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. CharlesJohnson

    CharlesJohnson
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    401
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,974
    Now we're talking about images, not print. That is an entirely different set of circumstances. One must be VERY careful with the images they print. We arguably got into the Somalian conflict because of the public outcry over an image of a young emaciated child next to a vulture. American audiences react far more viscerally to images than print. Images are also relatively new to people as is a broadcast. You will flat out not see a reputable network show anything graphic. At best you will see a piece of the crime scene blacked out, maybe a pair of legs for shock value. And these instances are on the "hard" news programs like 48 Hours or Nightline.

    OJ Simpson trial, no one saw the victims. National Enquirer printed those. Rape/murder trials NO way. Shooting sprees, mass accidents, terrorist attacks same thing. There is a definite line in the sand with that kind of imagery. The only reason you saw the jets crashing into the towers on 9/11, the people jumping out of the buildings (tape stopping before impact and believe me they have worse footage) is because it was possibly the most important day to Americans since Pearl Harbor. Even then, the press restrained themselves. They used discretion because they know their audience.

    It's disturbing me a bit that y'all seem to be vilifying the news. They have a job to do. Unfortunately "sell advertising" is paramount to objective coverage, but if we want to talk reliability, broadcasters and printers today are more reliable than 100 years ago. 100 years ago a newspaper magnate was able to manufacture a war. One fucking guy. Don't tell me Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner managed that, they only profit off the war mongering, not actively manipulate the facts. Want to worry about news? Worry about dipshit bloggers with no training or care for objective reality.

    Because if we want to live in a free and open society we have to accept that things like this are real, that they happen. During the court proceedings he is going to relive it anyway. People have a right to know, and I think, a duty to know about people like this. 100% transparency. Nothing should be off limits to the press or the person. It is up to the individual to decide their level of involvement. I am flat out terrified with the folks here talking about what should be proscribed. Use your discretion, because before you even knew about it, the journalists did use discretion in disseminating the story. There is a relative few of them that truly relish in unsavory material. I will bet the editors at that shitrag in the original post already got a ton of hate mail. Even then we cannot stop the looky-loo type viewer. Do not hurt the reasonable viewer.

    Without unsettling coverage of HARD FACTS we would not have child labor laws, abolition of slavery, the details of the Civil War or any other war, including the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. The latter the public did not truly know about until 1944 or 45 directly because of a media blackout. again, how long were women and children marginalized? It was because of media both those groups got national advocacy a relatively short time ago. Don't you think these things are important to know in graphic detail?

    I do not see how anyone can tell me that TRUTH should not be printed or should be restrained for your own personal comfort. Fuck your comfort, people. You SHOULDN'T be comforted sometimes. It's a rotten world. No one can tell me that the details of that girl's humiliation and torture should be buried because that is disrespectful to what she went through and what others like her suffered. Anyone wants to stick their head in the sand about this, what else will you ignore? I flat out won't.
     
  2. Queen-Bee

    Queen-Bee
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    31
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    609
    Location:
    Edge of Canada
    I've intentially avoided all media regarding this. I haven't read a word of this thread outside of the initial post and article attached.

    I'm a mother of a girl child and this puts me on my knees. I'm sobbing and won't be rational. Burn them. Stone them. I don't care, make them gone.

    Media has to make money. Their intentions aren't pure, but if we don't hear about it, we can't react.

    Fuck, I'll never sleep. This can't be undone.
     
  3. lust4life

    lust4life
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,562
    Location:
    Deepinthehearta, TX
    If it were my daughter, I'd want all those details out there because I'd want this bastard convicted in the court of public opinion, which would include his future fellow inmates who can (and will) mete out the punishment he deserves but the legal system doesn't provide.

    I didn't read the article because of the warning you included, but I still have the choice to read it. Broadcast media usually do the same thing, stating that the following footage/story/interview may be too graphic or disturbing for some viewers and those viewers are free to choose whether to flip channels or not.

