How do you feel about newspapers printing pictures of the dead?

[sp1814]

Remember the British papers who rushed to print pictures of Michael Jackson on the autopsy table?

Now a daily tabloid has printed some pretty distressing pictures of miners massacred by South African police.

What do you feel about this? Is it okay to show a dead body if the faces are pixelated?

If it's okay to publish pictures of the deceased Michael Jackson, then why not the shots of Diana after the car crash?

[2sp_]

I don't think it is acceptable to print photos of the dead - pixelated or not. I find it to be disrespectful and distasteful.

[sandyRoe]

I think it was The Observer published a picture of an Iraqi soldier charred to a cinder during the Gulf War. I believe using that image was justified.
Generally, it's not acceptable.

[sandyRoe]

A local paper, The Sunday World, once published a photograph of a man who had committed suicide by hanging himself from a motorway bridge. I never bought that paper again.

[sp1814]

sandyRoe

I would do the same (re: the local paper), and even though the soldier in The Observer picture may not be identifiable by most of its readers - the family of he soldier would see the photo, and the effect on them would be appalling.

[Traci66]

No, as far as I am concerned, photos of the dead, pixelated or not are the most extreme invasion of privacy. I did not go to see my dad when he died and I do not wish to see pictures of dead bodies when I open my newspaper.

[Kromovaracun]

Personally, it doesn't bother me all that much. The dead body images published by newspapers are almost invariably in very public places (except for maybe the Michael Jackson ones), so I don't see how it's more 'disrespectful' for me to see it than for any of the people directly around it to see it. Plus on a more general level I'm slightly uncomfortable with the very sanitised way in which people imagine death - death is messy, undignified, and inevitable. I'm not sure how healthy it is to imagine death as a quiet, clean little process that we don't have to think about if we avert our eyes.

Having said that, principled opposition to our stances on death is most certainly not the reason papers publish photos - they publish them for the same reason hucksters use to put on freakshows: because people like to gape. Personally, I'm fairly indifferent to that as well. But a lot of the newspaper readership in this country do seem to find newspapers aiming to indulge that feeling unpleasant, so it makes sense for papers to avoid doing it.

[Brenden]

Are we back on the black/white issue sp? - I also abhor pictures of dead bodies in the tabloids so I do not look at them - But there were pictures of Diana circulating in France I believe but the royal family banned them in this country - and they are one hell of a powerful family.

[Old_Geezer]

I don't have a problem with it. I think modern society seems too keen to make out death is not part of life, and act as if it doesn't happen. But I think the affect on friends/family should be considered before a decision is made to publish.

[Old_Geezer]

Of course in the days of the Internet much of the question is moot. What the 'elites' in one place decides to ban, another allows freedom to see.

[2sp_]

I am aware that death is messy, undignified, and inevitable.

I am not naive.

But I do believe it is a personal journey that each of us will undertake, and I don't think that we should be exposed to the world via photos in newspapers after we are gone.

And lets not forget the family and friends left behind. I'm sure they don't need to see their loved one's corpse splashed over the papers for all to see.

[Gromit]

I think the full horrors of war should be shown @ primetime.
If the corpses of the British dead in Afghanistan and Iraq had been shown on the six o' clock news everynight, then I am sure that public disgust would have meant we would have been out of those 'no win' wars a decade ago.

As it is, we get a sanitised picture of wars and armchair Churchills want us to invade Syria or whatever the latest no win situation arrises.

[naomi24]

Depends on the circumstances really. Individual celebrities, no - that's sensationalism - but perhaps pictures of the war dead and victims of global catastrophes like famine - or indeed of appalling atrocities and injustices - serve to bring the awful reality of man's inhumanity to man a little closer to the reader - which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Pictures of the dead and dying sometimes have their place.

[Duncer]

In this case I believe it is acceptable. To tell the full horror of a story you sometimes need pictures. To many, this might be a story of no great import somewhere very far away, but pictures of dead bodies bring clarity to the horror of what happened. I agree with Gromit - perhaps we should have had pictures of the war dead and that way we might have saved young British lives from futile deaths.

As for celebrities, if someone ever shoots Jedward I want proof.

[Debbie83]

Jackson was black. The South African miners were black. Diana was white. Ergo.

[emmie]

debbie, that is a daft analogy, race doesn't come into it. And no i don't think it is right that they print them.

[emmie]

pictures of war dead haven't ever stopped a war, or saved anyone, it just reiterates what mankind is capable of.

[Canary42]

I don't think your comment is daft Debbie.

[emmie]

canary, so you think they won't, don't publish pictures of white folks, what about all the photo of victims of the death camps. Daft as i said

[NOX]

there are essetially two types of pictures of dead people.
1. Celecrity X was found with his pants round his nakles knee deep in cocaine, booze and hookers- look WE have a photo- buy our rag.

2. Photographs proving something which is in the public interest, an atrocity, the genuine cost of war, something which happened which might later come under dispute.

The former repels me the latter I believe are necessary to keep people awake and on their toes. We have scores of examples where photographs of the dead have added something positive to the world- not the least those terrible images of the death camps showing unbelievable barbarity, mass graves in Bosnia etc etc etc.

[emmie]

I can honestly say that photo's of celebs of any description don't interest me, but i did find the supposed pictures of Michael Jackson on his deathbed ghoulish and unnecessary.