Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

Full Disclosure In The Media

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Dcc001, Mar 14, 2012.

  1. dixiebandit69

    dixiebandit69
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    824
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,181
    Location:
    The asshole of Texas
    You can put me in the "if you don't like it, don't read it" category.

    Also, remember that things could get a lot worse. Have you ever seen the news in Mexico? There's lots of bloody crime scene photos right on the front page.

    I remember this one time a few years ago, when there was a building collapse. I saw it on the American news first, and it was just some generic footage of rubble, and a report of how many people were injured.

    Then a couple of hours later, I saw it on a Mexican news station, and they showed a man who had a steel beam go right through his chest, and the paramedics were there with grinders trying to cut off the excess to get him to the hospital!
    He was still alive, and even spoke to the camera!

    Same story, completely different coverage.

    For all of the people concerned about sensitivity: I bet you want them to stop printing the names and faces of accused sex offenders/murderers/etc. as well, right?
     
  2. jordan_paul

    jordan_paul
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Binbrook, Ontario
    I read an article in the Toronto Sun which gave the same details as Dcc's link yesterday and I was appalled at the audacity of the Reporter to editorialize the events leading to Tori's death. It was basicly the reporter calling the murderers junkies and retards but that's what put it ten yards over the line for me, because the reporter is putting her own spin on the news.

    It's not just this incident though that the media is reporting every detail and posting every picture for. Last week a lady was hit and killed on the 401 (she ran into traffic), and the very next day on the cover of the Cambridge Times was a picture of this lady laying on the road, with a bloody sheet covering her.

    What's the next step though? 20 years ago we only got the facts:

    What they were charged with
    Who did it
    When did it go down
    How much time they got

    Now we are getting exact details in print. In 20 years will the media be posting crime scene photos on the internet?
     
  3. ghettoastronaut

    ghettoastronaut
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    70
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,917
    Or, for that matter, Al-Jazeera coverage of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, sure, you'll all cry for one murdered girl in Ontario, but you barely notice when there are a few wars going on. I remember a reporter from CBS (I think) was on the Daily Show a few years ago, talking about how she was kept up at night because she knew what the dead body of an American soldier looked like, but most Americans didn't because they couldn't show anything as graphic as the reality on the ground on American TV.
     
  4. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    I think the question must be asked, "What do we hope to accomplish with this story?"

    In the case of graphic war reporting - and I'm hearkening back to Vietnam, not the current watered-down, CNN stuff we see now - the overall point WAS to show the public:
    1. What the money they were paying in terms of defense dollars was buying.
    2. Illustrate how deplorable conditions are/were.
    3. Endeavor to bring the war to a quick end.

    One thing you can say about the reporting that came out of Vietnam; when young Americans were shown blown in half, it brought the public support for the war to a screeching halt and certainly influenced policy makers in terms of how long they allowed it to continue.

    Now, this case: what is accomplished by telling the public such graphic detail? The perpetrators are already caught; there is not manhunt occuring. The little girl cannot be made less dead. So...what?

    It is THIS kind of 'news' coverage - news as entertainment - that I object to. It's exploiting the horrible mysery of a young girl's last hours, and her family's ongoing grief, so that they can sell newspapers and rack up clicks on their website. NOTHING is served by having the specific details recounted over and over. Any news outlet tries to make their stuff as grabby and interesting as possible, so rather than reporting simple facts they make it as "entertaining" as they can.

    If nothing is served by the story save for a sensational piece that will draw viewers in, then no thanks. To me, that is immoral.
     
  5. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal
    Expand Collapse
    Just call me Topher

    Reputation:
    950
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    22,718
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    They don't show the wars because they (the "bosses") actually DON'T want you to see what goes on over there. They don't WANT you to know that soldiers are being electrocuted by the cheap-ass showers Halliburton provides for them (fact) or that Halliburton was charging American soldiers that were risking their life and watching friends die horribly before their eyes $7.50 for a can of fucking Coke (fact). I know how many people died building the Hoover Dam, but I haven't the slightest CLUE what the bodycount is on allied soldiers in the Middle East. I know they printed Canada's casualty total a while back for Afghanistan, and more than 60% of them were vapourized by IED's. Certain people want you to think the Good Guys are kicking ass and taking names, meanwhile they're in an environment where anywhere you pretty much STEP could mean death.

    Those wars are unflappable clusterfucks and powerful, super-rich people do NOT want you to know that.

    Again, yes. This point has been made several times in this thread yet nobody has given a logical answer for it. Because there isn't one.
     
