When is too far, too far?

[Durzel]

(I was gonna post this to the IRAQ vs UK war thread, but I felt it was more appropriate as a seperate subject)

Today, on Sky News at least, there was live footage from a reporter actually sat in a tank as a convoy rumbled through Iraq getting involved in skirmishes, etc. This uninterrupted footage was narrated by the various anchormen in the studio.

What I found "interesting" about this was that Sky didn't hold back at all. They broadcast everything, live, as it happened. Today I saw Iraqis (who may have been militia or civilians - they're still human) in trucks and cars being shot to pieces from machinegun fire by the convoy. Trucks with people literally running for their lives as bullets ping off the tarmac with puffs of dust. People, humans, being shot at on live TV.

All while this was going on, these events were being rationalised as they have been for the past 17 or so days by carefully worded propoganda. At times the studio personnel seemed like they were commentating a football match. Calm, dry, unemotionless narration as live footage shows dead Iraqis lying in the streets, trucks, etc on fire and people running for their lives.

This footage seems to be the latest in a long line of Sky (and others) taking more and more "risks" when it comes to what they find acceptable to show. When the War first kicked off, there was one or two sporadic instances where you saw actual scenes of gunfights, etc - but they mostly stuck to reporting from sanitised locations. Now, it seems, they've gone all out and turned the War into some kind of Big Brother fest. I can only imagine multiple camera angles ala Sky Sports will be next.

I'm not going to bother arguing the rights and wrongs of this footage, or indeed the War.. However todays coverage on Sky is possibly the most "acute" television I've ever seen.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

 

[Clowneh!]

Originally posted by Durzel
They broadcast everything, live, as it happened.

News is news innit? Don't people tune into news channels to see whats happening?

 

[Ash!]

Thing you have to bear in mind is that sky news for the main, as with other news channels are having very little to report as daft as that sounds. A lot of the info reportred is subject to allied or Iraqi reporting restrictions. Any new footage is bound to be siezed upon

 

[throdgrain]

Personally I think that is "too far" . I also dont think they should ever show dead people on the news either. Im scared its in some way sensationalising such things.
Reminds me of the autposy live on tv thread in a way.

 

[mank!]

I find it horribly ironic that they'll show that but ban music videos because they have something that might relate to war in some roundabout way on MTV.

Madness.

 

[Durzel]

As I said before, I didn't find it abhorrent, it didn't disgust me or anything like that. I fully appreciate that war is war and people get killed... what I did find amazing was the candid, almost trivial way in which these scenes of death and destruction were just broadcast.

To draw some kind of parallel, none of the news channels (to the best of my knowledge anyway) broadcast the footage of people jumping out of the World Trade Centre, or any of the smashed bodies on the ground.

I actually saw dead Iraqi soldiers on TV - not just out of shot or anything, actually deliberately in shot, all the while the news team talking about missions being accomplished and 1,000+ of Iraqi "enemies" wiped out.

Was just very shocking (but not in a "Im disgusted" way) is all.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Durzel
When the War first kicked off, ...

This irony is intended, right ?

 

[old.D0LLySh33p]

Double standards perhaps. It's wrong for Iraqis to show captured POWS but the world shows tons of dead/captured Iraqis... I'm drunk excuse me not adding more.

 

[Durzel]

Re: Re: When is too far, too far?

Originally posted by xane
This irony is intended, right ?

Whats ironic about the statement?

 

[Tom]

You can find all this stuff here

 

[PR.]

Again like the Autopsy thread, I don't really see a problem in it, sure maybe some watershed blocking so kids don't watch it when they are flicking from CBBC to CBeebies. The simple fact is thats whats happening out there it aint a movie, no one's going to shout cut, and the Iraqis aren't gonna get out their cars and shout "thats gonna look neat on camera!". I'm sure most of us are guilty of simply dismissing the figures of so many 1000s of troops wiped out while we eat our breakfasts, they all had families to who will be upset by their deaths even if they were fighting for the wrong cause. We aren't seing the real grusom stuff, like Raggie Omah (sp?) who reported from the accidental bombing of the markets he described limbs and body parts laying everywhere. The footage shows, like so much footage from previous wars that its not something to be entered into lightly. I btw am Pro-War

 

[ReActor]

I don't watch a lot of media coverage of the war. I can find it somewhat interesting, as events occur live and it's exciting when something new develops. But the problem with war is that it's always going to be madness.

Watching too much news coverage can give the impression that they know what's going on when they really don't. It doesn't matter how many reporters and cameras and 'experts' they have, the fog of war remains (as the numerous friendly fire instances so far have shown).

If I'm told the same thing 6 times in an hour, there's a danger that I (and other viewers) will take it as read that it's happened, even if it's not confirmed.

And yes, I agree with you about the propaganda slant, although personally anti-war propaganda is far more annoying to me. I can barely tolerate Channel 4 News at the moment, because they accentuate the negative so much it's infuriating.

As to your question: on the one hand, seeing the killings and carnage and corpses on TV is a good thing, because it reminds the viewer that war is a messy and unpleasant business. Remember the criticism of the media after the 1st Gulf War, where they were accused of being too sterile and only showing "computer game-like" images of bombs being dropped and anti-aircraft fire criss crossing the sky like Space Invaders. At least this time some of the more brutal costs of the war are being shown.

On the other hand, I agree that it makes a spectacle out of real killing, just like 11th September was a spectacle. Everyone was saying how it was "just like a film", remember. It's just the human tendency to do that.

I think the key must be to show the costs and benefits of battle, as they have done, but not to show too much of the action itself. I know that sounds boring, but honestly I don't want to see people getting shot.

 

[xane]

Re: Re: Re: When is too far, too far?

Originally posted by Durzel
Whats ironic about the statement?