    Is there an element of sensationalism to all of it? Of course there is. Media play to the morbid curiosity that exists in human nature. But that's part of the cost of the First Amendment as has been pointed out. No one is forced to watch Nancy Grace or Geraldo Rivera (or listen to Rush et al and so-called "shock jocks" for that matter), but that decision is, and should be, left to the audience.
     
  4. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    Some thoughts:

    1. The First Amendment does not apply in Canada, or any country besides the United States.

    2. In Canada, there is typically a publication ban on crimes involving children, crimes that are particularly sensational in nature, crimes that for whatever reason call for a higher level of security, etc. I don’t know why the ban was lifted in this case; it was in effect when McClinty (the girlfriend) had her trial/plea.

    Look at the case out in Alberta where the man was dropped off at the hospital. Beating within an inch of his life, he had been starved down to the weight of 90lbs (he was 6’2), he suffered brain damaged from the abuse and was missing parts of his face. The man ultimately charged with kidnapping, raping and abusing him has had a much more muted media exposure, since the man who suffered the attack cannot be named. Why didn’t this girl deserve the same treatment?

    3. I think you all are confusing “needing to be informed” with “needing gory details.” And I don’t think ANYONE is psychologically better in our instant-news day and age.

    4. It’s interesting to note that we have FAR less violent crime in Canada than in the United States. Even if you compare the per capita rates. Has anyone considered that the sensationalist media, glorifying horrible crimes, makes it attractive for those with only marginal psychological balance to step into the realm of acting out their fantasies? Someone mentioned earlier that the way the news presents the information is itself partially responsible for those crimes being repeated or “bettered”? It can be argued that the public has a right to know.

    5. I agree – this needs to be said IN COURT. It does not need to be repeated to sell entertainment. And yes, you can argue that court documents are a matter of public record and that anyone can go and get a transcript. Realistically speaking, though, hardly anyone is ever going to do that. It’s a whole different animal when you can’t stand in line at the checkout or log onto Google News without knowing exactly how a young girl was killed.
     
  5. trojanstf

    trojanstf
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    20
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    413
    1. In regards to thd firts amendment, the opinion I've always had towards it is that we will argue more about where to draw the line and we will never figure that out so its the best option we have.

    2.

    You're asking a question of us about why two judges made different decisions in cases that we don't know that much about, and definitely don't know what went on behind the scenes, so that's irrelevant



    3. You're confusing your opinion with you being correct.



    4. You're just throwing out a theory based on nothing more than simple conjecture and making it sound like its
     
  6. trojanstf

    trojanstf
    Expand Collapse
    Disturbed

    Reputation:
    20
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    413
    On my phone and its not working properly so have to add this in another post.

    4. You're throwing out a theory and trying to make it sound like fact when you've shown absolutely nothing to link them in anyway.

    It seems like you're unable to get past the emotional aspect of this case. This is understandable, but deciisons in regards to freedom of speech should not be made on the merits of individual cases and should be made as overarching rules.
     
  7. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,736
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    It all boils down to this question: how far is too far?

    For those of you arguing that the nation is built on freedom of the press, and that such freedom cannot be restricted*, what about these scenarios?

    - A newspaper printing a how-to on building a bomb out of household chemicals.
    - A private citizen taking out an ad that reads, “John Smith (or whoever) is a fuckin’ fag who should have his head kicked in!”
    - A website releasing confidential email communication from the FBI server.

    They should be free to do that, right? Well, in the first case you’ll argue that such a story would be dangerous to the public, and therefore irresponsible of the paper to print. You might even back that argument up with laws.

    In the second option, you’ll probably argue that such a declaration is dangerous to John Smith, and once again…publishing it would be irresponsible. It might trigger a hate crime or a suicide.

