Without Warning

[drewan]

I started this as a response to ashoemaker's comment, but then decided to post it as a new entry instead.

I can understand NBC airing the video, and even with CNN putting the images on line. But butting it up front, with no warning, is horrible.

I can't go to any adult website without having to click a least one page stating that I'm over 18, and warning that I'll be viewing adult content. But anyone could go to the front page of CNN.com and see the image of a mass murder pointing a gun at them. How fucked up is that?

Comments

[famousauthor.livejournal.com]

[drewan.livejournal.com]

I hate you.

Love,
Andrew

[doubleedge.livejournal.com]

And did you notice the image was on the front page of nearly every major newspaper?

From a journalism background, I see little wrong with having the image of the front page; to hide it would be to soften the true seriousness of the situation. Not only did this guy kill 32 people, but it was orchestrated down to the imagery he wanted in the news coverage.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

but it was orchestrated down to the imagery he wanted in the news coverage.

Which seems to me ample reason not to provide such coverage.

[doubleedge.livejournal.com]

I believe that its more important to demonstrate how serious he took the situation than to worry about offending or not fulfilling the killer's vain measures for publicity.

This was not a "I woke up and decided to kill" situation. He nurtured the whole plan to a theatric intricacy.

[drewan.livejournal.com]

Actually, no, I didn't notice that the images was on the front page of every major newspaper. I didn't go out looking for the image.

This is a fucked up country where naked people require warnings and filtering, but the image of a mass murder pointing his weapon at the camera is put on the front page of our media.

[benpanced.livejournal.com]

You can't show a naked woman but you can show a naked woman getting decapitated.

[doubleedge.livejournal.com]

Are you mad this image is being used? Or that society's morals place nudity higher than violence on the censor list?

[drewan.livejournal.com]

I'm mad that American society treats violence has natural, and sex and nudity as unnatural.

In your life, which are you more likely going to do... kill someone, or be naked and have sex?

[doubleedge.livejournal.com]

ok; to me thats a difference stance than your post expresses.

Talking about moral standards of media images, then I agree; It does bother me that nudity is considered a higher moral offense than violence.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I'm with you.

[rooooo.livejournal.com]

I cannot agree with you enough.

I'm ashamed that they would exploit such a situation for ratings, which is what putting such a controversial image on a major site is all about. It's insulting to the families that have lost loved ones, and it's humiliating to that boy's poor family: I can't imagine the anguish they are going through, knowing their son needed help, no one saw it, and that he caused so much pain.

And StarTribune followed CNN and posted the same image on their site. I wonder how many other news outlets did the same thing.

I cannot believe they were allowed, legally, to use any of it before a full investigation has taken place anyway. WTF?