Why?
There I was watching Channel 10 news this morning, chomping on some toast accompanied by a nice piping hot cup of tea. It was a bit chilly this morning, I needed an extra cuppa. Anyway, there I was, mouthful of toast and half interested in the news, when they showed the tragic story of the fire in Russia yesterday. Nasty stuff. Even nastier was the showing of women jumping to their deaths to escape the fire. Disturbingly clear images.
How the hell can they justify showing that? Do they not feel the need to perhaps give a little warning that some of the images in the report are "disturbing", as they do on more illustrious networks, such as Sky or CNN. Do they feel we've been numbed by the never-ending display of blood and guts in tragic accidents and suicide bombings that a quick showing of someone jumping to her certain death will slip harmlessly by...? When the news roundup had finished, even the morning show presenters were a little shocked at the images and suggested next time, maybe they shouldn't show them.
I'm stuck with this image going round in my head and I'm asking myself...why?
2 comments:
Last night, I saw those images as well. Truly disturbing, and quite reminiscent of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. I was horrified to see it then, and even more horrified now, as the images were so much clearer. Such shocking images have no place in true journalism, and certainly don't gel with the "public's right to know".
Does anyone know if these images were shown on the other channels as well? I've always been a fan of channel 10 news, but they seem to be heading in a sensationalist direction that I don't really care for. I wonder if it has anything to do with their financial problems and ownership issues...
You know, the older I get (and my kids get - maybe some connection) the less patient I am with gratuitous images. I don't think we really need to see dying people, or body parts on a regular basis to know that a tragedy is a tragedy.
Post a Comment