Images of real death and destruction in the mass media

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Because one of the FAP threads has taken a bit of a morbid turn and its a question worth its own thread, I think, and I can't find anything in the archives.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:40 (twenty-one years ago)

There was a prog on Ch4 last nite Mark that visited AFC Wimbledon (not sure if it was their ground or they were playing). I looked out for you, but you weren't there! So now you know!! (You on aim?)
-- Pinkpanther (pinkpanther4...), March 9th, 2004 9:57 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We started watching that, because we'd seen them looking for people to interview while we were at the match, but none of us were willing to answer their stupid questions, and last night we had to turn it off, as it was such a stupid programme. Did they address the issue of women killing, or did they manage to avoid it completely? Talk about superficial.
-- Vicky (missvick...), March 9th, 2004 10:03 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey - was that the programme they were interviewing people for before the mass ILE trip to Kingsmeadow?
"Y'see, being a football fan, it's just like being in the army..."

I want to know if arch Meeja Whore Dave B actually made it onto the programme.

-- Matt DC (runmd...), March 9th, 2004 10:06 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's actually a series. It was only about the type of person that could kill last night. It was discussing soldiers during the 2nd World War & how they wanted to kill, but weren't actually able to do it.
-- Pinkpanther (pinkpanther4...), March 9th, 2004 10:12 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope not, because I was a smart-ass with them. However, I am orf to be interviewed by BBC Business today. Really too busy, but there you go.
The reason me and Markelby will be absent

-- Dave B (dave.boyl...), March 9th, 2004 10:17 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a series?! my God! With that presenter all the way through? I couldn't stand him. It must have some substance then, to make a series out of it, did it get better/a bit more detailed/more analytical?
-- Vicky (missvick...), March 9th, 2004 10:18 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i thought so, but I agree he was a bit annoying & the 'experts' were extremely annoying. It was all about the 98% of soldiers that went to war who couldn't kill & what made the 2% different. I found it quite interesting, apart from when I was eating my dinner & saw Chinese prisoners executed & then pictures of mutilated faces!
-- Pinkpanther (pinkpanther4...), March 9th, 2004 10:23 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a serious, serious problem with witnessing real death on screen (I've been lucky enough not to in real life so far) - it disturbs me for a long time afterwards. The thought of executions, plane crashes etc. captured on film makes my blood run cold. Prime nightmare material.
-- Markelby (boyincorduro...), March 9th, 2004 10:29 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't find it overly disturbing, but then I was looking away from the pics of the mutilations. I was stupid enough to check out rotten.com once & it messed me up for ages. I really don't think you need to see that sort of thing!
-- Pinkpanther (pinkpanther4...), March 9th, 2004 10:34 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm like that - bad enough with photos to be honest (at what point did it become acceptable to show pictures of corpses on the front page of newspapers? My initial thought on seeing the Uday and Qusay front pages was "do we REALLY need to see this?" Worse still was that heroin girl pic that the Daily Mail insists on publishing every so often.
(Blimey, most extreme thread mutation ever - can we go back to talking about lifts please?)

-- Matt DC (runmd...), March 9th, 2004 10:35 AM. (later)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry Colette!
I didn't like seeing the pics of Marc Viven-Foe. That was so horrible, but you are compelled to look.

-- Pinkpanther (pinkpanther4...), March 9th, 2004 10:37 AM. (later)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I was about to do that! So what is it that makes you look at things that you know will disturb you?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:42 (twenty-one years ago)

we're fascinated by things we can't understand easily - and death - especially nature of death - is one of those things, particularly when it is unexpected and unusual in terms of circumstances

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i think that relates to imagery more than words too. there are no pictures of what the child abuser in Belgium actually did, thankfully, and i don't wish to read about the details in that case either

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:48 (twenty-one years ago)

the case in Belgium was truly horrific, but the thought of it didn't stay with me at all. I guess a more visually graphic picture is bound to leave a lasting impression. It bothers some ppl, but not others, so are those ppl just more sensitive?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:50 (twenty-one years ago)

People do though! Billboards for the Evening Standard say things like 'Murdered Family - First Picture!' ever other day before showing you a sentimental soft-focus portrait that no one REALLY needs to see.

