Should news be censored if it might upset people?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

All you philosophy dudes bring your tortuously worked-out fires + crowded theatres here!

― dave q, Thursday, 3 April 2003 11:00 (twenty-two years ago)

the best example of where i can see uncensored news being problematic is the Bin Laden tapes and theory of there being 'coded messages' but not sure how seriously that was taken

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 3 April 2003 11:08 (twenty-two years ago)

News reporters should warn you if they think you're going to be upset; but they shouldn't censor anything because of it.

― caitlin (caitlin), Thursday, 3 April 2003 12:21 (twenty-two years ago)

at the same time they shouldn't show sensationalistic stuff to shock (and grab more) viewers and then hide behind 'we're just showing it like it is' (eg. I'm not sure exactly what news was imparted by showing people jump form the twin towers that neccesitated showing it)

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 3 April 2003 12:31 (twenty-two years ago)

"And tonight's headlines: A friendly little rabbit is gambolling in a local field. An area man is meeting some friends for a quiet pint. And some other stuff you don't want to know about is going on in a country frequented by T-Heads".

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 3 April 2003 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

All you philosophy dudes...

...belong to Q.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 3 April 2003 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

If it doesn't upset people, it's not news.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 3 April 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

"Fishbone releases a new album!"

"Hey, I'm not upset...oh man, that's not news. :-("

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 3 April 2003 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, isn't that what Reader's Digest is for?
Basically (even from the most stupid news gathering agency like Fox's the Pulse), if you don't want to be upset, stay away from the news.

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 3 April 2003 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha ha, Ned using my own weaknesses against me! And thus we finally see "Bad Ned" in action!

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 3 April 2003 14:55 (twenty-two years ago)

four months pass...

shocking news should not be censored. broadcast news people commenting on shocking news, on the other hand ...

(see the blaring BLACKOUT 2003!!!, complete with theme music and moronic journo-blather)

― Tad (llamasfur), Friday, 15 August 2003 18:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I could do with a little less gore (ha ha, as in blood in guts, not the dude) in pix accompanying articles, but I'm a lightweight.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Friday, 15 August 2003 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

The lack of censorship is fine (though giving contextual warnings is a fair practice - the giving context part being key). I think the real problems lie within advertising, underhanded propaganda, and it's dangerously quiet cousin - innocent bias.

― Kim (Kim), Friday, 15 August 2003 20:12 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, speaking of 'warning you' i remember seeing some news coverage of a peace march and the anchor warned the viewers that what they see might be disturbing, but that these people are exercising their free speech in this great country of ours and are allowed to march. something like that. i was fucking livid. they don't seem to make warning about things i genuinely find disturbing though.

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Saturday, 16 August 2003 01:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Well yeah, ideally the warnings are given out by using logical deduction and knowing the audience - i.e. if you have a huge number of vegetarians out there and about to show the inside of an abbatoir - then giving them warning that they'll likely be offended is probably the prudent thing to do - just in a practical sense so they don't have to field thousands of angry calls etc. I don't think they're meant to be fair across the board or representative of everyone. A bias, yes, but ok by me as long as it's in the name of function.

― Kim (Kim), Saturday, 16 August 2003 02:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Who was the guy who had his head cut off? That should probably be censored. I was afraid to watch that.

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Saturday, 16 August 2003 02:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Perl? Pearl?

― Kenan Hebert (kenan), Saturday, 16 August 2003 02:22 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.