Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
RamblingRosa · 21/10/2011 13:46

Press complaints commission?

RamblingRosa · 21/10/2011 13:47

onequestion The Indy had an editorial comment piece about why they had decided not to show the gruesome images.

Quenelle · 21/10/2011 13:56

What page in the Indy RamblingRosa? I can't find it.

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:03

One of the most famous war photographs ever taken was of a Viet Cong general shooting a soldier in the head. It won a Pulitzer prize. This was in 1968. Horrific images of war are nothing new don't click if you don't want to see the image It was reproduced in all the newspapers at the time, part of the propaganda machine which will always perpetuate around wars.

Personally though what I find more distressing about the video footage is how savage humans can be. We rarely see mobs behaving like that (and they do over here too, PC Keith Blakelock was killed by a mob wielding axes) so it's very shocking.

That said I don't think the news should be sanitised. I just think you have to be very very careful about using the images. Rolling news channels are always dangerous to watch with children around, often images are broadcast unedited and have some very distressing footage.

I don't think the pictures of Gaddafi bloodied or dead should be used in headline sequences when warnings can't be given, and I think warnings should be strengthened because, as someone said on another thread the "some viewers may find these images distressing" is used for everything from cats being dumped in to bins, to highly graphic images of corpses. I think the nature of the disressing images needs to be clarified in the warning, ie "this report contains images of corpses some viewers may find distressing"

TheBrideofFrankenstein · 21/10/2011 14:04

Now that the rebels have achieved their common aim, I think it extremely likely that divisions will start to emerge and result in civil war. I'm afraid I have no optimism for Libya medium term.

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:07

Me too Bride, haven't they already started killing each other? I thought the body of one former member of the NTC was found a couple of weeks ago.

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 14:15

Headfairy - that black and white picture was just before the shooting. It is not a full colour picture of a mutilated corpse, as are all over today's front pages. Nor trophy filming of the actual killing.

Glad to hear The Indie has had an editorial about all this.

MrsHeffley · 21/10/2011 14:21

Didn't like seeing the footage on a continuous loop(thanks BBC Hmm) but he was an evil dictator. Sorry he didn't deserve a trial and the pictures send out stark warnings.

Don't forget thanks to Gadaffi Libya isn't a democracy yet.He got the end he created ie you live by the sword you die by the sword. Also after living a lifetime of hell(which none of us have ever experienced) I don't think anybody here can judge how his people react.

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:22

edith there's another one on the contact sheet of the bullet passing through his head. There's most definitely a point of death shot in there. I agree colour adds another dimension. There's an argument that news cameramen often become a bit disorientated when they're filming shocking pictures as they see it in B&W through the viewfinder and in colour the images have much more impact.

That said, my point was really that shocking images are nothing new. Can you imagine how shocking that picture was in 1968? One side note, when JFK was shot the US Govt decided not to release the Zapruder footage for decades as it was felt that it was too shocking for the images to be released. Is it just time that changes things, or is it the circumstances of the person killed? ie JFK was a much loved democratically elected President and Gaddafi, erm, wasn't.

Muffincrazy · 21/10/2011 14:22

I've been reading about Gaddafi and now I'm really not convinced he was the mad tyrant the western politicians and media would have us all believe.

He did amazing things for the people of Libya. Free electricity, health-care, education and huge handouts for new homes and cars. I've read that around 90% of Libyans actually supported him (but you won't see that on the news).

He also built a giant fresh water-pipe which was about to deliver self-sufficiency to many African nations.

The final nail in his coffin was the fact he wanted to sell the oil using gold and not the dollar.

Here's an interesting video which covers most of these things.

and a link about the water pipe

twelfthbough.blogspot.com/2011/03/virtually-unknown-in-west-libyas-water.html

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:25

There's a piece in The Times too today about the images of dictators after they've been deposed.. basically saying that it's cathartic for nations ruled by evil dictators to see them humiliated in some way. Not necessarily killed, seeing Saddam Hussein being dragged wild eyed from his hold and poked and prodded by medics was important for Iraqis... same for Mladic and Milosevic, they were no longer the terrifying brutal militia, but shambling bonkers old men in court utterly reduced to someone to be ridiculed rather than feared.

deliakate · 21/10/2011 14:27

Do people really believe Bin Laden is dead, by the way?

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:27

Muffin dont' be naive... 90% of people supported him because they were too terrified to do otherwise. He tortured and killed all dissenters. Saddam Hussein enjoyed a 99% vote at his last "election".

And lots of dictators like to pour money on to the poor to make it seem as though they are some kind of benevolent benefactors. What you need to read are the accounts of what he did to those who spoke against him.

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:28

deliakate exactly my point... because no one ever saw a body there'll always be that fear that he's not actually dead. At least no one is in any doubt about Gaddafi.

maypole1 · 21/10/2011 14:29

Ti be honest I was very shicked turned on the news with kids in the room my dd screamed and son ran up stairs totally out of order I expect more form the BBC expect it from channel four and five

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 14:31

headfairy - there was only the one picture on the link.

There's also the question of intent: in 1968 you might have been able to make a case of "this is what is being done in our name". In UK, there was no need to show the actual lynching or the corpse (we are not the audience which need convincing he's really dead). The is no inherent need for news to contain deliberately shocking images.

And even if you thought they were suitable for an adult audience, no justification whatsoever for pre-watershed broadcast - or does is the watershed to protect children from everything except actual footage of a real lynching?

Muffincrazy · 21/10/2011 14:33

Headfairy not sure I'm being naive.

I do have an open mind though. Do you?

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:33

Sorry edith I couldn't find the whole set of pictures... there are a whole series including the one where the bullet passes through his head.

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:35

I do have an open mind muffin but the evidence is absolutely unequivocal... there are literally thousands of reports of his brutality.

Perhaps when he sold Semtex to the IRA Gaddafi was just being kind and helpful Confused

headfairy · 21/10/2011 14:36

edith I do agree with you about the footage shown on the 6 o'clock news... it was too much and I said as much yesterday. I also think it's irresponsible to show the same images in a headline sequence without a warning.

Fifis25StottieCakes · 21/10/2011 14:36

i totally agree with that head.

I could link to articles and pictures which are just as bad as the papers today but concern vielence metted out my him and his extended family. I wont though obviously in case its distresses anyone.

There are the systematics rapes of his female body gurads and the violence metted out to nannies. These were people who worked for him.

There are thousands and thousand of people missing, children included, probably lying in mass graves somehere or buried alive

Muffincrazy · 21/10/2011 14:37

BBC is state-sponsored so not really the most independant source. Most of the time the Media tells us what to think.

And I have no doubt Gaddafi committed terrible acts along the way, but so have NATO.

All I'm saying is (from what I've read) he did improve life for the majority in Libya.

IvysEdgelessSafetycube · 21/10/2011 14:39

I don't know why people say that they will only believe someone is dead if they have seen pictures of their corpse - pictures can be faked just as well as news stories can. if you had seen photos of someone they said was bin Laden, dead, would you believe it then?

(on a different note, yay, my thread title was fixed. I do know how to spell, editing typos on my phone is rather difficult, though.)

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 14:40

Back in 1969, Ghadaffi was indeed hailed as the great new hope for a much improved Libya - but he changed over the 6 decades in power. And the country did have an adequate infrastructure. And Tony Blair did not scruple to cosy up to him.

But that description lies by omission - he was also a brutal psychopathic dictator who repressed and murdered his own people and who sponsored, supported and probably directed international terrorism. Libya is well rid.