Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to feel shocked at the coverage of Gaddafi's death?

267 replies

IvySedaiballs · 20/10/2011 18:56

I don't think she should have been killed like that. IMO he should have been captured, tried and then hanges or whatever. they had him, alive. apparently he was begging for mercy.
now he is dead and can not answer for his vile crimes.

none of the newscoverage that I have seen has addressed this, everyone is just celebrating. yes, he was a bad man, but this doesn't sit right with me.

also, showing pictures of hos dead body body on the six pm news?!

OP posts:
EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 21:43

I calk Godwin's Law!

LadyEvilEyes · 21/10/2011 21:45

Yy to everything Amazonian has said.

SevenOfNine · 21/10/2011 21:45

I don't agree with it being paraded around in front of our faces with graphic images on the front of newspapers, but I do agree with his death. To have him stand trial would have caused anguish for thousands, cost a LOT of money (probably in the millions), and would have taken years in which he lived off the state in relative security. He shouldn't be a sponge to resources in my opinion.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 21:49

snuff movies ??

You have clearly watched snuff movies.

Please get off this thread.

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 21:59

Why?

Both why should I not post on the thread, and why do you assume I've watched any?

Though courtesy of the news, I suppose I now have - a snuff movie being a film of the actual death of a real person. For that is what has been shown on the early evening news in the last two days - close up, with blood, beatings, humiliation of the victim and a pack committing murder.

It happened, and it is newsworthy, I don't think anyone is disputing that. But showing the events of the death? Pre-watershed?

toptramp · 21/10/2011 22:09

Yes he was an evil man; a vile and deluded dictator BUT is it not highly hypocritical to glorify in his brutal death by viewing that vile snuff film?
I don't even have a huge problem with the death penalty in cases such as him, however; I don't want the graphic pictures and videos of it in my face.

It was the front page newspapers that really made me feel sick today. Just gross.

toptramp · 21/10/2011 22:09

The newsagent said that many people didn't buy papers today in her shop stating that the graphic pictures were the reason for that.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 22:15

How on earth did the newsagent know that?

no people in buying the papers...

therefore they have come in specifically to tell the paper seller why?

BoffinMum · 21/10/2011 22:19

I actually mentioned it to the guy behind the till, so perhaps people were commenting at the newsagents.

mumworry · 21/10/2011 22:19

Sickened at news of way he died-should have been brought to trial.If he surrendered should have gone through proper process.Know he was evil but shouldn't knew Libya have been above reproach when dealing with this madman.

halcyondays · 21/10/2011 22:19

Yanbu, the pictures that the papers had today really didn't need to be on the front page sitting in shops for children to see. We don't tend to watch TV news much when the dds are around, we mostly just get the news from the Internet, but I've never seen anything like that on the front page before and hope I never will again.

GothAnneGeddes · 21/10/2011 22:20

Alice - You're not the only one, see my earlier comment.

working9while5 · 21/10/2011 23:07

There is a lot of talk about choice in terms of viewing/not viewing this media on this thread.. but where is the justification for this footage? Forget the kids, it is not primarily about kids, why does anyone need to see someone being dragged into the road and shot? What value does it add to reporting of the story? It is sensationalism, nothing more and nothing less.

gaelicsheep · 21/10/2011 23:20

I used the word desensitizing earlier because people are treating this like it is just about the images. It is NOT just about the images. It is the brutal truth that lies behind the images of a hunted man being put to death. Now I cannot even watch a horror film - which I know is fictitious - because I find myself empathising with the "victim". So when you know these pictures are real how can you not be totally and utterly reviled? If you are not, and only think about the images themselves, then you are de facto desensitized.

For this reason I am far less concerned about pictures of a corpse, because that corpse when photographed was no longer feeling pain and terror.

LadyEvilEyes · 22/10/2011 00:15

Of course you'll feel reviled.
That hopefully is the point. And let your (older kids) see it too. And then they will also be reviled.
And if something like that sticks in their minds, then maybe, just maybe these atrocities will stop happening because the reality is so much more shocking.

gaelicsheep · 22/10/2011 00:22

But my point is also that seeing it should be unnecessary - it certainly is for me. If everyone wasn't so darned immune to everything then the words on their own would be enough, without the need for sensationalist images to drum the message home. I just think the majority of people in this country have lost the capacity to feel anything for other's suffering without visual prompts.

I still remember hearing coverage of the dreadful Baby P case. I didn't need to see anything - god forbid. Just hearing the words spoken about the poor wee thing hit me hard and the feeling has never gone away.

izzywhizzysfritenite · 22/10/2011 01:04

I can't agree that reporting the facts of Muammar Gaddafi's death accompanied by photographic evidence is sensationalism, or that the graphic detail should have been censored to spare those with delicate sensibilities.

I would have preferred that Col. Gaddafi stood trial for war crimes at The Hague but, as that was not to be, all that can be hoped is that his bloody and undignified demise has made a tyrant or two, hopefully in Syria and The Yemen, consider granting concessions to their oppressed peoples.

However, I suspect that it is more likely that dictators around the globe will beef up their personal security by buying more arms from the UK to guard themselves and murder those who dare to rise up against them.

missingmumxox · 22/10/2011 01:37

Gaddafi's death has made me examine myself and my feelings and found myself wanting, as in I am fully sympathetic with the people that killed him and dragged him around as he was in power for 42 years I am 41 I can't imagine what that must have been like to live under that type of ruler it must have been terrifing, and also these where not trained soldiers just average joes driven by desparation, so I really can't blame them, but...I really normally totally against death penalties and was actually cross when Sadam was executed as I can't imagine a worse fate than having to spend 30-40 years just being reminded of what I had done, but then again I am not a sociopath??

then I started to think of the things I have watched and alllowed my children of 6 to watch, so long as i was with them so I could answer questions such as history programs on the holicaust, and the odd thing is I have been revolted by the picture and angry at the nazi's and sad for the people I have seen, but never once have I questioned is this degrading their dignity, and that is what is boils down to, we are angry because he is someone we knew of, so we don't want to see the picture, but where was the outcry at the showing of the chinese girl this week and the showing of the cctv? ( to be honest I haven't watched it as I couldn't stand the idea of it) it is on the BBC with a warning, but really...are we better in our outrage when we are not there, and then hurl abuse at people, clearly the BBC and other news agencies now we watch this, hence the reason they put it up....
I need to go and work out my feelings on this, as I am so confused at my relief and glee at this which is totally at odds with my normal feelings and beliefs.

working9while5 · 22/10/2011 08:39

This thread doesn't make sense.

How can watching that footage prevent atrocities? How does that footage inform our knowledge of Gaddafi and the atrocities he committed?

The footage of the Holocaust is absolutely shocking, but it is altogether more dignified. The horror of what people went through was clear but it is a step away from watching people actually in the gas chambers, being shorn, raped or beaten. I know there are fictional representations of these available in war movies etc, but that, to me, is very different to watching violent acts played out in reality. In the post-war footage of victims of the Holocaust, the suffering was evident but the act did not need to be made any more explicit. Watching the actual act is unnecessary, I can see no reason for it. What is this talk of pearl-clutching and delicate sensibilities? Why should any human find it easy to watch another being buffetted about by angry shrieking men, bloodied and battered, listening to shots being fired? We knew he was about to die, these were his final moments. What do people get out of that, other than bloodlust and desensitisation if they see it as justified? Or a sympathy for the hunted man that is misplaced in the context? If anything, it made me feel sympathy for a man that in reality I feel no sympathy for. I could empathise with his fear. I don't want to do that, I don't see the benefit in doing that. Nor do I see the benefit in watching this footage as some sort of revenge..

Again, people are saying it is "not sensationalist" etc. But I fail to see any explanation as to why this footage is a good thing that contributes to the story in any way. As garlicsheep says, we could have all heard the details and imagined. We do not need to see it. It is not about "delicate sensibilities", it is about human sensibilities.

scarevola · 22/10/2011 08:49

I've just seen a bit on the BBC where a caller made the point that "if a boxer is killed in the ring, you don't show the actual death", "if someone is shot dead in the street, you don't show the actual impact of the bullet".

I agree this is not "delicate" sensibilities or censorship (no-one has suggested that these images should be censored - just restricted to post-watershed, put on link not on home page, and inside page not front page).

It is about basic standards (either respect the watershed or abolish it - don't pay lip service) and human sensibilities.

Ariesgirl · 22/10/2011 09:44

Completely agree with 9while5 and gaelicsheep. It says something a lot about our society if words are no longer enough to convey the horror of something. It's as though people have been conditioned to have such a short attention span that they need worse and worse things to be shown to them to make them sit up and take notice. There is also an element "Buy our paper: we have the most horrific pictures." It's as though they think people will enjoy them. That's what disturbs them the most. It's not that "Oh precious little Johnny will have nightmares," - it's the reflection of the whole of our society and what it has become.

screamingbohemian · 22/10/2011 10:18

working The idea is that it's easier for people to support violent policies and acts like going to war if they do not have to see the real impact of those decisions.

As I said earlier, I think fewer Americans would have supported the war in Iraq if they had seen the actual impact on real people.

I like to think more Americans would support gun control if they saw real people suffering from gun violence on the news.

It might not make sense to you, because you are probably a lovely person who doesn't like war or guns anyway. But as an American, who's quite horrified by the acceptance of violence in American society and politics, I do feel sometimes that part of the problem is there is so much glossy violence in film and games, and so much censorship of actual violence.

Showing Qaddafi's death is not preventing the atrocities he committed. But it is no doubt causing a lot of people to say, wow, they must have really hated him to do that, I wonder why? And then learn about how awful he really was.

LadyEvilEyes · 22/10/2011 11:05

Quite right Screaming.
Movie and game violence is made to look glossy and exciting.
The real thing, such as Gaddaffi's death was the opposite.
It needs to be seen.

working9while5 · 22/10/2011 11:29

I don't agree and it is not because a"I am a lovely person who doesn't like war or guns anyway". I don't agree because the more likely reaction is that a number of people will think "poor bloke, there is no justification to do that to anyone, let's blow some stuff up", a number of people think "didn't even get what he deserved, should have been hung, drawn and quartered" while baying for more and more blood and the majority will think "meh, we didn't even see the headshot, how disappointing is that?"

My understanding of these things is that watching and participating in violence desensitises people to its effects rather than reducing the likelihood of recurrence.

And LadyEvilEyes, I felt a huge adrenalin surge when I happened upon it when flicking through the news because it was like a real-life horror movie, I couldn't tear my eyes away. It wasn't glossy or exciting but it was voyeuristic. I can't see why these images would really contribute at all to anyone looking beyond them to the plight of the Libyan people who wouldn't have been interested in this before these images.

screamingbohemian · 22/10/2011 11:44

working Participating in violence, yes. Watching violence is less clear-cut.

I would argue at any rate that we in the West already watch an insane amount of violence, in our films, games, TV shows. But it's sanitised violence -- it cannot convey how awful it really is, so it's easier for people to get excited and voyeuristic about it.

I'm not suggesting we start showing gruesome videos of dead people on TV all the time. But an occasional glimpse of reality might jolt people out of complacency.

When bin Laden was killed there were parties in NY and Washington, people celebrating in the streets. With Qaddafi, there's none of that, and I think at least part of that is because seeing the manner of his death makes it clear this is not a Hollywood ending, it is messy and brutal and awful.

I'm probably biased, I've been researching atrocities for the last four years and I have not become desensitised to it at all. If anything, it makes me more and more determined to do something that will help prevent them.