A few years ago I happened to be channel zapping on my satellite system and i came across the lunchtime news on ARD, Germany's equivalent of BBC1.
They were reporting from the scene of a serious road accident which had left several people dead and injured and showed a severed arm lying in the road.
I asked some German friends about this and their view was "yes,so what?".
I'm always surprised about the things they ARE allowed to report on the pre-watershed news (graphic images or not) compared with the things that are censored in dramas.
Images of a naked human body or use of mild swear words (p1ss, sh1t etc) aren't allowed to be broadcast before 9pm because they are considered too 'offensive' and 'disturbing' for children. Even though they can see real-life naked bodies in any swimming pool changing room and hear these words in the playground every day.
And yet the daytime news on TV and radio will report on real-life stories about rapists, paedophiles, child abuse, genocide and other horrific events.
The fact that its real makes it much MORE disturbing IMO.
Other people have said most of what I think but I want to touch on this -
You think people need to see someone dying to become "more aware of safety"?
Really?
Let me tell you, those of us who DON'T need or want to see this are well aware of the risks in life and most of us take adequate precautions but accept sometimes you cannot fully mitigate risk.
Those who want to see this kind of thing are ghouls in my view, sickos who get a kick out of watching pain and suffering. They won't learn anything from this as they're mentally unhinged.
Thankfully, we have standards in our country, that you're even asking this makes me suspicious as to your motives.
That's a very bizarre overreaction, you sound like a tabloid reporter in the last two paragraphs,
I will say it again as you seem to have difficulty in reading, I don't WANT to see these things. I'm just questioning the wisdom of this type of censorship.
Don't know what all other countries do, but another poster has suggested that this does not happen in Norway and the uncensored clip I saw was from China, so are Norwegian and Chinese people all sickos who get a kick out of watching pain and suffering?
If you are happy being nannied by someone telling what's suitable for your viewing then that's your choice, but as an adult, I would rather decide for myself.
If you are happy being nannied by someone telling what's suitable for your viewing then that's your choice, but as an adult, I would rather decide for myself.
You CAN decide for yourself. If you really need to see a graphic death, body parts and bloodstained pavements the material is out there.
Most people DON'T want to see that and can't unsee it if its put out there to suit the few sickos who can't appreciate carnage without it being put in front of them.
You CAN decide for yourself. If you really need to see a graphic death, body parts and bloodstained pavements the material is out there.
Most people DON'T want to see that and can't unsee it if its put out there to suit the few sickos who can't appreciate carnage without it being put in front of them.
Don't make the mistake of thinking you know what most people think, you're expressing your own opinion here, nothing else.
I am aware that there is uncensored footage on the internet, which makes British TV censorship seem rather futile, but there are many people in this country who do not access the internet and the only information they get about the wider world is through TV.
Judging by your latest insults, you are still confusing someone who wants to see these things for some kind of kicks and someone deciding what others are allowed to see. I am questioning the later.
A few years ago I happened to be channel zapping on my satellite system and i came across the lunchtime news on ARD, Germany's equivalent of BBC1.
They were reporting from the scene of a serious road accident which had left several people dead and injured and showed a severed arm lying in the road.
I asked some German friends about this and their view was "yes,so what?".
Different cultures, different boundaries?
BIB - This is a more healthy attitude to seeing these things, rather than the freakish reaction it seems to invoke in some British people.
I knew some people wouldn't be satisfied with Game Of Thrones.
If you want to see brutal images, stop being a coward on your comfy sofa and travel to a war torn country, I hear all kinds of brutal stuff is happening in Iraq right now, fill your boots.
Judging by your latest insults, you are still confusing someone who wants to see these things for some kind of kicks and someone deciding what others are allowed to see. I am questioning the later.
You are a champion against censorship, hmm?
Censorship in the news is the repression of misrepresentation of the facts, of ideas and information. I do not feel that is the case here.
Instead, they decide not to show voyeuristic and ghoulish imagery which is freely available elsewhere.
