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.
I wouldn't watch this video, and I suspect the motives for Fox News here is not pure. But ultimately this is a personal moment for the man who is suddenly faced with a horrific death. These are the last moments of his life, and I believe they should belong to him. Since I didn't watch it, I don't know what it contains, but I would suspect they do not show the man at his best. If we could know his wish in the matter, I'd want to defer to that. But since we can't I'd defer to the less morally ambiguous choice which is to keep the moment as private to him as is possible.
Peace, or Not?
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
Searched for the link again, found it this time ... ... ...
The last time I had that sort of a chill run down my spine was in that one short shot in "The Ring" - were you see the girls face. ... That was a *long* time ago. No, I don't watch horror movies.
Summary of the videoclip: ... Very well funded indeed. Or they all "dressed up for the occasion". Probably a bit of both.
The pilot is chaged in a well built cage, as if on display for this exact purpose. It's smack in the center of a court among combat ruins. Roughly 10-20 soldiers standing around in a Mad Max aestetic setting, some further up on open floors of what looks like a half-bombed building. With very clean and neat combat gear, resembling a solid desert-spotty-camo US armed forces ripp-off.
You hear the cheasy allah sing-sang whawha pop chanting we've heard so much of lately build up as the clips soundtrack and see composited videosnippets and "news-bulletin" effects flying about. ... Don't know if that was Fox or not ... wouldn't be suprised if it was the video makers though, because:
What instantly strikes the viewer - me and anybody else I bet - is that the video is *very* well made. No shaky-cam stuff, but what appears to be corrected and composited top-quality HD footage, perhaps even 2 or 4HD. Cut together in a sort of MTV-videoclip aestetic, with extra room for the camera man to move about. A cut-up of closeups putting the victim front-and-center, to allow the viewer to get close to im and build a relation ... very smart. Think "Britains go talent" style personal engagement. The whole video is a barrage of quotes on western news/reality TV and action movie style quotes. ... These guys have done their homework and their message is for us, no two ways about it.
He's wearing clothing that pretty much resembles the orange/red clothes we see on all those Guantanamo pictures. Mmmmh, could this be a little "wave with the telegraph mast" as we say in Germany? ... I wonder. Anyway, the clothes are wet, obviously from the inflamable liquid they sprayed on him. He's pretty calm, standing in the center of the cage. Note: We're still seeing all this in a montage of shots in MTV/reality TV aestetic.
They show a shot of him praying, then a fighter in desert ski-mask (all of them have one) lighting a wooden torch and holding it to a stip of flammble. Bad guy action movie style it very much is. Intended, I bet ... After a few moments the man starts burning, waving his arms in pain, then flailing and running to and fro in the cage bumping into the bars, completely engulfed in flames. He goes down and unconscious after about 10-20 seconds. Couldn't really say exactly, it seemed like an eternity, and I sure as hell have no intention watching that again.
They give it another 10-20 seconds with a close-up to his face/head crisping in the fire - he's not feeling it anymore.
We do the same thing with dead animals on the barbeque, so if you think me putting it that way is cruel, think about your eating habbits.
They stop the fire and bury him with a wheel-loader dumping a load of debris and dirt onto the cage, crushing it, extinguishing the fire and burrying him all at once. The wheel loader is filmed with what looks like a seperate cam, shots change throughout the action. The whole procedure from start to finish looks very well rehearsed
Conclusion:
This stuff has happened throughout history. We know it.
What's new is that anybody - that includes the scariest of religious fanatics - can take a high end cam for a few bucks from a convenience store and make this sort of video of it.
My judgment is out:
These guys are serious. Not Nazi Germany serious - praise the heavens not - but like 14th century serious. Curely, fanatic and not to be reasoned with. A few more of these videos and I'd vote for two dozen
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
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.
Seeing it on TV is probably not going to have much of an effect for the same reason that playing violent games doesn't have much of an effect. Vision is a powerful sense, but not anywhere near as powerful as the effect of hearing, smelling and feeling on top of seeing.
It's inevitable that any visual depiction is going to be different from the actual event, no matter how hard the people depicting it try to keep it accurate.
They are different, but it matters. That's why the US won't allow the media to show dead US solder's returning to the US. And that is just a picture of a coffin. A large part of the public opinion about the Vietnam war was do to the fact that the news did show the US bombing and burning villages. Footage of carnage and piles of returning body bags. The US does not allow any of that now.
And Fox News, the mouth piece of the Republican party, is glad to show you the gruesome truth of ISIS, but supports "our troops" and would never fight to show us the reality of our "liberation" of Iraq, or the children and families killed by constant drone attacks in Pakistan. I'm not even arguing against the drone attacks, I'm just saying that images matter and that's why we aren't allowed to see them when they reflect poorly on the US.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.