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."
I actually think that it is important for those interested to see this video. At the very least, know your enemy. Those who are _not_ disgusted by the video were already lost before they saw it. I saw it. I cannot believe what some people will do to one another.
Related discussion on Stack Exchange:
http://islam.stackexchange.com...
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
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.
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.
Be careful about the whole "home of the brave" comments. ISIS is trolling, they are doing all they can to entice the US into sending ground troops. That is a trap. Please don't fall for it. Thankfully most leaders can see and are avoiding the trap.
If the US or other western nations send in ground troops the region considers that an ISIS victory.
The instant the US or other western nations commit to ground attacks ISIS can make stronger claims of legitimacy within the region. It is no longer "ISIS versus everybody", it becomes "Another US/Western war against Muslims".
Unlike the US, Jordan can do this. They are in the region, sharing borders with Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. When Jordan strikes out they are seen as "Muslims fighting with other Muslims", which does not polarize the issue. If Jordan attacks it is seen as an ISIS loss.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
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.
Literally? Yes.
No. That is not what "literally" means. They may be helping ISIS's cause by posting this video, but they are not literally working for them unless they are getting a paycheck.
I think people in general are getting pretty sick of having islamic terrorists do horrific stuff and then the first thing the media does is point its finger at us saying "and don't you retaliate about this". In fact we don't, as individual citizens retaliate about this at all. There may be some instances here or there of poor treatment of muslims from some people, but they're constantly berating ALL of us to "not judge".
I think people are through with that, sick of being scolded for things we're not doing, while our leaders are developing habits of NEVER calling out these murderous islamic terrorists and stating that they are completely unacceptable in our world. They are only yelling at us to not ever respond in any way.
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.
Is the purpose of journalism to control the population, or to inform the population?
If it's to control the population, then these discussions are reasonable. If we share the message, how will the population react... will they be sympathetic, will they be fearful, will they be angry?
But, if the purpose of journalism is to inform the population, then, showing us things that might make us sympathetic are just as important as things that might make us angry.
I see no larger merit in journalism if it doesn't exist to provide us agency.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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.
Generally I agree. But to be argumentative (NO, not on Slashdot!), I disagree.
Showing horrible stuff allows us to call bullshit on politicians (I am thinking tea party) and their propaganda wing (I am thinking Fox News) who want to claim everything is an act of terrorism. People and groups who would tell you that pressure cookers are 'weapons of mass destruction', and countries that fund real terrorists and flog prisoners in medieval fashion are our friends (I am thinking Saudi Arabia); thereby minimizing what real terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are. This is often so they can surreptitiously push their own agenda.
Being able to see unfiltered events allows us to look critically and say, sure there is an argument that the Boston marathon bombing was terrorism (or attempt at it), but a pressure cooker is NOT a weapon of mass destruction. When we see pictures of dozens and dozens of people killed in chemical weapons attacks by Assad in Syria, we see what WMDs really are so that we take politicians to task for exaggerating things to try to help their own ends.
Or when we see that dipshit on Parliament Hill in Ottawa who killed the cenotaph guard and was killed in the parliament buildings. In his mind he was a terrorist maybe, but Canadians could see him as a radicalized idiot not a terrorist. Panic averted.
Without context, as harsh as it is sometimes to gain, proper judgement cannot be made. We cannot trust the politicians and spin doctors to tell us what something is. We need to do that ourselves and require the information to do so.
I admit there is a danger that people can get desensitized to it, which can also impair judgement. Then we get absolutely fucking ridiculous comparisons trying to demonize people particular interest groups disagree with. For example, people who try to compare Hillary Clinton to Hitler (full disclosure, I lean on the Democrat side, but don't really like Clinton... former director and corporate lawyer for Wallmart, and good friend of the Waltons... not really that different from a Republican except when trying to get elected). What a bunch of fucking nonsense. It completely minimizes the horror that was Hitler's Germany. Any comparison like that is quite plainly, mentally retarded. Being desensitized to the murder of 12 million people and the death of tens of millions in battle and collateral damage from bombings (granted this is partly due to the distance in time) lends itself to unrealistic comparisons. But I think it can be extrapolated to desensitization from over-exposure of items in the news.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.