A recent example would be Mohamed Merah's (Toulouse shooter) video of his murders. Besides children, what is it that says we shouldn't show these things?

Consideration for families of victims?
Sanctity of death/respect of the dead?
Personal sanctity/disgust?

Or perhaps we feel as I do that it is unhealthy to look at or view such things because you feel uncomfortable with the reason why you may do so, as if it was curiosity or entertainment. So this is why I would watch it if I was, you know, a detective, but I don't generally as a private citizen go on youtube and look up suicide videos or whatever.

There is also of course something disturbing and depressing about the whole thing. What are you thoughts?

Also, all image and video links that are links to death-related material, at least for this thread, please say so in your post. Cause geez. @2WL

I don't think this is an issue of freedom of speech/press or even a right to know issue, its purely an issue of consideration for the deceased as well as family members, friends, etc. I wholeheartedly believe in respect for the dead, regardless of feelings toward the person.

Another possible reason: fear of death. It's impolite to remind us we're not immortal.

Don't take this the troll way but in that case its also impolite to say Santa Claus doesn't exist, therefore I wouldn't take such an argument serious...

Actually, I person rather close to my family was recently killed in a car accident. He got hit by a pickup truck while on his motorcycle. The picture on the news site showed a picture of the truck with blood stains underneath and his motorcycle helmet by the tire.

Thucy how is this in any way not an choice for parents or adults to make on an individual basis? What is the point of the thread?

If you just want to know how *I* feel about it... I find death fun to fap to. Not because I'm into that, but the taboo is a great aphrodisiac.

One reason not to show these images, for example of the Toulouse shooter, may be that you wouldn't want to give the shooter the "glory" that comes with this. For the same reason, I am shocked by the amount of attention this Breivik sicko in Norway is getting for his "ideas". Throw the guy in prison for the rest of his life, leave questions to the judges.

Yes images of gore should be censored. Just yesterday on a certain website their was a picture of a carload of dead children - pretty upsetting to see if you know them. I think adults 20+ should be allowed to view these pictures if they go looking for them.

The good thing about pictures of mexican drug-war murders is that it makes you appreciate that you don't live in north mexico! ;P

@redhouse: I disagree, people in Norway should 'talk this out'. Anders has succeeded in discrediting and disempowering the far-right in Norway for years to come :)

@Thucy,
As in so many things, I just don't think there are any rules. It's so incredibly dependent on so many things. I've seen images of eath presented in ways that probably inured me. I've seen images that shocked me and woke me up to the preciousness of life and the horror of the death. To talk about images of death as if they're all the same makes no sense, in my opinion. It would be like asking if we should stop looking at pictures of people, because they can cause objectification. That's just so dependent on the picture.

Redhouse, I must disagree. I don't see why it glorifies somebody to say they did something like that, but if in somebody's sick mind, killing people equals glory, then, well, I guess he gets that sick glory, because he did kill people.

It's kind of like Fox News had a period (I have no idea if it's still ongoing) where they always called suicide bombers "homicide bombers" because they thought "suicide bombers" was too glorifying. What the heck?! What's glorifying about being a suicide bomber? But even more -- if there IS something glorifying about it, well, then, still call it that, because that's what they are, and they deserve whatever shame or glory the truth brings with it.

Puzzled by some the reactions to this thread. What do you mean "what is the point of this thread"? What do you think? Lol.

Thanks Thucy for bringing up the topic, and I like the answer you gave it yourself.

I'll add an aspect:
Young rebels often think that it will serve their cause if they can shock people. They might be driven by strong emotional motivations, crying out against injustice.
They want to publish their right to indignation in the most graphic way they can.
It's like them saying "Look what horrified me. It should horrify you too."

I don't think it is a fruitful method at all. If you want to really convince anyone of anything at all, you'll have to use reason anyway. An image can arouse emotions - there is no telling the direction of the emotions.

If you see something horrifying, like a hanged man, your most immediate hatred will be turned upon the image that shocked you, ie the hanged man. If the hangman stands by smiling, offering you popcorn, he will look much nicer to you and you'll like him.
It's crude, but that's what you get if you will rely upon emotional conviction.

I'd recommend not to willfully promote revolting stuff. Positive emotions together with a sharp critical intellect is always the best. The opposite is the most unhealthy: Negative emotions with no intellectual intent, unhealthy as Thucy described it in his first post.