You are right in one sense, it is not the place of the media to protect sensibilities but in this particular instance, I'm happy they do.
I personally see no reason to make this routine for a whole host of reasons, some of which i've touched upon. If there was a wide demand for this type of gore-porn to be shown then i'm sure they would in the end - but i think most people respect the privacy of those who've been harmed and don't feel any need to see the gory consequences.
Censorship in the news is the repression of misrepresentation of the facts, of ideas and information. I do not feel that is the case here.
Instead, they decide not to show voyeuristic and ghoulish imagery which is freely available elsewhere.
You are right in one sense, it is not the place of the media to protect sensibilities but in this particular instance, I'm happy they do.
I personally see no reason to make this routine for a whole host of reasons, some of which i've touched upon. If there was a wide demand for this type of gore-porn to be shown then i'm sure they would in the end - but i think most people respect the privacy of those who've been harmed and don't feel any need to see the gory consequences.
I am anti-censorship. Some countries censor the news in the way you mentioned and we censor it in the way I have mentioned. People who censor will always try to justify it, but at the end of the day, someone is controlling or restricting what others see, hear or read and I don't think that's right.
BIB - So you accept it is not the place of the media to protect sensibilities but it's OK in this case as it suits you, hmm. I still think the viewer should be the one to decide, they can pre-warn of upcoming content, then you can avert your eyes for a few seconds if you wish.
As said previously, the response from Germans to graphic car crash footage was one of indifference, as it seems that they don't censor the news in the way we do. If British TV broadcast what the Germans do, then perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to use extreme terms like ghoulish imagery and gore-porn.
I reckon it would be what right minded people think.
What you reckon is your opinion and your opinion only, unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. Using the words 'right minded people' adds no credence either.
Actually, I tend to find it a lot more chilling when they show footage of something terrible right up to the very last second when they freeze the shot to not show you the shocking part.
Somehow that makes it hit home all the harder that what happened is so horrific that they really really don't want to show you it.
I'm always surprised about the things they ARE allowed to report on the pre-watershed news (graphic images or not) compared with the things that are censored in dramas.
Images of a naked human body or use of mild swear words (p1ss, sh1t etc) aren't allowed to be broadcast before 9pm because they are considered too 'offensive' and 'disturbing' for children. Even though they can see real-life naked bodies in any swimming pool changing room and hear these words in the playground every day.
And yet the daytime news on TV and radio will report on real-life stories about rapists, paedophiles, child abuse, genocide and other horrific events.
The fact that its real makes it much MORE disturbing IMO.
I would presume that it's all about context.
Also, I haven't been swimming in years but assume we don't have communal changing areas now with no cubicles?
Actually, I tend to find it a lot more chilling when they show footage of something terrible right up to the very last second when they freeze the shot to not show you the shocking part.
Somehow that makes it hit home all the harder that what happened is so horrific that they really really don't want to show you it.
That reminds me of the recent See Track Think Train: Railway crossings TV ad, which had a strong impact on me. The video freezes moments before the train hits a girl, which leaves it to the viewers imagination as to what happens next. From the way you talk, I would guess you would agree with me in that she almost certainly died in that incident (if it were real), but would everyone else? Some people might think she got away with a broken arm, you never know.
I can imagine children of a certain age watching it and asking their parents "What happened?" and their parents not telling them the truth in order not to upset them, so the message could be completely lost on them and they are probably the most at risk in these kinds of incidents.
Nice
Also, I haven't been swimming in years but assume we don't have communal changing areas now with no cubicles?
I'd not been swimming for years either until a couple of weeks ago. All three pools I've been to now do still have communal changing areas and no cubicles. Surprised me too.
JurassicMark
I can imagine children of a certain age watching it and asking their parents "What happened?" and their parents not telling them the truth in order not to upset them, so the message could be completely lost on them and they are probably the most at risk in these kinds of incidents.
I take it you are gathering your own children around your computer screen in order to teach them the green cross code by showing them horrific car crashes in which people die in the most gruesome ways.
