Home› Broadcasting

Disturbing images from Iraq.

ZimmieZimmie Posts: 1,244
Forum Member
✭✭✭
in Broadcasting #1
Is it just me but i have noticed some TV companies are giving no warnings before seeing people led to death in Iraq, i know they are not showing actual executions, but as near as, showing people ambling to their death, disgusting absolutely disgusting.
«1

Comments

  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    That's the nature of the world in which we live.

    And oddly enough, there was a post in a thread yesterday complaining about the BBC issuing "content warnings which may upset" without mentioning (in the broadest of terms) was what going to be shown.
  • ZimmieZimmie Posts: 1,244
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    That's the nature of the world in which we live.

    And oddly enough, there was a post in a thread yesterday complaining about the BBC issuing "content warnings which may upset" without mentioning (in the broadest of terms) was what going to be shown.
    I am pretty sure i saw a actual bbc report from late last week, from bbc, with no warning at all, i still have that image in my mind.
  • radiobloke2004radiobloke2004 Posts: 689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #4
    Zimmie wrote: »
    Is it just me but i have noticed some TV companies are giving no warnings before seeing people led to death in Iraq, i know they are not showing actual executions, but as near as, showing people ambling to their death, disgusting absolutely disgusting.

    Sadly however this is the world that we live in. It is not all warm and fuzzy, and the atrocities being carried out in numerous places sadly have a place in the news agenda.

    Count yourself lucky we have strict editorial guidelines in the UK, when you watch the news abroad it can sometimes be rather graphic.

    There is a discussion though should broadcasters be showing any of this at all? Or is the audience becoming too desensitized? Is the footage being shown today not much different to that of footage from the end of WW2?
  • AdsAds Posts: 37,056
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #5
    The news in the UK is if anytbi g too meek in terms of what it shows. The horrors of war are mostly hidden from our eyes
  • AZZURRI 06AZZURRI 06 Posts: 11,173
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    Ads wrote: »
    The news in the UK is if anytbi g too meek in terms of what it shows. The horrors of war are mostly hidden from our eyes

    Definitely, I was amazed at the difference in the material shown by other channels during the Ukraine troubles. The BBC/ITV stuff was dull in comparison.
  • ZimmieZimmie Posts: 1,244
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    What journalistic purpose is this, we are human beings, do not repeat these murdering videos, you can convey to audiences by blacking out and audio, but the showing of sick videos by genocidal murderers diminishes us all.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #8
    BBC report on fighting near Baghdad tonight prefaced with the warning that it contained ''violent scenes.'' It amounted to some shooting and a few Iraqi troops in a panic.BBC editors pass responsibility to the viewer about whether he/she wants to watch but the viewer can have no idea what the report is about to show and therefore unable to take a decision......
  • ZimmieZimmie Posts: 1,244
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    ftv wrote: »
    BBC report on fighting near Baghdad tonight prefaced with the warning that it contained ''violent scenes.'' It amounted to some shooting and a few Iraqi troops in a panic.BBC editors pass responsibility to the viewer about whether he/she wants to watch but the viewer can have no idea what the report is about to show and therefore unable to take a decision......
    The BBC report i saw last week was presenter from studio talking about situation, then with no warning, shown these sick murdering videos with bbc voiceover, no warnings whatsoever.
  • gamez-fangamez-fan Posts: 2,201
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #10
    If the images on a BBC news broadcast which are precensored before being shown upsets you
    maybe you should stick on a Disney DVD instead
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 142
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #11
    If there are warnings then there is no problem.

    Sometimes we see and hear things that are upsetting, it's part of life. You just have to deal with it I'm afraid.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #12
    Zimmie wrote: »
    What journalistic purpose is this, we are human beings, do not repeat these murdering videos, you can convey to audiences by blacking out and audio, but the showing of sick videos by genocidal murderers diminishes us all.

    Sorry, but where are all of these "murdering videos" and "sick videos"? Yes, the exist on YouTube no doubt, but I have not seen anything on UK broadcast TV (and certainly not on the BBC) that even comes close to that.

    Or are you being overly dramatic or overly sensitive?
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #13
    ftv wrote: »
    BBC report on fighting near Baghdad tonight prefaced with the warning that it contained ''violent scenes.'' It amounted to some shooting and a few Iraqi troops in a panic.BBC editors pass responsibility to the viewer about whether he/she wants to watch but the viewer can have no idea what the report is about to show and therefore unable to take a decision......
    Zimmie wrote: »
    The BBC report i saw last week was presenter from studio talking about situation, then with no warning, shown these sick murdering videos with bbc voiceover, no warnings whatsoever.


    How strange, two diametrically-opposing recollections. How do we reconci/le them I wonder?

    And Zimme, earlier you said this:
    Zimmie wrote: »
    I am pretty sure i saw a actual bbc report from late last week, from bbc, with no warning at all, i still have that image in my mind.
    So you weren't even sure that it was a BBC report that you were watching. But now you are?
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #14
    gamez-fan wrote: »
    If the images on a BBC news broadcast which are precensored before being shown upsets you
    maybe you should stick on a Disney DVD instead
    You might just have a point.
    Black Beauty wrote: »
    If there are warnings then there is no problem.

    Sometimes we see and hear things that are upsetting, it's part of life. You just have to deal with it I'm afraid.

    Very true.
  • lundavralundavra Posts: 31,790
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #15
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    How strange, two diametrically-opposing recollections. How do we reconci/le them I wonder?

    And Zimme, earlier you said this:

    So you weren't even sure that it was a BBC report that you were watching. But now you are?