  6. Kubla Kahn

    Kubla Kahn
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    710
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    11,278

    Well it does serve to make us feel better when they are sentenced to death. Ow wait did this take place in Canada? In that case 3 hots and a cot for life.*


    * Despite what you here in popular culture most child sex offenders are immediately separated from gen pop and aren't subject to the retrobution it is thought they do. Or so I hear.
     
  7. ghettoastronaut

    ghettoastronaut
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    70
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,917
    In case anyone was wondering, the purpose of the graphic detail is to make more money for the people printing the detail. As if there could have possibly been any other reason.
     
  8. audreymonroe

    audreymonroe
    Expand Collapse
    The most powerful cervix... in the world...

    Reputation:
    546
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    2,859
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    I have mixed feelings about this, and this post is probably going to be a bit discombobulated.

    This doesn't really apply to this case specifically -I don't think anyone wouldn't be upset about a child getting murdered - but when it comes to other crimes that would be reported I think there are actually many cases when I feel it is important to give the gory details. We've become really desensitized to violence and tragedy. If you just are giving the most basic details, I think it's a weirdly natural reaction to be like "Yeah, yeah, someone was killed." Even with huge tragedies, it's pretty easy to think "Yeah, yeah, yeah I know 9-11/the war in Iraq/Vietnam/The Holocaust/WW2 etc etc" was bad." It's easy to gloss over emotions if you're just given numbers - even if they're in the thousands or the millions - but it's nearly impossible for an event to not hit home if you can imagine exactly what that person went through, or if you see the video of someone jumping from the towers, or if you see the room full of shoes in the Holocaust Museum in DC. When we're so saturated with media and news of all kinds, that's when it really can stand out from that barrage of information and actually have an effect.

    I think it should have an effect because I think it's important for people to remember that the world can be - and quite often is - a really brutal, terrible place, and that people can be - and quite often are - completely awful, especially to each other. I know that most people past the age of 6 or so have a general notion that that's the case, but I think we need to be shocked out of our bubble now and again to totally remember just how true that can be. I think it's wrong at the least, dangerous at the worst, to always be protected in an insulated sphere of refusing to recognize atrocities and seeing humanity at its worst. Maybe this is an incredibly pessimistic, cynical, and jaded point of view, and it begs the question "Well, why is it so important?" I can't answer that, at least not after thinking about this for only a half a day from when I first read the topic to when I'm posting now.

    Also, I tend to be of the opinion that there are very few exceptions to the idea that any type or amount of information and news can be bad. Again, this doesn't really apply to this specific article, but thinking of other topics that could be unpleasant (to say the least) to read, maybe you're upset that this information can be read, but it's possible that it could be helping somebody else who could relate to it. The concept of telling people who have suffered through something that they are not alone, no matter how directly, is incredibly powerful. There's a reason that it's one of the first go-to phrases that therapists/social workers etc say. There might be something they take comfort in or they find cathartic or anything along those lines. I think these articles have more of a purpose that to cater to those with morbid curiosity or the like. Of course, there's also a possibility that the article could be triggering or enraging to someone who experienced something similar. I've experienced both. But I'm happy that the opportunity for the former exists even if it means there's a chance of the latter.
     
  9. lust4life

    lust4life
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,562
    Location:
    Deepinthehearta, TX
    You know why traffic gets backed up in the southbound lanes when there's an accident on the northbound side? It ain't because they're slowing down to say the Rosary.

    Should the networks have stopped broadcasting live coverage of the WTC the morning of 9/11 and saved us all from witnessing the second jet crash and eventual collapse of both buildings?
     
  10. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    To a degree, they did. They pulled right back so that the images of people jumping could not be seen. To this day, it's rare to see a documentary or news story about 9/11 that even mentions jumpers existing.

    It's as though we prefer to have violence seen from a certain distance. To actually watch one specific person die - in the case of 9/11 - is deemed "too much."

    And when you think about it, DID we all need to see such exhaustive coverage of that day? Would a 15-minute blurb on a half hour news show not have been better than sitting there for hours on end, living through the trauma vicariously with the actual victims?

    We should be informed, to a point, but once again...who is being served when such catastrophic tragedy is put on display for the public to 'enjoy'?
     
  11. RCGT

    RCGT
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,769
    Location:
    wandern
    Everyone knows about it happening, though. In fact, one of the most famous pictures of the event is of a man falling to his death.
     