Another thing:
A picture might say more than a thousand words, OK. But then it might tell a lot more lies too. How do you know what story a picture is telling? If it is more convincing than words, it means that it is more convincing in lying too.

Let's take a specific example:

Is there any time when it is appropriate for news outlets to show images of death? If so, what are they? Does it make a difference what medium it is in (print, online, TV, radio (audio of people dying in this case))?

"There is also of course something disturbing and depressing about the whole thing."

Why?

I think it has to do with empathy. As you watch you think "I would hate if someone watched my death like this on YouTube."

People are supposed to give more of a shit about it when people die than that, I suppose I would want the same respect.

Also fiedler can I just point out what you're saying?

You are asking "why is it disturbing to watch people get killed?"

.....

Thucy: "Let's take a specific example:

Is there any time when it is appropriate for news outlets to show images of death? If so, what are they? Does it make a difference what medium it is in (print, online, TV, radio (audio of people dying in this case))?"

I believe that when reporting from military conflicts, it's extremely important to show what they actually look like. War becomes political rhetoric and statistics way, way too often. I like how Al Jazeera publishes uncensored images that constantly remind you that this is not a description of an abstract political process, this is a description of human beings dying in horrible ways. Of course, like Sylence points out, strong images create strong emotions, and emotions divorced from reason can be used very efficiently for propaganda. But when it comes to the average civilian's general view of war, I feel that there is not enough negative emotion (I can only speak for my country here, which is Sweden). It's too distant, too abstract, too glorified, too moviefied. When you see the bodies on the streets in Libya, you can't divorce yourself anymore. It's an emotional gut punch. And it's necessary. I don't believe in Sylence's view that positive emotion is always the best. Anger and revulsion can be used constructively, fueling a need for change. And if they become destructive? I still don't believe in hiding the truth and showing a cosmetic rendering of war.

@thucy: umm, thank you for pointing out what I am saying :)

I'm saying it is disturbing to see people getting killed. My question is: so what? People are curious to see these things - nothing wrong with that - in moderation.

"I would hate if someone watched my death like this on YouTube"
"I suppose I would want the same respect"
- that's vanity, not empathy.

I think the fundamental battle here is with the individuals own ability to process 'the dark side' of life. Some people wish to deny it exists completely, some people celebrate it. Most people largely deny it and take a peek at the odd bit of gore once in a while.

I'll admit I have a limited stomach for it, which I am glad of. Thucy you are right it is disturbing and depressing, my point is that's OK and healthy.
I probably should have said that in the first place. hah.

What a great and uneasy topic. Uneasy because we may have to look further than just the images and ask is whether what we generally consider entertainment is appropriate. We are numbed by the constant bombardment of explosions and gore in our entertainment media ( movies, games, obsessive news reports) Western society is awash in news and negative images. People become insensitive to pain of others and so the real thing becomes appropriate. Idiots like Breivik have an instant worldwide soapbox to stand on and we hand it to him. my best suggestion would be to limit the graphic exposure to the later hours and a social contract as to how graphic it is. I have known others who have come face to face with the results of life ending violence and I am sure they would rather have not. The only, only, only things the deluge of violent scenes gives us is a sense of how special a secure life is. Excuse me, I gotta go blow up an alien or sumthin'

I think usually there is a way of showing violence but still being tasteful.

I think what I was reacting to originally was the idea that a video of a suicide may have 100,000 views on YouTube, and utterly disrespectful comments. I know, the Internet is vile, but the Internet is *us*.

Is that surprising though? Romans watched gladiators, in medieval times we watched public executions, nowadays it's thankfully mostly fictional violence we get our kicks from. People love the morbid, the twisted, the grotesque and the taboo. Not everyone does of course, it's a generalisation, but 100,000 people watching a suicide for thrills does not surprise me at all. Utterly disrespectful comments? Yes, a large amount of people in any given group will turn out to be dicks. Magnify this by 100 for the Internet.

Cheer up Thucy! People just make bad jokes when they are uncomfortable.

It's a beautiful day I'm going for a walk lol.

Quite true Vaft, quite true. You can have some of my chips if you want.

Do you have any human flesh-flavoured ones?

eewwwww!

No. But they are cooked in human fat. Delish!