ChatterBank0 min ago
Was there any need?
67 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/3tc7nwx
I personnaly think that the DailyMail has gone too far this time, in printing these horrendous pictures of this young man's final moments.
Surely it was enough to report on this disastrous accident without the need to illustrate all the gory details?
I personnaly think that the DailyMail has gone too far this time, in printing these horrendous pictures of this young man's final moments.
Surely it was enough to report on this disastrous accident without the need to illustrate all the gory details?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Teddy-boy
I could have hardly put my question without also including the evidence, what would the majority of ABers have said "where's the link"? I presume, and quite rightly so.
I am sorry that you chose to criticise me for what, putting the question or including the link?
Since you did not open the link, then I take it, it was for putting the question, are we to only put questions that you agree with?
Incidently if one refrains from including a link, how are persons supposed to come to a opinion on the subject in hand?
It is like sentencing a person without first looking at all the evidence.
I could have hardly put my question without also including the evidence, what would the majority of ABers have said "where's the link"? I presume, and quite rightly so.
I am sorry that you chose to criticise me for what, putting the question or including the link?
Since you did not open the link, then I take it, it was for putting the question, are we to only put questions that you agree with?
Incidently if one refrains from including a link, how are persons supposed to come to a opinion on the subject in hand?
It is like sentencing a person without first looking at all the evidence.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
squad, I appreciate that, as a doctor (if I'm right), you may be more used to encountering images of death than most, but as I've never knowingly seen a dead body (think I may have but not sure as the ambulance was still there) I'd absolutely say that the last image was gory enough! Appreciate it's not to the literal sense but the sentiment is the same.
Well, the Daily Mail does not automatically publish EVERY photo or story it receives.
The editorial staff have to decide ...
"Is this something that we should pass on to our millions of readers?"
"Or would that be bad taste?"
"Or ... do we care about bad taste or not, as long as we sell more copies of our raggy tabloid?"
The editorial staff have to decide ...
"Is this something that we should pass on to our millions of readers?"
"Or would that be bad taste?"
"Or ... do we care about bad taste or not, as long as we sell more copies of our raggy tabloid?"
it is in context though ecclescake, so everyone knows that, in that last picture, he's dead (or at least fatally injured), and I may be being a sensitive little soul but I don't really want to be seeing photos of someone's death, and I certainly don't think it's right for a national newspaper to show them.
I have to say I'm surprised at how sensitive people are here. There are far, far worse images in the news every day, far more graphic and horrific than those related to this news story.
If you were shown those images out of this context I doubt anyone would be horrified/disgusted/etc.
I am clearly missing sonething, and before anyone comments - my compassion gene is in for servicing.
If you were shown those images out of this context I doubt anyone would be horrified/disgusted/etc.
I am clearly missing sonething, and before anyone comments - my compassion gene is in for servicing.
Eccles ...
I think there is an argument that we should not be shown anything graphic ...
... because we are ...
... too immature to deal with it, or something ?
(I think the argument was discussed in George Orwell's "1984")
The grown up people at the newspapers, who CAN cope with such images, get to decide what we simple, jeuvenile members of the proletariat can, or cannot, handle.
The newspaper people then get to feed us ONLY the appropriate images.
That way, we unintelligent masses do not get out of control through viewing unsuitable material.
I think there is an argument that we should not be shown anything graphic ...
... because we are ...
... too immature to deal with it, or something ?
(I think the argument was discussed in George Orwell's "1984")
The grown up people at the newspapers, who CAN cope with such images, get to decide what we simple, jeuvenile members of the proletariat can, or cannot, handle.
The newspaper people then get to feed us ONLY the appropriate images.
That way, we unintelligent masses do not get out of control through viewing unsuitable material.