I think I phrased the thread title poorly, actually - I'm not sure there are many people who could argue that there isn't a case for TV news showing the aftermath of, say, a carbombing in Baghdad.

But there's a substantial difference between that and a picture of Mark Vivien Foe lifeless on the ground, or even dead war victims on the front page of the Telegraph or whatever.

The dead heroin teenager (can't remember her name) was a horrible picture, but that's a thornier issue still, especially as the aim was to shock people away from drug use.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm exactly the opposite. Reading about, say, the German cannibal totally creeped me out, whereas I feel kind of inured to pictures of death and destruction. Pictures never seem as real as what I can conjure up in my imagination.

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:52 (twenty-one years ago)

which in turn reminds me of the question 'Descriptions of real death and destruction in the mass media - why?' - as in why do people/media deem it necessary to present the facts in the way they do. just because they are facts does that mean they should be reported? it does seem morbid, even perverse. obviously people can choose what they read and hear but i caught the news report on that aforementioned story and i continue to question the logic of news delivering in a way that can't really educate you, only depress and sicken you with no real positive upshot (but of course we can't keep our heads in the sand about such things, only we already know they happen and what they entail)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm also thinking about the WTC footage here - back when the Concorde crashed on the outskirts of Paris in 2000, they had the whole crash on film but hardly anyone showed the plane actually hit the ground, it was considered way beyond the pale. Thirteen months later that limit just didn't exist any more.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 10:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember first feeling sick about this during Columbine, the images sticking in my head being that kids busting out of a window on the second floor and limply falling to the roof of a truck, and other students running past two dead bodies on the ground outside. I understand and know the arguments for that type of shits, but come on.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course 9/11 made that all look like the feel-good closer every newscast has.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Did anyone watch that docu-film about 9/11 filmed by someone who went out with a fire crew? That to me didn't seem real. I guess it's because it's too awful to comprehend & therefore my head can dismiss it as such.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

i admit to morbid fascination with crashes - planes, trains or otherwise. this has nothing to with the amount of lives lost and people injured (often that remains beyond real comprehension) but a more general curiosity about physical impact and how things break/are destroyed. people go to watch buildings get imploded, that clip of the beached dead whale being blown to smithereens by explosives because it was too big to be moved otherwise and even the shattering of glass are other lesser examples of this. i guess the fact that there may sometimes be people at risk does not really deter the urge to watch, but i'm not sure it really encourages it either.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:21 (twenty-one years ago)

I am not generally bothered, but an article about violence in videogames yesterday did have a security camera still of Klebond and Harris walking around a cafeteria with indistinct possible-bodies in the background, and I felt quite ill.

link to article: (first page of article doesn't contain picture)

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6090892/index.html

I disagree with Gear: I think Columbine is far more personal violence, and so much worse to watch.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:23 (twenty-one years ago)

The columbine footage is pretty horrifying i agree, but the only reason 9/11 possibly seems worse is down to sheer numbers & the enormity of the situation. This could also work in the reverse though & Columbine could be more chilling as it's on a smaller, more intimate scale if you will. 9/11 was so very anonymous.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Columbine was awful but not at the forefront of my mind after a couple of days, but watching people jumping/falling from the WTC was the worst thing I've ever witnessed, and that memory still shakes me up.

― Gear! (Gear!), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Dunno, for those of us who (thankfully) didn't lose anyone in 9/11 the anonymity of the situation is key - the sight of that second plane smashing into the side of the WTC doesn't chill me as much as I'd imagine watching footage of a solitary person being shot dead would. It's being able to watch everything close up that's horrific for me.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

"we're fascinated by [...]nature of death"

I would agree with this but I think there might be something to the "creating a culture of fear" explaination at least in some cases; the spectacular used by mass media as a proof they are 4real, reflecting the world as it is if we go by the anchorman who often closes the news by saying something like "and that's the kind of day it's been"... denying their subjectivity and the values and interests they stand for. One thing for sure is the news coverage by alternative medias like http://www.zmag.org really is different.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 14:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Images of real death and destruction in the mass media - why?
Surely because it sells.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)

why does it sell / how do you know it sells? (chicken/egg)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't understand the part "how do you know it sells?".
I think I know because it's out there and no businesses would be willing to reduce their profits to push this issue isn'it?

