Hold the front page.

cornerblock

After yesterday's rather gruesome pictures of a dead Gaddafi on the front page of some papers, I am now wondering wether we should have some kind of censorship for what can be shown on the front page of newspapers. I was queuing in a shop and noticed a young lad, no more than seven years of age, staring at these images of a bloodied dead person. I could see he was visibly shocked. He then began to say to his Mum, who had not noticed what he was looking at, " Mummy Mummy look" in an upset voice. His Mum quickly dragged him away from the papers and began to console him as it was quite obvious that he was upset and a little disturbed by the images that were there right in front of him.

We have a watershed on television to prevent young children seeing or hearing things that are not suitable, do we also need some kind of restrictions on what can be shown on the front page of our daily papers? When they are so visible to all. Or should we just allow the press to decide what images we can and can not see.

Rouge Penguin

Watershed? I saw him getting dragged about and slapped with a shoe either just before or just after his death on sky, at 1pm. Quite horrific

RichN95.

Cornerblock wrote:

After yesterday's rather gruesome pictures of a dead Gaddafi on the front page of some papers, I am now wondering wether we should have some kind of censorship for what can be shown on the front page of newspapers. I was queuing in a shop and noticed a young lad, no more than seven years of age, staring at these images of a bloodied dead person. I could see he was visibly shocked. He then began to say to his Mum, who had not noticed what he was looking at, " Mummy Mummy look" in an upset voice. His Mum quickly dragged him away from the papers and began to console him as it was quite obvious that he was upset and a little disturbed by the images that were there right in front of him.

We have a watershed on television to prevent young children seeing or hearing things that are not suitable, do we also need some kind of restrictions on what can be shown on the front page of our daily papers? When they are so visible to all. Or should we just allow the press to decide what images we can and can not see.

Utter nonsense. Do you really want the concept of a free press destroyed just because a child got upset for a few seconds? A couple of minutes later, the same kid would have probably got upset at not getting an ice cream.

Children are tough little b@stards, far tougher than most give them credit for. The only thing they really need protecting from is their overprotective parents.

Parents - please learn that the world doesn't revolve around your spawn.

pauldavid

RichN95 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

After yesterday's rather gruesome pictures of a dead Gaddafi on the front page of some papers, I am now wondering wether we should have some kind of censorship for what can be shown on the front page of newspapers. I was queuing in a shop and noticed a young lad, no more than seven years of age, staring at these images of a bloodied dead person. I could see he was visibly shocked. He then began to say to his Mum, who had not noticed what he was looking at, " Mummy Mummy look" in an upset voice. His Mum quickly dragged him away from the papers and began to console him as it was quite obvious that he was upset and a little disturbed by the images that were there right in front of him.

We have a watershed on television to prevent young children seeing or hearing things that are not suitable, do we also need some kind of restrictions on what can be shown on the front page of our daily papers? When they are so visible to all. Or should we just allow the press to decide what images we can and can not see.

Utter nonsense. Do you really want the concept of a free press destroyed just because a child got upset for a few seconds? A couple of minutes later, the same kid would have probably got upset at not getting an ice cream.

Children are tough little b@stards, far tougher than most give them credit for. The only thing they really need protecting from is their overprotective parents.

Parents - please learn that the world doesn't revolve around your spawn.

Childless singleton by any chance RichN95?????

RichN95.

pauldavid wrote:

Childless singleton by any chance RichN95?????

No I don't have kids, but if I did I wouldn't expect the world's media to be censored just because my little darling cried for a couple of minutes.

There's a generation of children coming through who have been mollycoddled and sheltered by overprotected parents and they'll be utterly in capable of dealing with practicalities of life.

Cleat Eastwood

there was a lot of prurience surrounding his death, but then he was not white, and was as the govt never tired of telling us this nations enemy; whereas Lady Di----well we couldnt possibly show her remains.

The death of anyone in violent and sudden situations is terrible terrible shame and a little decorum wouldn't have gone amiss IMO

mr_poll

RichN95 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

After yesterday's rather gruesome pictures of a dead Gaddafi on the front page of some papers, I am now wondering wether we should have some kind of censorship for what can be shown on the front page of newspapers. I was queuing in a shop and noticed a young lad, no more than seven years of age, staring at these images of a bloodied dead person. I could see he was visibly shocked. He then began to say to his Mum, who had not noticed what he was looking at, " Mummy Mummy look" in an upset voice. His Mum quickly dragged him away from the papers and began to console him as it was quite obvious that he was upset and a little disturbed by the images that were there right in front of him.

We have a watershed on television to prevent young children seeing or hearing things that are not suitable, do we also need some kind of restrictions on what can be shown on the front page of our daily papers? When they are so visible to all. Or should we just allow the press to decide what images we can and can not see.

Utter nonsense. Do you really want the concept of a free press destroyed just because a child got upset for a few seconds? A couple of minutes later, the same kid would have probably got upset at not getting an ice cream.

Children are tough little b@stards, far tougher than most give them credit for. The only thing they really need protecting from is their overprotective parents.

Parents - please learn that the world doesn't revolve around your spawn.

From that comment are you advocating that a free press can print what they like? Are the following acceptable possible headlines with graphic pictures to support the story?

Married Popstar caught in male Gangbang Bukkake Party

Body found after 3 months in a local forrest

Politician beheaded after bizzarre chainsaw accident

X-factor hopeful in despicable necrophiliac act

If you would be happy with those on a uncensored front page at anyones eye level at the local supermarket fair enough - however if not then surely the OP has a point, your line may be different for censorship than theirs but a free press does not mean a press thats above the law for taste and decency.

Pigtail

The pictures of Gaddafi were a bit gruesome, and in my view the media should have shown some restraint, but we cannot shelter our children from everything.

I remember seeing somebody get decapitated on the news. Two helicopters at a military display had collided, bending the rotor blade of one of them down. They landed and one of the passengers jumped out to run away and got caught by the rotor. I remember thinking there was no need to show that either.

RichN95.

mr_poll wrote:

From that comment are you advocating that a free press can print what they like? Are the following acceptable possible headlines with graphic pictures to support the story?

Married Popstar caught in male Gangbang Bukkake Party

Body found after 3 months in a local forrest

Politician beheaded after bizzarre chainsaw accident

X-factor hopeful in despicable necrophiliac act

If you would be happy with those on a uncensored front page at anyones eye level at the local supermarket fair enough - however if not then surely the OP has a point, your line may be different for censorship than theirs but a free press does not mean a press thats above the law for taste and decency.

If those stories were of huge global significance and the use of the photos was important to tell the story, then yes, it would absolutely acceptable to show them. But they're not that sort of story. Using such images would be sensationalist. Newspapers are generally pretty responsible in this regard and very rarely use graphic images. But they absolutely must be allowed to show them when the need arises.

I'm an adult and I like being an adult. I don't want the world sanitised so it is suitable for an 8 year old.

DrKJM

Two words: Page two.

Red Rock

DrKJM wrote:

Two words: Page two.

+ 1

I think the OP has a valid point. It's not about censoring the press, but about being responsible and not putting it on the front page. They could have still run an appropriate headline with another image on the cover.

cornerblock

RichN95 wrote:

I'm an adult and I like being an adult. I don't want the world sanitised so it is suitable for an 8 year old.

I don't want the world sanitised either Rich, but as an adult are you not able to appreciate some images are not for childrens eyes, or do you think anything goes? Is it not possible to keep the really gruesome or graphic images on the inside of the paper? I mean, you are not likely to see a 7 year old picking up a newspaper and thumbing through it, but front pages are a bit in your face.

RichN95.

Cornerblock wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I'm an adult and I like being an adult. I don't want the world sanitised so it is suitable for an 8 year old.

I don't want the world sanitised either Rich, but as an adult are you not able to appreciate some images are not for childrens eyes, or do you think anything goes? Is it not possible to keep the really gruesome or graphic images on the inside of the paper? I mean, you are not likely to see a 7 year old picking up a newspaper and thumbing through it, but front pages are a bit in your face.

Here's an idea. Parents, if you don't want your child to see a bad image on the front of a paper, then keep them away from the papers. It's not hard to distract a seven year old. You decided to have the child, not society, so don't expect society to do the parenting for you.

(I know that sounds as though it's directed to you personally. It's really not. You make valid points. They just happen to be ones that drive me up the wall).

mr_poll

Rich for what it is worth I agree with your sentiment that we shouldn't sanitise this world for our children. They should have their eyes open to certain things . One analogy is alcohol with french kids and ours. In france children are encouraged to drink wine or cider with meals and have a little more respect to it than British kids who are banned and then go mad when they first get their hands on it.

I found some of the pic's used to be a little close to the line for me - however the one that stuck out was the Sun's - the pic was more graphic than others with headlines of "Thats for Lockerbie, thats for IRA semtex victims. The glorification of his death and the pic used, i felt was too much (also echo'd by the families of his direct and indirect victims who said the next day they would of preferred a trial). I am all for a free press but a free press with a conscious.

cornerblock

RichN95 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I'm an adult and I like being an adult. I don't want the world sanitised so it is suitable for an 8 year old.

I don't want the world sanitised either Rich, but as an adult are you not able to appreciate some images are not for childrens eyes, or do you think anything goes? Is it not possible to keep the really gruesome or graphic images on the inside of the paper? I mean, you are not likely to see a 7 year old picking up a newspaper and thumbing through it, but front pages are a bit in your face.

Here's an idea. Parents, if you don't want your child to see a bad image on the front of a paper, then keep them away from the papers. It's not hard to distract a seven year old. You decided to have the child, not society, so don't expect society to do the parenting for you.

(I know that sounds as though it's directed to you personally. It's really not. You make valid points. They just happen to be ones that drive me up the wall).

But how do you keep your children away from the front page of newspapers, stick a pillow case over their head when you take them out? Sure there are laws against that!
Don't worry I do not take it personally, it's just something I thought of today, oh and by the way, I have no children.

RichN95.

mr_poll wrote:

I found some of the pic's used to be a little close to the line for me - however the one that stuck out was the Sun's - the pic was more graphic than others with headlines of "Thats for Lockerbie, thats for IRA semtex victims. The glorification of his death and the pic used, i felt was too much (also echo'd by the families of his direct and indirect victims who said the next day they would have preferred a trial). I am all for a free press but a free press with a conscious.

I totally agree that some of the papers (particularly The Sun) covered the story in a way that was unpleasant and gloating.

Frank the tank

Not looked at any of the newspaper coverage TBH.

However, I recall as a youngster I used to love "playing at war" and watched countless war films and played with toy guns and plastic soldiers all no doubt by todays thinking most definitely not PC. Thing is I saw the classic (horrifying) footage of a man being shot dead in the street in Vietnam during the tet offensive, blood spurting from his head, the whole shabang. I, even at that tender age was able to differenciate between the real and the fantasy; that man wasn't going to get up and walk away when the cameras stopped, it was real.

I think war/conflict reporting has been greatly sanitised by the media generally and violence/death due to computer games and films has lead to society becoming de-sensitsed to the reallity of the gruesomeness of war. For this reason I believe very occasionally the true brutality of conflict should be broadcast for all to see and it hopefully will make people take a step back and think hard.

neiltb

govt probably told them to publish it as a job well done. As bad as he may have been, the parading of his corpse shown by the west shows how disgusting we can be too.

neiltb

RichN95 wrote:

Cornerblock wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I'm an adult and I like being an adult. I don't want the world sanitised so it is suitable for an 8 year old.

I don't want the world sanitised either Rich, but as an adult are you not able to appreciate some images are not for childrens eyes, or do you think anything goes? Is it not possible to keep the really gruesome or graphic images on the inside of the paper? I mean, you are not likely to see a 7 year old picking up a newspaper and thumbing through it, but front pages are a bit in your face.

Here's an idea. Parents, if you don't want your child to see a bad image on the front of a paper, then keep them away from the papers. It's not hard to distract a seven year old. You decided to have the child, not society, so don't expect society to do the parenting for you.

(I know that sounds as though it's directed to you personally. It's really not. You make valid points. They just happen to be ones that drive me up the wall).

let's leave club and razzle next to the beano, those parens should be more responsible and not leave the parenting to the newsagents.

thegreatdivide

Frank the tank wrote:

Not looked at any of the newspaper coverage TBH.

However, I recall as a youngster I used to love "playing at war" and watched countless war films and played with toy guns and plastic soldiers all no doubt by todays thinking most definitely not PC. Thing is I saw the classic (horrifying) footage of a man being shot dead in the street in Vietnam during the tet offensive, blood spurting from his head, the whole shabang. I, even at that tender age was able to differenciate between the real and the fantasy; that man wasn't going to get up and walk away when the cameras stopped, it was real.

I think war/conflict reporting has been greatly sanitised by the media generally and violence/death due to computer games and films has lead to society becoming de-sensitsed to the reallity of the gruesomeness of war. For this reason I believe very occasionally the true brutality of conflict should be broadcast for all to see and it hopefully will make people take a step back and think hard.

This.

In primary school in the 70's we had a reference library and in said library was a complete collection of a World at War type magazines. I distinctly remember coming across the issue about the Holocaust with very graphic images, and while it shocked me it also made me question what I'd seen and opened my eyes to 'real' war and violence.

cornerblock

thegreatdivide wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Not looked at any of the newspaper coverage TBH.

However, I recall as a youngster I used to love "playing at war" and watched countless war films and played with toy guns and plastic soldiers all no doubt by todays thinking most definitely not PC. Thing is I saw the classic (horrifying) footage of a man being shot dead in the street in Vietnam during the tet offensive, blood spurting from his head, the whole shabang. I, even at that tender age was able to differenciate between the real and the fantasy; that man wasn't going to get up and walk away when the cameras stopped, it was real.

I think war/conflict reporting has been greatly sanitised by the media generally and violence/death due to computer games and films has lead to society becoming de-sensitsed to the reallity of the gruesomeness of war. For this reason I believe very occasionally the true brutality of conflict should be broadcast for all to see and it hopefully will make people take a step back and think hard.

This.

In primary school in the 70's we had a reference library and in said library was a complete collection of a World at War type magazines. I distinctly remember coming across the issue about the Holocaust with very graphic images, and while it shocked me it also made me question what I'd seen and opened my eyes to 'real' war and violence.

I do understand where you and Frank are coming from, sooner or later all children's eyes are opened to the real world, but the experience you have just referred to involved you having to go into the library, seek out the magazine and look inside it. This shows that you were already at an age when you were curious about things. A really young child stood in a supermarket can't help but see the images of a newspapers front page.

Where do we draw the line regarding front pages? Not sure, but I don't think any paper printed front page pictures of poor Kenneth Bigley after he was beheaded. Obviously because any picture of that would be far too shocking and distasteful for us, even as grown ups. So surely there are images that a child should not be so easily exposed to.

afx237vi

Tabloids are hardly known for their restraint, are they? Front page of the Daily Mail website right now is a frame-by-frame pictorial of Marco Simoncelli being killed in Malaysia. Classy.

But I agree that kids shouldn't be shielded too much from what really happens in the world. Kids that get upset by the front page of a newspaper probably go home and watch the Human Centipede in their bedroom.

shedhead

@Rich N95

"I'm an adult and I like being an adult. I don't want the world sanitised so it is suitable for an 8 year old." & describing children as "spawn".

What a delightful person you sound, so you weren't a child once & understand that certain things are too much for a young mind to cope with? Let's hope you never multiply & bring any more understanding young people into the world.


[/quote]