It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Death Porn or Just Sharing the Latest News?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Death Porn or Just Sharing the Latest News?


www.vancouversun.com

A video showing Olympic athlete Nodar Kumaritashvili's final moments in his fatal run down Whistler's luge track Friday was broadcast on CTV and on the broadcaster's Olympic website, and quickly circulated on the Internet ...

"...it was almost instantly broadcast online ...Before, we had a media system where everything was filtered through journalists, but that doesn't happen any more."...

"It transfers the responsibility to [consumers of news] to decide whether to watch this video or not."
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.nytimes.com
latimesblogs.latimes.com
www.google.com
www.ctvolympics.ca

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Tragic accident in Vancouver, luge crash
www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I'll buy "Death Porn." People do seem to get off on violent death.

But the observation that journalists and mainstream media sources used to filter "distasteful" stuff from public view seems to imply that they should.

And that news consumers (people) should not be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to see.

I'm not good with that.

Looks like this incident is being spun as another reason to take away the the FREE WEB. Apparently, people don't just need protection from cyber-terrorism and cyber-vandalism, but from their own bad taste.





www.vancouversun.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


G'day soficrow

I agree with your sentiments in general.

However there are some easily accessible horrific "death videos" around that I wouldn't want kids to see.

Those videos could only have been seen by kids with great difficulty, prior to ubiquitous internet access.

Whilst that worries me, I think that censorship & freedom of speech issues related to the internet are also of huge concern.

It's a fine "balancing act" that is required.

I'm watching in total disgust, as our own Rudd government in Australia tries to force significant internet censorship & control into our lives.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
... media sources used to filter "distasteful" stuff from public view seems to imply that they should.

And that news consumers (people) should not be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to see.

I'm not good with that.


Agreed.

One doesn't have to read Manufacturing Consent to understand the "filter" that has been in place since mass media was invented.

The internet is in the same position now that the early days of the Guttenburg press brought to society (before truly "mass media" came along), the ability for anyone to disseminate and consume information.

We're already hearing the calls of 'moral danger" and "security" being used to justify curbing people's access to the net.

I'm also not liking the increasing frequency whereby I can't watch something because I'm in the wrong country. Borders on the internet :shk:
.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
DEATH PORN! As disgusting and unneeded as those "Faces of Death" VHS's that caused such a stir in the 80's.
I do not need to see HOW someone died. Hearing that a person died, due to his sport, is terrible enough, thank You.

I agree there is a part of people that "goes off" on seeing death. I had my share of death, no need to see it again on pics&vids. The stench of death, it's senselessness, close-by, real-life will cure you quite thoroughly from any "lustfullness" I'd say(speaking as an ex-MP with lots of traffic-duty and having been privvy to my fair share of nasty, stupid, sad accidents with mainly young people as victims.)

As for the availability: I am torn here. People should know what death is. There is no use for pussy-footing here .I remember in our first training for traffic-duty, we got a nice slide-show(no beamers invented yet..Yup, I am old!) of smashed cars, disgusting dismembered bodies hanging from it, split skulls, brains literally all over the dash, cars with blood dripping off, etc. etc. Never having seen anything like that, It pushed my nose quite harshly into reality. It made me sick, but also careful while behind the wheel, and prepared me well for what was coming at me.

The moment pictures/media with real-life violent death becomes something to make money off..that's where I say: This ends here!

[edit on 2/13/2010 by diakrite]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Good post


Personally i think its sick, i mean hearing news about a death, thats fine. But showing you the video is one step too far.

Its stupid how many videos are on the net of deaths, that are so readily available for people to watch. For excample, the russian beheading, i mean thats one of the first link on google when typing in something like beheading, and is its so easy for kids to look at. Things like that could scar someones mind.

Theres not much anyone can do about things like this though really is there?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Look at the highest grossing Box Office Hits in the world. People willingly pay money to see death and destruction as a form of entertainment. They want it. Thanatos.

(And then they act all surprised and indignant when it happens in real-life)

[edit on 13-2-2010 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Curiosity is a strange thing.

On the one hand, we have the issue of censorship, and on the other we have the moral issue.

Yes, we have the RIGHT, and the means to view this, but MORALLY is it right to watch a person die in the pursuit of something they loved?

The western media, particularly in the UK and US has long been a fan of death and destruction - it just amazes me that the 4 riders of the apocolypse don't present the "news"

It's all about control....



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Massive crock of #.

How about we all take a step back, Dale Earnhardt. His death was replayed all over the TV, yet, heh, just because it wasn't video of an actual human body being destroyed it's not "violent"?

It was more violent then some guy eating crap on a luge, that's for DAMN sure.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
They decide what is bad taste or not to the public. They think you are too stupid.

We know what reality is. And the harsh reality is that people die. Some people die more violently than others.

The irony here is that those people who decide are people too!



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Personally I would rather it not be aired.. It is not as tho it is being censored so that no one knows the incident happened.. that would be wrong..

I do not agree with filtering what people see, however I do feel that those who died, and their loved ones need our respect as well..

A fine balancing act that will at times tip one way, then the other is a given.

Edit for clarity ;-)

[edit on 13/2/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


Right, so Dale Earnhardt died in a Iron Horse and yet his death was made to make him look like a hero of the sport, yet someone doing what they love and dieing violently and visibly shouldn't be aired?