  12. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    This is my point...knowing about it happening is different than watching it happen over and over and hearing every minute detail from every possible angle.

    That picture you're talking about is called The Falling Man. I can't look at it; it haunts me. Like this trial, it's too disturbing, IMO.
     
  13. Crown Royal

    Crown Royal
    Expand Collapse
    Just call me Topher

    Reputation:
    950
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    22,718
    Location:
    London, Ontario
    If you watch the documentary simply titled 9/11, it does not hold back. It's simply that French crew that happened to be filming that footage of the FIRST plane hitting, then following the first company into the tower that collapsed last (I think this company made it without casualties). When they're in the lobby, the narrator says the incredibly loud crashes outside the doors are people jumping from the upper floors. They don't show it, but it's so goddamn grim.

    That documentary is more first-hand than ANYTHING to do with that tragedy, period. A lot of people probably wouldn't be able to handle it, and I wouldn't blame them. The question is: the press would NEVER have shown certain segments from this film. Should a film be allowed to? You'd have to see this film to know what I mean, and as blood-curdling as it is it's almost necessary to watch, to REALLY get a taste of what people went through.
     
  14. lust4life

    lust4life
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,562
    Location:
    Deepinthehearta, TX
    "Thank you for joining us for the 5:00 o'clock news. Tonight's top story is...too disturbing. So, here's some footage of cute furry woodland creatures. And kittens. And a rainbow."
     
  15. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    No, how about:

    "Tonight's top story is the Tori Stafford trial. Terri McClintic gave graphic testimony detailing the final hours of Tori's life, including a brutal assault that is too disturbing to repeat on network television. The trial will resume tomorrow, where McClintic will continue her testimony under cross-examination."

    Period. End of story. It says EVERYTHING anyone would ever need to know. We don't need the camera-whore news anchors, feigning sympathy as they detail the gore; nor do we need the cheesy graphics that begin each different segment, and we CERTAINLY don't need to be giving the attention to the PERPETRATOR of the attack. It gives the (however subconscious) impression that it's all about the criminal and not the victim.
     
  16. lust4life

    lust4life
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,562
    Location:
    Deepinthehearta, TX
    "Too disturbing" by whose standards? And would you like someone telling you how much you need to know? Personally, I like being able to judge that for myself.
     
  17. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    I think to myself, "If it was my daughter, what would I want the media to say?"

    I ask again...why do you need to know how many times he raped her, or that he spent the time after the attack washing blood off his genitals? Like, what is there to find out from those tidbits? What is there to judge?
     
  18. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    Another thing:

    This guy is a viscous pedophile. Every time someone testifies, questions him, whatever, he gets to relive what (for him) was probably the sexual thrill of his life. I'd be willing to bet money that when his former GF was testifying, he had an erection. Why do we need to do ANYTHING that would pander to that?
     
  19. AlmostGaunt

    AlmostGaunt
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,040
    Yes. That whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. Being wrongfully accused of a crime is devastating enough; I'm loathe to add public vilification to that.

    Yes, but we become desensitized to things through repeated exposure. (See definition: Make (someone) less likely to feel shock or distress at scenes of cruelty, violence, or suffering by overexposure to such images). It results in this arms race of finding ever more graphic imagery to shock viewers out of their complacency.
    I agree with you here, and Patrick Symmes has an eloquent quote on this:
    Something else to consider: a talented wordsmith can make any subject matter interesting, at least for a short piece. I would read Patrick Rothfuss' shopping list, for example. However, if you're a hack journalist with a rudimentary command of the English language, you need extraordinary subject matter to make your words compelling. Shitty writers rely on gore to camouflage their lack of talent. I have a fairly low opinion of most journalists' writing ability anyway, but using tragedy as a means of overcoming your shortcomings strikes me as lacking in integrity.

    Actually, they lead with the gore. Then they produce the heartwarming footage of puppies before cutting to a commercial break. It makes the viewers more receptive to advertisements.
     
  20. Trakiel

    Trakiel
    Expand Collapse
    Call me Caitlyn. Got any cake?

    Reputation:
    245
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,167
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    I agree that in many situations that details of certain crimes/situations can be disclosed in bad taste and for unsavory purposes. However I am profoundly uncomfortable with the idea that the media/press should be subject to censorship of any kind. When the media is subject to censorship, it's subject to censorship by the censoring party who uses it to advance its own interests. Censorship always occurs at the expense of the citizenry.

    I think the best way to go about this is to establish rights and expectations of privacy for situations like these.