I was wrong. I posted last week that the press should refrain from sanitising pictures of MH17 and

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

such so people would truly understand the human cost of these acts. I then thought it my duty to look at the reality for myself and went to some photo-journalism sites where no censorship takes place.

What I didn't think of, was how immediately recognisabe some of those bodies would be to anyone who knew them. The distress this would cause to friends and relatives would be unimaginable. In future, I promise to think ahead before I mouth off*




* probably won't.

[Monty91]

most money :shrug:

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

[Monty91]

the monetary value of such coverage

[Berni]

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

suggest. The argument quickly descends to the position that all good deeds are ulterior and enacted only with a view to benefit those doing the deed. It's an intellectual 'path of least resistance'.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

and decisions are made by people. Hopefully these people have consciences and temper purely commercial decisions with morality; but it's always a compromise.

Also, some people are just ****s.

[Berni]

their competitors (who aren't c**ts per se) to either do the same thing or maintain the moral high ground at the expense of their profits and potentially to the detriment of their employees' livelihoods.

So, in other words, c**ts do tend to dictate the agenda by virtue of being c**ts.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Sometimes I wonder if Jebus is actually looking.

[Classic Jorge]

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

didactic discourse on the very fundamentals of morality and human self interest. Now sod off back to practising your fierljeppen.

[Berni]

[Luis Anaconda]

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

I'm upset now.

[Monty91]

would be made when a media entity decides whether or not to publish photos of dead people is staggeringly naive.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

[Classic Jorge]

[Luis Anaconda]

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

several such entities that still attempt a semblance, at least, of rectitude. Take the Guardian. Deeply irritating yes, but still operating within an a clearly discernible ethical framework. I suspect that you lack the attention span to read a lengthy, broadsheet editorial.

[Sir Charlie of Nicholas]

Ethical? It's as bigoted as the Daily Mail.

[Monty91]

its core readership.

Every editorial decision made by a media entity is (implicitly at least) dictated not by "What is the right decision here" but "What will our readers think is the right decision here"

It is a small distinction and you can be forgiven for failing to spot it, but there it is...

[Luis Anaconda]

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

dismiss your perception of their employers as the ill-informed yappings of a mediocre A-level student.

[Monty91]

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

squeamishness. E.g. saw a picture of a vietcong holding the freshly severed heads of collaborators aloft.

[Monty91]

I guess my point is that your original post was asinine, since there is absolutely no way in the world that a modern day media outlet in the UK would ever publish graphic images of dead people.

And more to the point, if you believe they should, what you are in fact asking for is a change in public appetite to allow them to do so without it being a huge PR disaster.

Unless you think the media has a responsibility to educate the public and encourage them to accept that viewing such images would be beneficial in the pursuit of truth.

To which I would respond that the media's responsibility first and foremost is to generate profit. Which takes us full circle back to my original point.

[Ashberto]

luggage on camera, suddenly realise what they are doing and going "Oops! Sorry"

[Monty91]

must have been overwhelming.

Would have been funny if the camera zoomed in on a massive dildo or something.

[Herbette Chapman - aged 15]

as a pseudo intellectual, you're a parochial one at that.