Check the site below for uncensored pictures from Associated Press Television News on the attack on Foreign civilians in Iraq. Allows you to compare with what we are actually shown on mainstream newscasts......
I have always found such censorship by Western news outlets as utterly bizarre.
Having seen the video, it is very hard to justify not showing what happened there. It is almost as if we are not supposed to be shocked, because it might upset us.
God forbid we see what is actually happening, but instead live in cloud cuckoo land, where images are replaced by the words "horrific", "badly burned" and a whole string of metaphors.
Such a shame that no news organisation in the UK or America has the balls to stand up and actually put that on air.
Oh come on now, c@t, if something "horrible" happened to a loved one, would you want video of it to be viewed by everyone? Furthermore, would you want the BBC or SkyNews owning the archival rights to the footage of your personal tragedy?
The point can be communicated quite effectively without all the gore, and surely the effect of more uncensored blood and guts will not be to reduce the violence in the world, but rather desensitize us to it. And that's just not civilized.
Oh come on now, c@t, if something "horrible" happened to a loved one, would you want video of it to be viewed by everyone? Furthermore, would you want the BBC or SkyNews owning the archival rights to the footage of your personal tragedy?
The point can be communicated quite effectively without all the gore, and surely the effect of more uncensored blood and guts will not be to reduce the violence in the world, but rather desensitize us to it. And that's just not civilized.
What absolute twaddle.
A picture says a thousand words, as they say.
The only reason why it is not being shown is because, after Somalia, the US networks are too scared of what it might do.
The view that we will be desensitised to it is something of a false argument. Nobody knows whether the public would just throw their arms up and go "pah, so what" because nobody has the balls to try.
The fact of the matter is that this is not pretty, this is not nice, but this is, very sadly, real. You can skirt round the facts all you like, but unless you show what actually happened, you can never be properly informing your audience.
Having just watched these two reports, I am shocked at the first one there. It doesn't mean it should never be shown though. Perhaps it would be upsetting or off-putting on the 6 o' clock news what with it being dinner time and all but there's no reason why these sorts of images cannot be shown on the 10 o' clock news. I'm all for them showing it. It shocked me. The message got across. Anyone that just watched the BBC's report would quickly disregard it as being just more shouting and setting empty cars on fire. If more graphic pictures were used, people would take notice.
The only reason why it is not being shown is because, after Somalia, the US networks are too scared of what it might do.
With the continued "decency wars" going on here, this would only add more fuel to the fire.
Many newspapers, and a fair number of late evening local news programs (10PM & 11PM) showed the images, though with copious disclaimers and admonitions. The networks opted not to show them, however.
I don't know whether either of the overnight broadcast news shows (CBS' "Up To The Minute" & ABC's "World News Now") showed the images though.
The pictures in question were shown on the BBC News at Ten on Thursday evening. I doubt very much that ANY channel showed the footage uncut - not having seen the US channels' coverage I can't say if what they showed was more graphic than that on the BBC.
The most graphic shot that any mainstream network showed was the scene near the end with parts of the blackened bodies suspended from the Bridge. In Europe CNN and EuroNews showed this.
This is by no means a new thing ... often agency feeds contain very graphic material and broadcasters take a view about what can and can't be shown ... mostly it's a taste and decency issue rather than any other form of censorship.
Personally I come from the school of showing as much as possible but imagine if those pictures were shown at say 6pm ... you just couldn't because of the children who were watching.
It's actually interesting to watch news reports from say the 70's and they actually show much more graphic scenes than would ever be shown now - I'm thinking of bits of bodies being swept up after bombs in Belfast etc. The world has changed.