I also take it that you are gathering your children around your computer screen in order to warn them of horrors of war by showing them barbaric footage from war zones.
I am anti-censorship. Some countries censor the news in the way you mentioned and we censor it in the way I have mentioned. People who censor will always try to justify it, but at the end of the day, someone is controlling or restricting what others see, hear or read and I don't think that's right.
BIB - So you accept it is not the place of the media to protect sensibilities but it's OK in this case as it suits you, hmm. I still think the viewer should be the one to decide, they can pre-warn of upcoming content, then you can avert your eyes for a few seconds if you wish.
As said previously, the response from Germans to graphic car crash footage was one of indifference, as it seems that they don't censor the news in the way we do. If British TV broadcast what the Germans do, then perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to use extreme terms like ghoulish imagery and gore-porn.
I would still consider it such. Where is the dignity for those killed in those accidents? The Germans can do what they like, in this country, we respect the privacy and dignity those injured and killed.
You don't need to see the accident to know it has happened, a report is enough. Why are people so intent on seeing gruesome deaths on TV? I am sure it isn't about seeing the actual death it is more a 2 fingers up to the censorship brigade.
I take it you are gathering your own children around your computer screen in order to teach them the green cross code by showing them horrific car crashes in which people die in the most gruesome ways.
I also take it that you are gathering your children around your computer screen in order to warn them of horrors of war by showing them barbaric footage from war zones.
I take it that you are gathering your children around and telling them that if they get hit by a train, all they need to do is put a plaster on and it will make them better.
I also take it you are gathering your own children around and telling them that everything is nice and cuddly.
I take it that you are gathering your children around and telling them that if they get hit by a train, all they need to do is put a plaster on and it will make them better.
I also take it you are gathering your own children around and telling them that everything is nice and cuddly.
Yes that is exactly what I am telling them. I tell them trains and cars will do no damage if they are hit by one. I also encourage them to play on rail tracks and roads at every occasion.
So how about it? Seeing as you think this stuff should be aired in order to show children the dangers and considering that it isn't aired are you showing your children this stuff on the internet as a warning.
Have you actively seeked out clips of people getting hit and dismembered by trains in order to show your children the dangers of playing on or crossing a rail track.
It was a simple question considering you think it a better way to teach children.
I would still consider it such. Where is the dignity for those killed in those accidents? The Germans can do what they like, in this country, we respect the privacy and dignity those injured and killed.
I'm sure there are already guidelines in place for respecting privacy and I'm not questioning those, that's a different subject.
You're assertions that "we have standards in our country" sounds a bit jingoistic to me. The 'standards' you refer to in this instance is censorship, someone is making a judgement not to show something to protect your delicate sensibilities. The Germans don't feel the need do this and the result seems to be a more mature response to seeing horrific images.
Yes that is exactly what I am telling them. I tell them trains and cars will do no damage if they are hit by one. I also encourage them to play on rail tracks and roads at every occasion.
So how about it? Seeing as you think this stuff should be aired in order to show children the dangers and considering that it isn't aired are you showing your children this stuff on the internet as a warning.
Have you actively seeked out clips of people getting hit and dismembered by trains in order to show your children the dangers of playing on or crossing a rail track.
It was a simple question considering you think it a better way to teach children.
The main crux of this thread is censorship for adults, but I thought the point made concerning children's possible mis-interpretation of the rail line safety ad was valid.
The best ways to inform children of the dangers of the world is a more contentious issue and don't really want to discuss that in detail here.
The main crux of this thread is censorship for adults, but I thought the point made concerning children's possible mis-interpretation of the rail line safety ad was valid.
The best ways to inform children of the dangers of the world is a more contentious issue and don't really want to discuss that in detail here.
Because not showing your children such materiel would make you a hypocrite .
Suprise surprise..ducked a very simple question about a point you raised.
Those who want to see this kind of thing are ghouls in my view, sickos who get a kick out of watching pain and suffering. They won't learn anything from this as they're mentally unhinged.