Originally posted by Durzel
... At times the studio personnel seemed like they were commentating a football match.

...

When the War first kicked off, ...

 

[nath]

Hmm, not sure.

Al Jazeera shows a load of horrific images of the carnage of war. I think for them it's simply showing the horrificly grim reality of war. When Murdoch is involved, I find it hard to believe that any media integrity is involved. I do get the impression that its simply an exciting bit of television, something that sells well. To be honest, I don't think there's any necessity to show live combat, it's not news, it's just something to watch.

 

[Trebz]

I managed to catch that news footage too, they were looping it alongside the update by that US army bloke goin on about the progress to date.

It didn't offend me personally but I was pretty shocked when I witnessed a car being driven towards the convoy and coming under a hail of bullets before veering off and hitting the road barriers. You didnt see the people being killed, but you knew full well they were dead.

If I was to be honest, I'd haveto say I have a morbid fascination and actually like to see this footage, I can't explain why, maybe its because it shocks me, its something I shouldn't really be seeing. At the same time though I disgust myself by feeling that way, these are human lives being extinguished, its not something that should be blatantly showed on a news channel for sensational benefit.

It's a morale minefield, there have been scenes of death I have witnessed on the news in the past that I have felt to be appropriate because they have brought home the stark reality of what is happening. I recall a few years ago some footage of a man being shot in the street trying to protect his baby child, the murder was cold hearted and callous and struck home just how brutal the situation was. Sadly it obviously didnt strike it home too well to me because I can't remember where it was for the life of me.

If I was to stand by my morales then I would say that such footage should not be shown. I was brought up a catholic and even though I no longer practise I still stand by many of the values it taught me. I believe in the concept of heaven and going to a greater place on death and I also believe that the remaining body should be treated with due respect and care, it is not something to be trivialised and broadcast around the world for the curiosity of others.

I'm not sure if I've actually made a point here or not, I'm a little the worse for wear on guinness, I just felt I'd throw in an opinion.

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by Trebz
I recall a few years ago some footage of a man being shot in the street trying to protect his baby child, the murder was cold hearted and callous and struck home just how brutal the situation was. Sadly it obviously didnt strike it home too well to me because I can't remember where it was for the life of me.

Israeli soldier shooting a Palestinian father trying to protect his 6 year old daughter. Remember it.

 

[Daffeh]

i think they should show everything as it happens

 

[Maljonic]

Ironically, now I've read all these posts I want to go and watch sky news instead of cnn, bbc etc.

 

[Perplex]

Originally posted by [ROT]Maljonic
cnn

Zionist News Network

 

[Tenko]

I agree with the the worry about the reasons for Sky showing what it does (plenty of US troops in action not so many bombed civilian houses) but I think that sanitizing the effects of war is worst than possibly glorifying it.

I'm old enough to remember the Falklands war, and to this day I remember many images from then which have lead me to have a respect for the carnage that really happens.

A man on a stretcher , his leg blown off below the knee; my mum crying at HMS Sheffield burning stem to sturn, Argentine jets bombing ships at anchor in broad daylight, Welsh Guardsmen abandoning Sir Galahad as helicopters try to blow there life boats away.

It goes on.

Young men and boys will always think war is the big adventure and I think that if we who stay at home don't see this thinest slice of what happens, we may think so too.

For the record I am (and was ) for the war, but It kept me awake at night almost as if my opinion actually mattered.

 

[Scouse]

As James Cameron once said:

There's no such thing as "too far" and too much is never enough

 

[Tenko]

Originally posted by Perplex
Zionist News Network

And on a lighter note...

Wouldnt that be ZNN?

 

[Perplex]

That's what it's affectionally called in the Middle East (where I'm from)

 

[Mellow-]

Are you for or against the war Perplex?

 

[ReActor]

Originally posted by Mellow-
Are you for or against the war Perplex?

Haha.

 

[nath]

I believe he's every so slightly anti. Just a bit, y'know.

 

[Perplex]

Totally illegitimate war with 101 real reasons (economic and politcal) rather than the sham lies they give as excuses. For every reason they give that they are going to war, there are offenders FAR worse out there in the world.

Excuse 1) Weapons of mass destruction!

Errrrr, hello? North Korea?


Excuse 2) Human Rights Violations!

Hmmm, Mugabe and Zimbabwe? Sharon and Israel?


Excuse 3) Breach of 18 UN resolutions for 12 years!

Well, Israel has been in breach of 68 resolutions, for almost 50 years?

And there's no fucking point any of you replying with some pro-war bullshit because quite frankly you're wrong, and I won't read it anyway. Get a clue.

I have even seriously considered joining the cause (for the Iraqies) but that would just be silly, but I would want to help defend a fellow arabian country from being colonised by the USA. NOT because I think Saddam is great or wonderful.

However, if Palestine had a conventional army I'd fly out tommorrow and join them

 

[nath]

^ tbh.

(except about the army bits. Killing lots of Israelis is only gunna make things worse)

 

[maxi--]

Or another way to look at it, as i posted somewhere else.

There are very few(i would say zero) valid and moral reasons for this war,


brutal regime?

see: china

oh, also, guess who got the first contract of reconstructing Iraq?

The first contract for rebuilding Iraq has already been awarded to Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, the former corporation of Vice President Dick Cheney. The amount of the contract is reportedly undisclosed for security reasons

 

[Trebz]

Originally posted by Perplex
And there's no fucking point any of you replying with some pro-war bullshit because quite frankly you're wrong, and I won't read it anyway. Get a clue.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not spouting pro-war "bullshit". But what would you do instead, allow Saddam to continue his dictatorship? You're against the US/UK war on Iraq but you suggest other targets like North Korea in your post. Ok, you didn't exactly say that, you just suggested other countries that are in breach of the regulations. What would you do about these countries?