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not 100% convinced that pictures of Iraqis weeping over the bodies of loved ones DO help sell papers to be honest, even serious broadsheet ones.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I remember the first time I ever saw a dead person in a newspaper & it was a picture of a girl against a fence at Hillsborough. To this day I can still remember the image & how unnecessary I thought it was to show that picture. We all knew what happened & how horrific it must have been.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't understand the part "how do you know it sells?".

once a news resource is established (e.g. British tabloid newspapers) i figure it's sales don't vary enough on a day to day basis to be able to tell whether one day's edition sold more than another day's purely because of what was on the cover. tho i would accept that sex and death are more fascinating to people by and large than political turbulence (that doesn't revolve around or entail sex and death).

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Matt DC's example would get us back to stevem's post that I mentionned, an appeal to the human experience that unites us all. We can agree these images are used in many different contexts.

― Sébastien Chikara (Sébastien Chikara), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:40 (twenty-one years ago)

the sight of that second plane smashing into the side of the WTC doesn't chill me as much as I'd imagine watching footage of a solitary person being shot dead would.

I feel the same way - it's the image of the guy falling headfirst towards the pavement that haunts me, not the image of the plane. It's also what Ailsa said about imagining - I can't bear to think how that guy chose plumetting dozens of storeys to certain death over staying in the blazing building to wait for certain death.

― Madchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess it's that aspect that fascinates me about this subject, what compells me to look. I have absolutely no understanding of what the particular guy (that Madchen mentioned above) was thinking & how he came to the conclusion that jumping to his death was the better option. Was is a misguided notion that he might survive it?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

i'd rather jump than burn

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

But when it came to it, could you actually jump? You can say you would because you are comfortably sitting infront of your pc with the benefit of rational thought. Of course noone can predict how they might act.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I can only speculate, but I think people jumped because it became impossible to breathe in the building itself.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

i can watch documentaries about the holocaust, epic (us) civil war battles and not get upset, it is when these images are shown on the 5 oclock news and then 2.3 seconds later they are talking about the new krispy kreme donuts or whatever and my head is still spinning from the deathImage & i am left wondering, is someone really paying attention to the donuts?

― kephm, Tuesday, 9 March 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

six months pass...

The cover of G2 today, with the three pictures of the gunned down Iraqi sitting up, stretching his hand out and then lying apparently dead, is probably the most disturbing image I've ever seen in a newspaper.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 14 September 2004 08:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I just read this G2 report before opening this thread. (Warning: Contains photo of dead and badly injured people)

Seeing a dead body in the British media used to be a rarity, now it is commonplace. I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or not. I'm all for making sure people know the exact implications of armed conflict but at a personal level I just find the pictures too disturbing. Like PinkPather upthread, I once made the mistake of seeing what rotten.com was all about - I've never looked at it since.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Tuesday, 14 September 2004 10:21 (twenty-one years ago)

It sells newspapers - that's all you need to know. Or, to be ore precise, people in the media assume death sells

― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 September 2004 10:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not convinced the photos are there to sell papers (they're not on the front page as visible in the shops). They're there to shock the unconvinced round to the publication's way of thinking.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 14 September 2004 10:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Putting them on the front page would be a step too far - for now. But hang around and it will happen, give it a few years.

― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 14 September 2004 10:26 (twenty-one years ago)

It's already happened - dead teenage heroin girl from a few years ago. Reprinted by the Daily Mail at every opportunity.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 14 September 2004 10:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Marc-Vivien Foe with the whites of his eyes retouched to stand out on the back of the sun was fucking horrible, but the fact that they'd obviously photoshopped it was what was really unpleasant.

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 14 September 2004 10:32 (twenty-one years ago)

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