    That last option you’ll say is a matter of national security. Plus, you might add, those people who wrote those emails had an expectation of a certain level of privacy. Releasing the documents might not serve the national interest, it would be embarrassing for both the FBI and their employees, and no paper would risk that kind of wrath.

    So…it would appear that we do censor things, eh? It would appear that historically a certain level of common sense and respect has been exercised, and in those cases where it hasn’t a backlash has caused procedures to be adjusted. Not, I guess, in this case though. In regards to a little girl being kidnapped, raped and murdered our civil society depends on being able to know and report any detail we see fit, because it serves the public interest.




    *And let’s not be naïve, here. It’s totally restricted. All the media outlets are owned by corporations, and we get the story Big Business wants us to get. To suggest that reporters are totally free with their content is just flatly wrong. Gone are the days of Watergate and gumshoes reporting ‘the truth.’
     
  8. ghettoastronaut

    ghettoastronaut
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    70
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,917
    I'm just gong to leave this very fine video here for you to enjoy. The focus is on something slightly different but censorship still comes up all the same, and I hope after watching it you'll see which side is right on the subject of censorship.

     
    #48 ghettoastronaut, Mar 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2015
  9. Noland

    Noland
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    41
    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,237
    Location:
    New Orleans
    1) The Anarchist Cookbook.

    2) It's called Intimidation and is, generally speaking, already a crime. Whether or not the publications is liable, I'm not certain.

    3) See The Pentagon Papers. The paper itself, in this case The New York Times, was allowed to publish classified Pentagon documents on the Vietnam War.

    Neither of these are perfect examples and, as you have pointed out, the First Amendment applies only in the US, but the press is pretty much free to publish almost anything it wants to publish.
     
  10. xrayvision

    xrayvision
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    509
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,323
    Location:
    Hyewston
    This also falls under the "fighting words" exemption of First Amendment protection because the content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. That was partially from wikipedia. On top of that, even if the words advocated violence, the threat of violence against the person must be imminent and not just spoken.

    I guess one could argue that it also depends on the publication and where it is located that would also determine how imminent the threat is and if it could be restricted on those grounds.

    Many schools and universities have tried to adopt "speech codes" to prevent hateful and incendiary statements from being written and published. And most of these have been overturned by the courts because of First Amendment violations. So they have adopted anti-harrasment codes instead covering discriminatory speech.
     
  11. CharlesJohnson

    CharlesJohnson
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    401
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,974
    Bingo on all counts. Also, number 2 is libel, inciting a crime, and a hate crime. There also has to be an INTEREST for the paper to publish it. Most audiences do not care about any of those things mentioned. A paper/media outlet is designed to publish newsworthy articles, not anything and everything regardless of merit, salaciousness, or human interest.
     
  12. Aribidi

    Aribidi
    Expand Collapse
    Experienced Idiot

    Reputation:
    1
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    157
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Big Business gives us the stories they think will attract the most readers. If it's about grissly murders, great. If it's about your cat Def Leppard Whiskerson III, also good. Whatever. But they haven't changed since the good old Watergate-days. It's still the same situation. Their bosses might try to stop Woodrow and Wilson, but they couldn't force them by law.

    Nobody believes censorship never takes place. Of course things can get censored. But that's different than saying news stories should get censored. An editor can stop your story from being printed in his newspaper/magazine/whatever, but you can try and get it published somewhere else. Just like your boss may fire you for dicking around on the internet all day. You can try and find a job where it's possible to do just that. But saying we should have laws against playing Solitaire while at work, just because some companies already don't allow it, is ridiculous.

    Some companies don't allow their journalists to write certain things. But as shitty and unethical as that sometimes may be, it's a company policy, not a law. The journalist will only get in trouble with his bosses if he goes through with it, not with the legal authorities. Owners can ultimately censor a story, but we shouldn't start making laws requiring censorship.
     