Thankfully, we have standards in our country, that you're even asking this makes me suspicious as to your motives.
A lot of people that want to see that type of thing are sickos, I agree. I'm no prude in a lot of respects but I hate to SEE humans and animals suffering. When I have seen some of these videos they've made me feel sick and upset, I'd be very angry if the BBC showed anything like what the poster on page 1 described. I'm not naive, I know what goes on but certainly don't want to see a lot of it. I imagine it would be very upsetting for children to see also.
Don't know what all other countries do, but another poster has suggested that this does not happen in Norway and the uncensored clip I saw was from China, so are Norwegian and Chinese people all sickos who get a kick out of watching pain and suffering?
Chinese people are maybe not the best example you could have picked! The animal cruelty that goes on in that country is appalling, with unnecessary pain caused to thousands of animals every day. Nothing changes, so maybe a fair chunk of Chinese people don't mind seeing pain and suffering?
Comments
They were reporting from the scene of a serious road accident which had left several people dead and injured and showed a severed arm lying in the road.
I asked some German friends about this and their view was "yes,so what?".
Different cultures, different boundaries?
Images of a naked human body or use of mild swear words (p1ss, sh1t etc) aren't allowed to be broadcast before 9pm because they are considered too 'offensive' and 'disturbing' for children. Even though they can see real-life naked bodies in any swimming pool changing room and hear these words in the playground every day.
And yet the daytime news on TV and radio will report on real-life stories about rapists, paedophiles, child abuse, genocide and other horrific events.
The fact that its real makes it much MORE disturbing IMO.
That's a very bizarre overreaction, you sound like a tabloid reporter in the last two paragraphs,
I will say it again as you seem to have difficulty in reading, I don't WANT to see these things. I'm just questioning the wisdom of this type of censorship.
Don't know what all other countries do, but another poster has suggested that this does not happen in Norway and the uncensored clip I saw was from China, so are Norwegian and Chinese people all sickos who get a kick out of watching pain and suffering?
If you are happy being nannied by someone telling what's suitable for your viewing then that's your choice, but as an adult, I would rather decide for myself.
You CAN decide for yourself. If you really need to see a graphic death, body parts and bloodstained pavements the material is out there.
Most people DON'T want to see that and can't unsee it if its put out there to suit the few sickos who can't appreciate carnage without it being put in front of them.
Don't make the mistake of thinking you know what most people think, you're expressing your own opinion here, nothing else.
I am aware that there is uncensored footage on the internet, which makes British TV censorship seem rather futile, but there are many people in this country who do not access the internet and the only information they get about the wider world is through TV.
Judging by your latest insults, you are still confusing someone who wants to see these things for some kind of kicks and someone deciding what others are allowed to see. I am questioning the later.
BIB - This is a more healthy attitude to seeing these things, rather than the freakish reaction it seems to invoke in some British people.
If you want to see brutal images, stop being a coward on your comfy sofa and travel to a war torn country, I hear all kinds of brutal stuff is happening in Iraq right now, fill your boots.
You are a champion against censorship, hmm?
Censorship in the news is the repression of misrepresentation of the facts, of ideas and information. I do not feel that is the case here.
Instead, they decide not to show voyeuristic and ghoulish imagery which is freely available elsewhere.
You are right in one sense, it is not the place of the media to protect sensibilities but in this particular instance, I'm happy they do.
I personally see no reason to make this routine for a whole host of reasons, some of which i've touched upon. If there was a wide demand for this type of gore-porn to be shown then i'm sure they would in the end - but i think most people respect the privacy of those who've been harmed and don't feel any need to see the gory consequences.
I reckon it would be what right minded people think.
I am anti-censorship. Some countries censor the news in the way you mentioned and we censor it in the way I have mentioned. People who censor will always try to justify it, but at the end of the day, someone is controlling or restricting what others see, hear or read and I don't think that's right.
