The Daily Mail and reporting of Isis murders

[FlipUpDown]

My instinct has always been to support free speech, I'm pretty good at avoiding what I don't agree with. I know for example hard porn is out there, I don't agree, I avoid it.

My gut though lately is saying the Daily Mail's coverage of Isis is over a line a civilised society should draw. I feel conflicted, but today's reporting of a murder really made me think. Obviously I can choose not to visit their site, but I do occasionally have a mindless habit of looking at lunch break at work, a bit like reading the old copies of chat....

My thoughts:

-They may as well be the PR department of Isis, they distribute their videos to a far wider audience and spread their message/ fear

-Feeding this coverage of videos (this is my main issue) surely feeds into the cycle of more and more videos with murders becoming more creative/ abhor ant to keep gaining that shock factor and raising their agenda/ profile. Is this not blood on their/ our hands too?

-human dignity, is it not lost to view videos/ still of fellow humans under torture?

-although I could simply avoid the Mail, I think there is no place for the level of shock coverage at all in our society. Yes people can seek it, but actively bringing it to the mainstream, people who simply read news on a popular site is wrong.

• Obviously I have not used any detail of images/ events beyond the fact they are filmed murders. If you haven't looked I really wouldn't, I'm quite robust but it upset me all day and I found my thoughts keep returning to what I saw. I'm sure someone will describe it in more detail than I have...so be aware of that reading replies I guess, it's not in my control (nor should it be...)
  
  ** Obviously also, yes I really have (finally) learnt my lesson on reading their site. It's a final straw, others may have made this choice ages ago...but as I said I'm normally one not to dwell on things like this and have some mindless habits like mums netting

[Jewels234]

There was a really interesting program on R4 about just this problem. I think in the 80's the reporting of things like this was banned. The newspapers just got around it some other way (reconstructions I think).

I agree that it is horrendous. That the Mail is only fuelling ISIS. I actively avoid it (but miss the Kardashian gossip!)

[selsigfach]

I've been thinking the same. I'd never admit to going on the DM website but have a browse when breastfeeding sometimes. I never click on the ISIS stories but you can see pictures of murders in progress on the homepage without even going to the articles. Makes me sick to my stomach and I agree that showing them only encourages the scum who carry out these despicable acts.

[FlipUpDown]

Jewels- I will look at it. I'm really open to debate...

Sels- The homepage picture really is enough I find!

[TwelveLeggedWalk]

I completely agree.

I find it very bizarre on one hand that such an incredibly anti-Islamic paper (their headline the other day about a Muslim woman serving ice-cream whilst covering her face called it 'frightening' or similar), effectively PROMOTES Islamist extremism by publishing all their videos and images.

On the other hand, it's just click bait. And as much as the Daily mail hates forriners. They like cash more. And clicks mean advertising cash.

It would almost be satirical if it wasn't so fucking tragic.

[selsigfach]

Oh god, I never click on them! And these horror stories (not just ISIS, but anything grizzly) always come with a content warning which is bloody useless when you can see everything on the homepage.

[Wendied]

I thought exactly the same thing today. Whilst I think light should be shone on deplorable actions I think the images take this too far. I never click on ISIS stories now as I just can't fathom how this is justifiable to any human in the name of religion.

[StoppingByTheWoods]

I did read part of that story today and I can't really describe how I feel. I'm not easily shocked or upset - but I'm horrified by what I saw . It's deeply upsetting.

The people shown are somebody's dad or somebody's son being tortured to death. Their deaths are packaged up for our entertainment basically

There's something about the sharp quality of the pictures that's really stomach-churning.

Who do these stories appeal to? Who would want to read this?

I used to have a look at the Daily Mail as the website was quite good - even if I don't agree with a lot of the articles. These ISIS stories just turn my stomach and make me not want to read it anymore. I presume other people feel similar to me. But I also presume that the Daily Mail know their market and think some people want to see this??????

Also, the Daily Mail publishing this would only encourage ISIS to produce more videos like this

[ChuffinAda]

I think in part they should report these things - the horrors of war etc

But also part of me feels there should be full radio silence about isis but that would simply fuel rumours and speculation.

I don't know really.

All I know is there was no need to put that cage on the home page

[FlipUpDown]

I'm sure they know their market sadly, but I see them as causing harm.

I like the Mills approach to law, horrifically paraphrasing him basically the only law in civilised society are ones which cause harm to others, anything else, such as harm to the self etc have no place. But publishing these videos meet this marker I think and therefore should not be allowed.