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


yep. and it is not new. The Romans made death a form of entertainment, too. Forcing slaves to battle to the death for the sake of the public amusement.

Do i like to see it? No. But i am a sensitive person, and don't like to see any suffering (i agonize over it, too). This does not mean i want to make the decision on behalf of the rest of the world.

Freedom is more than just doing what you want. It is not doing what you don't want, too. Turning the channel, not buying a ticket, etc.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Revolution-2012
 


Where did I say it shouldn't be aired... I said I would rather it wasn't aired.. big difference.. I did quantify that with the statement that I don't agree with filtering information.. what I also said was that it is a fine balancing act..

Obviously you are focusing on this one instance.. however I was responding while thinking about the broader question this raises like, what about TV newscrews showing pictures of the bodies at a train crash where the loved ones have not been informed yet.. would that be ok for you??

For me I would rather they didn't, at least not until they had been informed, that would show a degree of respect, this is what I meant by balancing act, which obviously makes it hard to pick and choose what to and not to show, and when to show it..

Edit: spelling and stuff

[edit on 13/2/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   
People due to our mortality have an inherent and morbid fascination with death that goes well beyond just the seemingly vicarious and dubious thrill of witnessing it at one’s leisure and in relative safety.

Whether you are devoutly religious, atheist, or an agnostic somewhere in between we all know that inevitably we must each face death, not just those that we love but ultimately our own.

One could argue much of what life is revolves around learning an acceptance of letting go to lives shared and finally life itself.

It’s a process, a crossing, which we each internalize and face in slightly different but noticeable ways.

How significant is it, at the very crux this is what this thread is about, dealing with death, how to, and what is individually appropriate regarding where and when and for what purpose we do indulge that morbid but entirely natural fascination.

We are all not only simply going to eventually die and have to face death, but we all are in fact dying and coming one second closer to it with each second that passes.

Is it death porn or is it simply an inescapable interest, borne of inescapable necessity.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


True, but that's all "make-believe" i have no qualms looking at someone getting ripped apart by a mini-gun in utterly gory fashion in some movie, or doing it myself in some shooter-game, however, real-life is a whole different bag 'o beans.

People, indeed, went to the collosseum, people went to watch the heads of royalty fall in the French revolution.

To me, however, seeing someone die "for-real" still is awful, stomach-churning, yet saddening too. But..one big BUT, I DO believe that censoring will make it just more interesting. even arousing to some.

As I said, I am torn. To most people, death is some far-away thing, and has maybe a certain attraction, is enticing for it's unfamiliarity.. Dunno. people with bigger brains and greater morals than me have studies this, so, what do I know.

I. for sure, do not need to see someone's true-life death-scene.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I agree.

To face others' deaths is to face your own.

We all know the harsh reality.

To let someone else decide for you whether or not to let you view certain pictures or videos is absurd. Would that person like for you to decide for him or her too?

We are not idiots.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I very much don't want another entity to decide what it acceptable for me to see/know or not, regardless of whether the little ones "might" access it. Stop expecting the world to do your parenting for you! I personally don't watch these types of videos, but censorship is a slippery slope we do not want to starting sliding down.

ANd it is NOT all about a gratuitous desire to see someone's spectacular demise, IMO. In this particular case, the officials are attributing this death to individual error, which may nor may not be true. But I for one would like to have professional lugers (sp?) w/ no interest in the outcome other than their own group's safety, to have the ability to see the actual accident and render a public verdict on what they see. Censoring things from the public at large means censoring things from the view of the very people who we really need to see such things in the interests of a transparent and just society.



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I agree.

To face others' deaths is to face your own.

We all know the harsh reality.

To let someone else decide for you whether or not to let you view certain pictures or videos is absurd. Would that person like for you to decide for him or her too?

We are not idiots.


Part of me agree, and part of me disagrees, I would find it distastefull of a newscrew to show live coverage of a train crash, and the smashed dismembered bodies of people who's loved ones have not yet been informed of their deaths.. I couldn't think of a more cruel way to learn of your soul mates death than see their remains on the morning news..

Nor can I see what point it would be showing live coverage of a car crash where only the torso and arm of a child is left cuddling a toy.. or coverage of firemen bringing the body of a burnt baby from a house fire..

Is it censorship to not show that kind of coverage over your morning breakfast or respect.. Should we show the type of coverage..

I worked for 6 months in a pathology lab, and saw some pretty awfull stuff, the firemen and policemen I got to know at the time still have nightmares of what they saw.. should we share their nightmares?? perhaps we would respect them all the more for it.. I am not sure.. but I still would rather that not be shown on TV, more out of respect than anything else.

Still it is only my opinon that I would rather not see those things.. having seen them on a daily basis for 6 months I could well do with out seeing them again..


[edit on 13/2/10 by thoughtsfull]



posted on Feb, 13 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DeathTribble
 

Agreed!

I like how f.i. the BBC always states: "the following images may be disturbing to some" before they air things like deadly accidents. I can then choose to switch to another channel, or not.(If there's a kid in the room I'll always switch, but most times i even switch when I am alone)

No censorship, just a warning. I guess that's the "gilded middle-road".

I guess it's important to trust the maturity of the viewer ,and not decide FOR the viewer.(there's already enough that's decided FOR us.







 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join