BIB - So you accept it is not the place of the media to protect sensibilities but it's OK in this case as it suits you, hmm. I still think the viewer should be the one to decide, they can pre-warn of upcoming content, then you can avert your eyes for a few seconds if you wish.
As said previously, the response from Germans to graphic car crash footage was one of indifference, as it seems that they don't censor the news in the way we do. If British TV broadcast what the Germans do, then perhaps you wouldn't feel the need to use extreme terms like ghoulish imagery and gore-porn.
What you reckon is your opinion and your opinion only, unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise. Using the words 'right minded people' adds no credence either.
Somehow that makes it hit home all the harder that what happened is so horrific that they really really don't want to show you it.
I would presume that it's all about context.
Also, I haven't been swimming in years but assume we don't have communal changing areas now with no cubicles?
That reminds me of the recent See Track Think Train: Railway crossings TV ad, which had a strong impact on me. The video freezes moments before the train hits a girl, which leaves it to the viewers imagination as to what happens next. From the way you talk, I would guess you would agree with me in that she almost certainly died in that incident (if it were real), but would everyone else? Some people might think she got away with a broken arm, you never know.
I can imagine children of a certain age watching it and asking their parents "What happened?" and their parents not telling them the truth in order not to upset them, so the message could be completely lost on them and they are probably the most at risk in these kinds of incidents.
I'd not been swimming for years either until a couple of weeks ago. All three pools I've been to now do still have communal changing areas and no cubicles. Surprised me too.
I take it you are gathering your own children around your computer screen in order to teach them the green cross code by showing them horrific car crashes in which people die in the most gruesome ways.
I also take it that you are gathering your children around your computer screen in order to warn them of horrors of war by showing them barbaric footage from war zones.
I would still consider it such. Where is the dignity for those killed in those accidents? The Germans can do what they like, in this country, we respect the privacy and dignity those injured and killed.
I take it that you are gathering your children around and telling them that if they get hit by a train, all they need to do is put a plaster on and it will make them better.
I also take it you are gathering your own children around and telling them that everything is nice and cuddly.
Yes that is exactly what I am telling them. I tell them trains and cars will do no damage if they are hit by one. I also encourage them to play on rail tracks and roads at every occasion.
So how about it? Seeing as you think this stuff should be aired in order to show children the dangers and considering that it isn't aired are you showing your children this stuff on the internet as a warning.
Have you actively seeked out clips of people getting hit and dismembered by trains in order to show your children the dangers of playing on or crossing a rail track.
It was a simple question considering you think it a better way to teach children.
I'm sure there are already guidelines in place for respecting privacy and I'm not questioning those, that's a different subject.
You're assertions that "we have standards in our country" sounds a bit jingoistic to me. The 'standards' you refer to in this instance is censorship, someone is making a judgement not to show something to protect your delicate sensibilities. The Germans don't feel the need do this and the result seems to be a more mature response to seeing horrific images.
The main crux of this thread is censorship for adults, but I thought the point made concerning children's possible mis-interpretation of the rail line safety ad was valid.
The best ways to inform children of the dangers of the world is a more contentious issue and don't really want to discuss that in detail here.
Because not showing your children such materiel would make you a hypocrite .
Suprise surprise..ducked a very simple question about a point you raised.
Same here. Why would we want to see such graphic stuff on the news. Just tell us what happened.
Most western countries WOULDN'T show that type of thing we are far from alone.
A lot of people that want to see that type of thing are sickos, I agree. I'm no prude in a lot of respects but I hate to SEE humans and animals suffering. When I have seen some of these videos they've made me feel sick and upset, I'd be very angry if the BBC showed anything like what the poster on page 1 described. I'm not naive, I know what goes on but certainly don't want to see a lot of it. I imagine it would be very upsetting for children to see also.
Chinese people are maybe not the best example you could have picked! The animal cruelty that goes on in that country is appalling, with unnecessary pain caused to thousands of animals every day. Nothing changes, so maybe a fair chunk of Chinese people don't mind seeing pain and suffering?