I normally couldn't care less what others look at/ do, but it has upset me!

[FlipUpDown]

Ada- I wouldn't think radio silence is right, I think reporting events has a place in fact, but graphic video and detailed run-downs go beyond news and reporting horrors of war/ going the public info. Without the pictures, reporting murder does have a place in order for freedom of people to form opinions, be aware of the world and make their own decisions. I'm sure the public knowing horrors of war is the root of many an aid donation/ change in attitude to refugees etc. It's the entertainment factor of this and the publication of propaganda released for a purpose that is wrong. For example no paper would publish a picture of the poor woman attacked in Enfield in September for us all to see, quite simply every human regardless of status, religion or location deserves the same respect we afford our own citizens. We know of the crime against her, but we haven't gawped at the horror for shock. Even if the police released a crime photo it wouldn't be published...

[AgentProvocateur]

I completely agree. They have overstepped the mark with the ISIS reporting, and it's gratuitous now v

[VivaLeBeaver]

I was thinking the same today.

I remember 20 years ago the editor of Climber magazine was sacked for publishing a photo of a mummified body of a climber on Everest who'd been there for many years.

Seems like times have changed.

Is there an arguement that publishing such stuff makes sure everyone knows how evil and barbaric ISIS is? Maybe? But I think the press could report what's happening without the photos. Photos and salacious details aren't of any benefit to an anti ISIS propaganda. And ISIS obviously thnk that such videos will benefit their campaign.

[Inkanta]

Completely agree - how is it OK for the DM to put up pictures of ISIS murders in progress - often right alongside a happy piece of news. Bizarre.

If I scan their news I have to get in the habit of closing eyes to those horrendous pictures !!

[Fromparistoberlin73]

Fair point op - I think they are so racist that they dont care that it dehumanises their victims

And morbid little fuckers like me read it too

[ChuffinAda]

Have to say part of me thought 'sweet justice' when I read a load of them have been infected with the hiv/aids virus

[Denimwithdenim00]

I feel awful not looking just like turning over tv images of starving children but I just can't bear to look.

Once you see stuff like that you can't un see it.

I don't think the images should be published. But I can see why they do.

[Denimwithdenim00]

Chuffin have they? Trouble is the bastards rape don't they.

[Tessbrookes]

I read the Daily Mail online sorry not sorry but I'm with you on the ISIS reporting. I don't click on any of those articles and was thinking the same thing today when on there as there seems to be an awful lot of them lately.

[MokunMokun]

I also find it very gratuitous and don't click on them. The Daily Mail really monitors which stories get a lot of clicks so I guess these ISIS murder stories do which is why they get published a lot. I did make a point to click on the Boko Haram story as I think what is going on in Nigeria needs more publicity.

[Penguinandminipenguin]

I totally agree with all your points. I don't click on the articles, but the images on the main page are distressing enough to see. Today's ones have really played on my mind and made me feel quite ill tbh.

[Bakeoffcake]

Why are they allowed to show graphic photos of people being murdered? If it happened in the UK they wouldn't show such pictures. It seems to be ok to do it to others though. It's despicable.

[VikingVolva]

I don't think the DM is a taking these images to a 'far wider' audience, and certainly not to ISIS's target audience. So I don't think that they're bring their PR department, any more than say Fox News is.

These images are all over the Internet, but the reporting of them in UK mainstream outlets has certainly changed. The mass beheading video, for example, had very little coverage.

[PyjamasLlamas]

They relish in showing this stuff. Absolutely relish it. You can tell by the exaggerated emotive language used tabloid styley.
It supports their Islamaphobia agenda as well as feeding into people's desire to see disturbing material

[JohnCusacksWife]

Part of me knows what you're saying and the images are awful to see. But surely the world needs to know what ISIS are doing? Do you feel the same about pictures from the holocaust or Cambodia, for example? Surely they are simply testament to the evilness of the regime and may play a role in galvanising the world to fight this terror?

[MokunMokun]

Yes, but they can show the news in a more sympathetic way. For example the recent story of the baby killed by a dog. Did they need to show the dog covered in blood? Did they need to show the mutilated corpse of the baby? Of course not! But the videos and photos they have been showing of ISIS atrocities have been showing this level of gruesomeness. It's unecessary and excessive.

The Daily Mail online has huge readership.