    It would not be the first time that there has been outrage on Digital Spy about the BBC showing something or not showing something, only for it to be shown to be incorrect.

    Certainly all the images I have seen on the news have been carefully edited and preceded by a warning. It is possible that there was a mistake and something slipped through but I doubt it. I have no desire to see graphic footage of the atrocities committed by the terrorists.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #16
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    How strange, two diametrically-opposing recollections. How do we reconci/le them I wonder?

    And Zimme, earlier you said this:


    So you weren't even sure that it was a BBC report that you were watching. But now you are?

    You don't have to reconcile them, they were clearly two different reports broadcast at different times (and it's not even certain one was on the BBC).
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #17
    lundavra wrote: »
    It would not be the first time that there has been outrage on Digital Spy about the BBC showing something or not showing something, only for it to be shown to be incorrect.

    Certainly all the images I have seen on the news have been carefully edited and preceded by a warning. It is possible that there was a mistake and something slipped through but I doubt it. I have no desire to see graphic footage of the atrocities committed by the terrorists.
    And, given the level of animosity for the BBC shared by some sections of the media, I would have thought that if something had slipped through by mistake, there would not only have been more complaints that a single lone voice on an internet forum, but it would have been picked up by those same sections of the media, with a growing number of complaints to both the BBC and Ofcom.

    But things are strangely silent.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #18
    ftv wrote: »
    You don't have to reconcile them, they were clearly two different reports broadcast at different times (and it's not even certain one was on the BBC).
    I didn't mean to suggest that both events were the same event, but that the one claim that the BBC shows images with a warning is at odds with the claim that the BBC is showing graphic images without a warning.

    Unless it was a mistake, then the two claims are irreconcilable
  • technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,370
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #19
    It is worth reading the OFCOM Guidance and the decisions on the coverage
    of the Woolwich incident on 22 May 2013
    see http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/245/obb245.pdf at page 22
  • radiobloke2004radiobloke2004 Posts: 689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #20
    Zimmie wrote: »
    The BBC report i saw last week was presenter from studio talking about situation, then with no warning, shown these sick murdering videos with bbc voiceover, no warnings whatsoever.

    What was shown on the video, was it the actual act or the lead up to it?

    Maybe the OP is more upset knowing what was going to happen, rather than the actuality of the broadcast. Thus the problem lies with the viewer, not the broadcaster.

    Again, as many have pointed out, British broadcasters rarely (if ever) broadcast the moment the atrocity occurs.
  • ZimmieZimmie Posts: 1,244
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #21
    radiobloke2004 wrote: »
    What was shown on the video, was it the actual act or the lead up to it?

    Maybe the OP is more upset knowing what was going to happen, rather than the actuality of the broadcast. Thus the problem lies with the viewer, not the broadcaster.

    Again, as many have pointed out, British broadcasters rarely (if ever) broadcast the moment the atrocity occurs.
    Thank you for asking, unlike all posters who have went down a different tack to my main point, if people read my opening post i was making clear the lead up. These in themselves are disturbing, that is why i think there should be a warning, not just lording it in front of viewer, well that's ok, they did not show actual event, that's ok, no it is not.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #22
    "Lording it in front of the viewers??

    really?


    http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lord+it+over

    I would have said "reporting the facts" (which is what a news organisation should do).


    Still, you are entitled to express your opinion.

    And as the post stated


    Maybe the OP is more upset knowing what was going to happen, rather than the actuality of the broadcast. Thus the problem lies with the viewer, not the broadcaster.

    I presume you are also in agreement with that as well. ;)
  • radiobloke2004radiobloke2004 Posts: 689
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #23
    Zimmie wrote: »
    Thank you for asking, unlike all posters who have went down a different tack to my main point, if people read my opening post i was making clear the lead up. These in themselves are disturbing, that is why i think there should be a warning, not just lording it in front of viewer, well that's ok, they did not show actual event, that's ok, no it is not.

    OK Zimmie, where then should the line be drawn on things like this? If nothing obscene is actually happening visually then what should and should not be shown?

    You only find the images disturbing because you are aware of what may (remember the footage at that time was unsubstantiated) have happened afterwards. Newspapers and news websites have published more graphic images subsequently.

    Would you take the same stance with footage of an aircraft flying in the sky shortly before it hit the twin towers on 9/11? Whilst the footage is shocking, it is just the run up to an atrocity.
  • RodneyRodney Posts: 4,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #24
    Interesting that ITN showed virtually all of the recent army executions video but the Beeb with John Simpson censored it - ITV coverage showed the captured men being readied for execution and ended up with a closeup of the gun barrel jabbed into their throats cutting away as the shots were fired. Also other terrified civilians being grabbed from cars and led away for execution, the BBC opted not to air this.
  • ResonanceResonance Posts: 16,643
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #25
    Zimmie wrote: »
    Is it just me but i have noticed some TV companies are giving no warnings before seeing people led to death in Iraq, i know they are not showing actual executions, but as near as, showing people ambling to their death, disgusting absolutely disgusting.

    It always amazes me that it's no problem to show death and destruction pre-watershed. Show a sex scene though and a lot go mad about it. We really have it back to front in this country.
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #26
    Rodney wrote: »
    Interesting that ITN showed virtually all of the recent army executions video but the Beeb with John Simpson censored it - ITV coverage showed the captured men being readied for execution and ended up with a closeup of the gun barrel jabbed into their throats cutting away as the shots were fired. Also other terrified civilians being grabbed from cars and led away for execution, the BBC opted not to air this.

    Two different broadcasters,two different editors, two different decisions, nothing wrong with that.
Sign In or Register to comment.