  13. MoreCowbell

    MoreCowbell
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    14
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,185
    Dude, there's a reason the MSM was silent on Occupy Wall Street for a week after it started. Or why the Murdoch trials got very little mainstream coverage. No one wants their advertisers to flee, or to have viewers questioning their media's ethics. It's a very different beast from government censorship, but it happens.
     
  14. AlmostGaunt

    AlmostGaunt
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,040
    I find it interesting that the board appears to skew towards 'freedom of the press' here. When Wikileaks arrived on the scene, the attitude seemed to be quite different.
     
  15. ghettoastronaut

    ghettoastronaut
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    70
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,917
    Part of the reason I posted the video above - although I should have mentioned it - is that in it Christopher Hitchens does a rather good job of pointing out the difference between speech and information when it comes to censorship. That is, information can be copyrighted or classified, so protecting copywritten material and restricting the release of classified information is very different from censorship.

    The thing about Wikileaks is that releasing classified information (aside from being treason on the part of the leaker, which is no small thing) has the potential to jeopardize people's lives. Who, exactly, is going to die from a gruesome story in the paper? For what it's worth, there was a dust-up some time ago in Canada when a surgeon deployed to the hospital in KAF (of Combat Hospital fame) wrote an extremely detailed description of his attempts to save a Canadian soldier's life, and published his name. It was of course inappropriate, both for the sake of patient confidentiality, and the family's sake, to give identifying information. But you'll notice that this is miles fucking apart from broadcasting, say, the location of FOBs, convoy schedules, aircraft response times, etc.

    Also, in a good number of the serious discussions we have, there's always one person who thinks they're so smart that they can point out hypocrisy by saying that, since some people in this thread are saying x and some people in previous threads said y, we're all suffering from cognitive dissonance. There were diverse opinions in the thread about wikileaks, as there are in this thread, and pretending that we're as homogeneous as you're saying is disingenuous.
     
  16. AlmostGaunt

    AlmostGaunt
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,040
    Unfortunately I can't watch the video at work, so I can't respond directly to that. I'm not sure I agree with the distinction between 'speech' and 'information'; at the risk of picking and choosing my examples, the details of the abuse suffered by the girl in the OP would be considered information rather than speech, right? What happens if the speech contains factual information? Maybe I'm missing the nuances of the argument, but the vibe I get from that is "Governments can censor information and it's not really censorship because they're allowed to."

    The research is more compelling with regards to suicide than homicide, but have a look at copycat suicides. (I'm pretty sure one of the pop psychologist writers - Gladwell maybe? goes into more details about this.) Colloquially known as the "the Werther effect",
    Granted there are all sorts of thorny issues about factors versus causes and varying levels of responsibility here, but there does seem to be a body of evidence demonstrating that gruesome stories can influence deaths. (See also: Media coverage as a risk factor in suicide, J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:238-240:
    More interesting to me than this, though, is how many lives are saved by gruesome stories. Other posters have noted that the public opposition that ended the Vietnam War coincided with the televised images of Americans dying. And I keep coming back to this example, but if there'd been a Wikileaks in the days of the Tonkin Gulf incident, maybe you save about what, 3 million people?

    In short, gruesome stories can be a net negative, when they influence vulnerable people to kill themselves, or a net positive, when they convince the public to end a war. This probably depends, to a degree, on the point of the story, although maybe not as much as we'd like to believe.

    Finally, enough with the straw man argument. I didn't draw any conclusions about hypocrisy or cognitive difference. I just think it's interesting that when it comes to two situations which I find analogous, the board tends to respond differently to each. Perhaps it's because other people find the differences between the situations outweigh the similarities (government versus private, military vs personal etc), or perhaps it's because the board composition has changed. I don't know. That's why I didn't draw any conclusions, just noted it as a potential talking point. (Wikileaks thread here). Sorry, you don't get to be the great spokesman for the people here.
     
  17. Stealth

    Stealth
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    4
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    857
     
    #57 Stealth, Mar 20, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 27, 2015