise more or less when we watch the house get swept away vs seeing an empty plot where there used to be a house?
1. Do we not show pictures of that because of the immense human suffering it caused?
2. Look at the outpouring of compassion when the pictures of Japan's tsunami are actually shown? Is that a good thing or bad thing?
What purpose would showing such things on TV actually serve? It would satisfy a base curiosity for some people. I suspect most others would find it undesirable to turn on their TV and have to sit through a load of graphic pictures of the world's unpleasantness. Most people know that the world isn't a rosy place all the time, they just don't care to be reminded of it while eating their dinner.
Constantly broadcasting such things would also likely have the opposite effect to what you suggest. If people see it every time there is a news broadcast they would become desensitised to it and it wouldn't be shocking after a while.
Constantly broadcasting such things would also likely have the opposite effect to what you suggest. If people see it every time there is a news broadcast they would become desensitised to it and it wouldn't be shocking after a while.
tinman0 said:
We trivialize actions because it's never shown. How would anti-death penalty people feel about the death penalty if they had to view some monster murder that US family last year (where they raped the 13 year old and killed her, raped the mother, and killed her, and so forth).
Similarly, how many pro-death penalty people would be able to throw the switch and then watch while the victim writhed, convulsed, started smoking and then caught fire? It's no more than cold calculated murder - a trait normally reserved for psychopaths.The dislike of seeing/doing such things is what stops most people from doing it.
Simpo Two said:
tinman0 said:
We trivialize actions because it's never shown. How would anti-death penalty people feel about the death penalty if they had to view some monster murder that US family last year (where they raped the 13 year old and killed her, raped the mother, and killed her, and so forth).
Similarly, how many pro-death penalty people would be able to throw the switch and then watch while the victim writhed, convulsed, started smoking and then caught fire? It's no more than cold calculated murder - a trait normally reserved for psychopaths.The dislike of seeing/doing such things is what stops most people from doing it.
The lack of images has in many respects desensitized people. What does it matter if someone gets knifed to death if you never see the person, the wound, or the act that killed them? Their death becomes quite meaningless; just another statistic that we can't relate to.
And where do we start drawing the line? How about Ethiopia? It was the power of photography that showed the world that there was a problem that needed addressing, Africans that were starving.
But lets face it, watching a mother holding a starving baby that is maybe a day away from death might offend us. It might put us off our tea. So we better ban it. Just in case we offend anyone of course. Can't have images that make us think.
Can't do with offending anyone in our politically correct cell that we call life.
tinman0 said:
I think if you saw what these monsters had done, you'd have volunteers to flip the switch, let alone just watch it on tv.
Yo actually want to watch people being killed (murdered) on TV?If you want genuine real-time blood and guts all over your telly, or public executions, that's your problem, but leave me out of it thanks.
ETA the 'starving baby' cliche is because there is insufficient food or infrastructure in its country for it to survive, whether or not I see it.
Anyone else want to see people being murdered live on TV?
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 10th April 22:22
Simpo Two said:
tinman0 said:
I think if you saw what these monsters had done, you'd have volunteers to flip the switch, let alone just watch it on tv.
Yo actually want to watch people being killed (murdered) on TV?If you want genuine real-time blood and guts all over your telly, or public executions, that's your problem, but leave me out of it thanks.
I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it, but I wouldn't complain if I came across it.
Remember Saddam finding the bottom of his rope? Didn't put me off my food.
But where are you drawing the line Simpo? It's ok to watch Africans to starve to death through no fault of their own, but watching a murderer die is somehow bad taste?
Sure you have your sensibilities round the right way, Simpo?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff