Slashdot Mirror
Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose?
HughPickens.com writes: Erik Wemple writes at the Washington Post that Fox News recently took the controversial step of posting a horrific 22-minute video online that shows Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burned to death. Fox warned internet users that the presentation features "extremely graphic video." "After careful consideration, we decided that giving readers of FoxNews.com the option to see for themselves the barbarity of ISIS outweighed legitimate concerns about the graphic nature of the video," said Fox executive John Moody. "Online users can choose to view or not view this disturbing content."
But Fox's decision drew condemnation from some terrorism experts. "[Fox News] are literally — literally — working for al-Qaida and ISIS's media arm," said Malcolm Nance. "They might as well start sending them royalty checks." YouTube removed a link to the video a few hours after it was posted, and a spokesperson for Facebook told the Guardian that if anyone posted the video to the social networking site it would be taken down. CNN explained that it wouldn't surface any of the disturbing images because they were gruesome and constituted propaganda that the network didn't want to distribute. "Does posting this video advance the aims of this terror group or hinder its progress by laying bare its depravity?" writes Wemple. "Islamic State leaders may indeed delight in the distribution of the video — which could be helpful in converting extremists to its cause — but they may be mis-calibrating its impact. If the terrorists expected to intimidate the world with their display of barbarity, they may be disappointed with the reaction of Jordan, which is vowing 'strong, earth-shaking and decisive' retaliation."
But Fox's decision drew condemnation from some terrorism experts. "[Fox News] are literally — literally — working for al-Qaida and ISIS's media arm," said Malcolm Nance. "They might as well start sending them royalty checks." YouTube removed a link to the video a few hours after it was posted, and a spokesperson for Facebook told the Guardian that if anyone posted the video to the social networking site it would be taken down. CNN explained that it wouldn't surface any of the disturbing images because they were gruesome and constituted propaganda that the network didn't want to distribute. "Does posting this video advance the aims of this terror group or hinder its progress by laying bare its depravity?" writes Wemple. "Islamic State leaders may indeed delight in the distribution of the video — which could be helpful in converting extremists to its cause — but they may be mis-calibrating its impact. If the terrorists expected to intimidate the world with their display of barbarity, they may be disappointed with the reaction of Jordan, which is vowing 'strong, earth-shaking and decisive' retaliation."
No.
Corporate restrictions apply.
To me, Fox got it right this time. They put the video up, with big graphic disclaimers of how barbaric it is. Nobody was ever forced to click on it, you don't have to watch it if you don't want to. Even more so, it seems rather unlikely that anyone who was considering aligning themselves with ISIS would go to Fox for information and become persuaded to join ISIS after watching this video there. ISIS is certainly tech-savvy enough to be able to distribute this through other channels to get to the people they want to get it in front of.
That said, Fox posted this likely for no reason other than to draw eyes - and with them, hopefully money - to their website. So much like Ron Paul, Fox News is most often wrong but on rare occasions right for the wrong reasons.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
...that if a right-leaning group committed "atrocities" anywhere (perceived or otherwise), MSNBC, Salon, Mother Jones and their ilk would have it on front page infinite loop 24 x7. Our society needs to quit playing partisan games and starting calling out evil, regardless of who the perpetrators are.
No matter how vile and criminal the content it still has the right to be seen.
Showing these murders serves as a gut punch to the free world. It enables us to have a visceral reaction to this brutality, forcing us to acknowledge and deal with the fact that there are people in this world who are willing to use any means to achieve their end attempt to force their beliefs on others through fear and control them through the same. Unfortunately, I don't think enough it makes the evening news or online news feeds. Like the press coverage of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, somehow the modern press has developed its own misguided ethos over what the American public should or shouldn't see. Should there be a sufficient warning so that children or those who don't want to see it can choose not to? Yes. But, that's all that's needed. Fair warning.
Ultimately, it's not the press's responsibility to censor violent video. It's their responsibility to show it. It's their responsibility to objectively report the news.
There are those who will argue that Fox was doing ISIS's PR work for them. That's bunk. Has not showing the carnage that Boko Haram has inflicted on the people of Nigeria stopped them for doing it? In fact, when terrorists killed a handful of people in Paris, it was plastered all over the news for weeks. We all saw the wounded police officer shot in the head. Yet, long before that, tens of thousands of people were murdered, entire towns leveled and atrocities beyond even that were committed by Boko Haram -- yet that has received and still receives a tiny portion of the news coverage that the Paris attacks had. That's the greatest disservice of all by the press.
Now that's actually interesting... if they cut out the immolation, but had the translation, does showing a horrific illogical rant serve a legitimate journalistic purpose? I'd say yes... Thoughts?
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
Maybe if we don't look at it we can pretend it doesn't exist, right?
I commend Fox on this. As a consumer of news I want the CHOICE of whether I view this or not. I do not want the news provider to choose for me. As a point of fact, I have up to this point chosen not to view the video.
I am actually not upset a Fox for this, I am upset that the New York Times are such cowards that they won't show Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Other media organizations are afraid to post the video because "people might get the wrong idea."
Basically, they are afraid that people will start going all anti-Muslim. Well hello, most Americans should be pretty familiar now with the "all terrorists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are terrorists" idea.
Videos like this will show people exactly who is on the other side. This isn't a fake propaganda video, this is what ISIS/ISIL wants people to see. I suppose it doesn't fit into the worldview of the left-leaning media, who believe that diplomacy, talk, and hugs will cure any conflict, and that conflicts are due to misunderstandings between rational people.
It should be pretty clear that burning someone alive in a cage wasn't a misunderstanding.
When faced with this pretty brutal challenge to their worldview, the left basically says "screw it" and ignores it. It doesn't fit the narrative.
Just don't censor it. If somebody wants to put it up, let them. It is nobody else's business. Censorship is always the worst option.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We all know what happened. It was adequately described. Fox New just panders to the warmongers among us and is trying to rile them up.
I would advance the argument that the function of a news agency is to report the news. Not some of the news or the news you / I approve of. This is what's really happening in the world around us, without protecting us from things we may find objectionable or viewpoints differing from our own. How can we possibly make rational decisions or hold properly informed opinions based on only some of the information about a given situation?
Lessons learned from Vietnam.
Does hiding news from people serve a legitimate journalistic purpose?
This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.
While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.
Yes there are journalistic reasons to show horrific videos. Your average person is far too insulated from the painfully ordinary horror that occurs around the world.
But that's not why Fox News showed it. Fox news is a nationalistic propaganda outlet for the American far-right and only exists to influence the public. They showed it not to inform, but to inflame. To create support for a war effort that the American far right considers beneficial. To dehumanize the enemy of the day "Look at those savage sand ni****rs. Lets go bomb the fuck out of them"
Context is everything.
We all know what happened. It was adequately described. Fox New just panders to the warmongers among us and is trying to rile them up.
I would advance the argument that the function of a news agency is to report the news. Not some of the news or the news you / I approve of. This is what's really happening in the world around us, without protecting us from things we may find objectionable or viewpoints differing from our own. How can we possibly make rational decisions or hold properly informed opinions based on only some of the information about a given situation?
I have no idea on where this quote came from, but to paraphrase, "Good journalism is presenting news that people don't want to hear".
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.
While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.
True on both counts, but Fox "News" aired/posted a snuff film - (isn't that illegal?). In their defense, though, it's was probably more to make Obama look bad - for not bombing them further back into the Stone Age - than making Muslims or, more specifically, ISIS look bad.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
So what? When you hear 'collateral damage' from an airstrike, it is equally likely that a family somewhere was trapped under the rubble of their house and burned alive. And nobody gets mad about it.
I hope that we learn from this that there are extremists everywhere, from lunatic "barbaric Muslims", to "[bloodthirsty] evangelical Christians". I also hope we look around and notice a large number of muslims and evangelical christians who are not crazy or extreme and simply want to live their lives like everyone else. Even down here in crazy right wing Texas, right on my street there are Hindu's, Muslims, Christians of all flavors, athiests, blacks, whites, and even a gay couple. We aren't killing each other, our kids aren't warring down at the elementary school.
Clearly then, what it takes to put a man in a cage, set him on fire, and burn him to death is not a property of his religion. That man is out of his mind.
Because Germany and Japan were just victims.
Total war is an awful fucking thing, which is why we should avoid it. But if you are going to attack major military powers in the age of air power, then you will be bombed, and tens of thousands of your citizens will die, often horribly.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ask yourself this... How effective would such videos be if nobody saw them? If people didn't know they existed. Would they keep making them?
ISIS is slaughtering thousands of people not on video also. Burning them alive, crucifying them, stoning homosexuals to death, holding women as sex slaves...
The list goes on and on and on. Plainly without the video they would still do these things, in fact if anything the video makes them more "civil" to some degree as they try to provide external justification for the actions they take - internal murders, not so much.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm not apologizing for anything. That is the nature of total war.
And you know what, I'm glad we won. I won't apologize for it. That you don't like the bombing campaigns is irrelevant to me.
The Carthaginians picked a fight with the Romans, and in the end, Carthage was knocked to the ground and its fields salted.
The lesson of Carthage, Dresden and Hiroshima is that you don't take on the pre-eminent military power of your day and then expect that you can be protected by rules of engagement you didn't even bother following when you thought you had the upper hand.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not a fan of Fox news but in this case I think suppression of the video helps ISIS more than showing it. Suppression allows us to ignore the fact that they're a group with behaviors that don't belong in the civilized world, similar to the Nazis. Showing the video is distasteful, but if done on a opt-in basis it allows interested viewers to see their barbarity and develop an appropriate level of anger. Sure, some extremists may become motivated by what they see as strong action but the net effect will be negative as the broader population will be repulsed. You can see this playing out in Jordan right now.
Things admittedly get rather slippery when comparing war crimes - but personally I would rank the execution of an enemy soldier, even a horrific execution for propaganda purposes, on a somewhat different scale than the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
War has rules.
The only rule to war is to win. Rules of war are there because we have to live with ourselves and our opponent after the war.
Better to think of the conquered/conquerer as gentlemen than a savage. Savagery begets savagery.
We may not know his wishes, but we have a pretty good idea at what his next-of-kin think. Before his barbaric execution, they were firmly opposed to action against ISIS. Now, they want heads to roll.
Something tells me they'd want it seen.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
> A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.
So no, they didn't post a snuff film.
You think there were special effects use? or that Fox is not in the entertainment industry or in any industry to make money at all?
Does it serve a journalistic purpose?
No. A textual description is all that's needed to convey what happened.
Does it serve a persuasive purpose?
Yes. It's a visceral and concrete illustration of the ruthlesness of $THING. (Where $THING can be substituted with whatever religion, racial group, ideology, or institution that serves your persuasive purpose. For Fox's audience, THING="Islam"; for an atheist it's THING="religion"; for a Shia muslim maybe it's THING="Sunnis".)
Should Fox be censored or penalized by the government?
Hell on. Fortunately, nobody's making this argument. Yay first amendment!
Did Fox help ISIS by publishing the video?
Counterterrorist Malcom Nance (the "Waterboarding is torture, period." guy) thinks so, but I'm not seeing a description of why. Perhaps it's a combination of morale boost and being able to exert fear-control over their own territory. Perhaps (as another slashdotter speculated) they want to provoke the West into military intervention in order to further galvanize the Islamic world against Western influence. On the other hand, gratuitous violence is generally a great way to undermine your own cause; it's hard to imagine the video winning them any friends.These are boy-apes, demonstrating dominance and waving their guns at the cosmos, thinking that they somehow matter.
Should Fox have self-censored themselves for the sake of civic duty?
Ah: that seems to be what the debate's really about, isn't it? Those who think Fox abandoned their civic duty long ago will be tempted to "yes". Those who think of Fox as "too liberal" will say "no". Those of us with a good selection of defense industry stocks in our portfolio will also say "no", while trying to stifle a sudden case of the giggles.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Great, so lets start seeing footage of the broken bodies of women and children we regularly kill in our raids.
So long as we only show the atrocities committed by the enemy it's not news, it's propaganda.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"My side" in the WWII didn't invade France. "My side" in WWII didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. "My side" in WWII didn't start the indiscriminate bombing campaigns by trying to knock London and other major cities to the ground with aerial bombing campaigns. "My side" in WWII didn't slaughters tens of thousands of Chinese. "My side" in WWII didn't exterminate six million Jews.
Yes,. the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were horrible, but if the purpose was demoralization of failing military powers to bring the two theaters to a faster conclusion, then so be it.
I will remind you that in Japan, at least, it took not one, but two atom bombs to force the Japanese Cabinet to finally surrender.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Does posting this video advance the aims of this terror group or hinder its progress by laying bare its depravity?" writes Wemple. "Islamic State leaders may indeed delight in the distribution of the video -- which could be helpful in converting extremists to its cause..."
Well said, I'm totally with you so far.
"... -- but they may be mis-calibrating its impact. If the terrorists expected to intimidate the world with their display of barbarity, they may be disappointed with the reaction of Jordan, which is vowing 'strong, earth-shaking and decisive' retaliation."
They were not aiming to intimidate Jordan. A violent response is exactly what Islamic State wants. They want the opposition to take the gloves off. Islamic State gets its power from blood debts. They want more blood on the hands of the opposition, just like Fox wants Islamic State to engage in brutality to push more people into the fire-breathing anti-Muslim camp.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Fox News never showed the 60,000+ Iraqis we incinerated, shot, and crushed to death. Nor the burnt and mangled children and adults who survived our attacks. Or the prison camps, mostly holding people who we felt like might be a problem - and who are probably still in the camps. If you wanted to cover such things, you could go to hell, as far as the military was concerned. People died finding truth while Fox's old draft avoiding men and MILFy women pseudonewspeople in tight skirts sat in air-conditioned studios and made. Shit. Up.