How Far Should The Media Go

[sp1814]

When abroad, I notice that the media often print and broadcast extremely graphic pictures after accidents or terrorist attacks.

It's something the British papers and tv news programmes shy away from, but more and more recently, some outlets have been publishing some really shocking images, possibly to drive up web traffic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4519432/At-10-people-hit-car-Times-Square.html

How do you feel about this?

Do you think that news organisations have a duty to show us what is happening in the world, or do you (like all of the top-rated comments generated on the piece in the link), think that editors have a duty to censor images due to the distress it will cause both its readers and possibly, the family of those deceased?

[piggynose]

Its not unusual to see graphic images of the dead after such incidents on the telly in spain

[youngmafbog]

Yes, I have noticed the same.

My personal view is that there is no need to show too much graphic detail. A good journalist can describe it with words to enable the reader to understand what has happened. I suspect this is the problem now with free online 'newpapers' using cheap Interns who are not trained journo's.

[douglas9401]

Maybe if we were shown the 'injured' after atrocities, i.e. people with limbs blown off or burned to the point of being unrecognisable as human beings, we'd take our politicians to task more and get them to get on with doing something about it instead of mouthing a lot of meaningless drivel, slagging each other off, to no obvious end.

'Injured' doesn't mean 'oops, the paring knife slipped and I've nicked myself'.

[youngmafbog]

The big problem with showing such graphic images it that the body parts are someone's loved one.

[ummmm]

The media showed the murder of Lee Rigby. Can't get much more brutal than that.