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:
screamingbohemian · 21/10/2011 20:26

Toodlepip I'm sorry to hear about your husband. I imagine it's all very emotional for him right now.

Apparently Qaddafi's last words were, 'What did I ever do to you?' I'm not really surprised that might push someone over the edge into shooting him. Just crazy.

I don't really feel comfortable judging Libyans for how they handled it. I'm not the one who had to live under that brutality for decades.

ChablisLover · 21/10/2011 20:28

Amber leaf I agree I don't want my 5 yo seeing it. Actually I don't want to see it either. And as fir the caught in cross fir story what a load of bull. They caught him and killed him. My thoughts are with the. Lockerbie families will they ever know the truth now. And also for the victims of the ira. He had promised compensation, I know it's not the same as having your family there, but this all seems up in the air now.

At least saddam had a semblance of justice when captured.

However, part of me also thinks, even with a trial the outcome is the same.

AmberLeaf · 21/10/2011 20:34

I can totally understand those affected by him acting the way they did.

I can read about his atrocities and once I have I am in no position to judge any acts of commited by libyans.

I just dont want my 8 year old looking at a graphic pic of his dead/dying face at 3:30pm today.

I had no choice in that, I couldnt 'switch over' or 'not click the link' it was there for all to see, that I object to.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 20:39

I don't get it though - amberleaf for instance, you are obviously someone who heeds the news, listens to it, knows what's going on.

So given the current story and your awareness of it, you must know there will be more graphic pictures on tonight's 6 or 9 news It was also signalled at the start of the report.

So what on earth is your small child doing watching the flippin news in the first place if you are so concerned? I truly do not see the argument of those of you who have posted this.

'desensitizing' ? But how? I mean, it's real. Warlods, tribal beatings and killing games on computers desensitize our children/adolescents.

They need to be shows the disgusting bloodied truth about real shootings up and mass murder.

Fifis25StottieCakes · 21/10/2011 20:44

I dont understand it either, i havent put the news on in the presence of the kids. I didnt watch it at 6 but will watch at 10. I know its on so i make sure the kids wont watch it.

i dont think the pic should be on the front page or google home page though where the kids can access it without warnings

Sky news have repeatedly made warnings about the reports.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 20:53

Yes well it's The News isn't it. We live in a democracy where we have Real News. Our reporters are out there Newsgathering. And we expect the best of them and the best pictures too. Don't let your kids loose on the news channels if you are concerned about what they might see? There are parental controls for viewing.

Just out of interest, what has been your dcs reaction to seeing the pictures? Are they terrified with night sweats? Do you turn the pictures off and fob them off with 'it's just a film mummy and daddy had on last night' or 'here is your pasta, take no notice of that silly man covered in ketchup?'
I mean honestly, what do you say? You have to be honest if you are going to allow them to see it surely?

After all I have had to explain to my 3 yr old why his daddy ran away. And why spiderman catches thieves and why he really must not tread on spiders.

nancy75 · 21/10/2011 20:53

I don't feel it's right for me to judge what happened with his capture/death - I have never had to live in fear.
I do have issues with the pictures used on the front page of almost every national newspaper today. It is easy enough to not put a news channel on with a child in the room - the news now frequently show images I would rather my dd didn't see. I even understand that in the age of online media the pictures are going to be everywhere and the news papers will publish them just to keep up with online news stations, however i do think they should have kept these pictures to the inside pages of the papers.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 20:58

What about the massive tits on the front of most of the red tops that have been hampering our developmenteeee for the last squillion years? I suppose they are a life force for good.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 21:04

I'd rather see pics of gaddafi bashed up a bit and pleading for his tiny piss poor violent little tyranical life, and libyans cracking open the champagne, than Jordan's cleavage.

All this, btw, in the context of making sure my ds isn't staring at the telly when the news comes on.

There is always playdoh or the very honest and frank 'when you are old enough to understand the hideousness of some news stories, you can watch...until then drink your juice and get your pyjamas on.

nancy75 · 21/10/2011 21:14

UnlikelyAmazonian - I would rather not see the tits either, however as women do have breasts they don't shock a 5 year old in quite the same way as a photo of a man that has been beaten and shot in the head.

AmberLeaf · 21/10/2011 21:20

UnlikelyAmazonian

I said I dont want my 8 year old seeing a picture of his dead face at 3:30pm today, im talking about him unavoidably seeing the front page of a news paper in the local shop on the way home from school.

Of course im not going to let him watch the news when I know its going to be on there, thats why I mentioned the choices of 'switching over' and 'clicking links' that choice was removed when news editors decided to run it on the front pages of most major papers today.

So no I didnt allow him to see it, I had no choice.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 21:23

An amazing point well argued.

working9while5 · 21/10/2011 21:24

I don't particularly feel anything about Gaddaffi's death. But it is horrible footage and unnecessary, wholly unnecessary. We accepted Osama Bin Laden was dead without this level of pictorial evidence.

I wholly agree with this sentiment on page one of this thread: ""But it still doesn't warrant the broadcast of what is essentially a snuff movie before the watershed."

It's not about having the right to turn over, or the quality of the warnings. It's indecent and inhumane, and yes, Gaddafi was both but that doesn't warrant this.

troisgarcons · 21/10/2011 21:26

Why does everyone get all clutching-their-pearls when watching the news? I don't remember being traumatised by fly-covered half-dead African children during the 70's and 80's during droughts and famines - but I do remember thinking how lucky I was not to be born into that. I do remember my parents explaining why the IRA murdered people when the carnage of another bomb was on the news. I remember following the Cold War and knowing what was done in the USSR.

News articles of this nature come with the disclimer 'footage contains violent images' - and here's a tip - use the off button. Or watch News at 10 when they are in bed.

Even better - educate them that world is full of shit and how bloody lucky they are that they live in a safe environment, with clean running water, medicine and a freee education.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 21:32

yes. 1985.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 21:32
AmberLeaf · 21/10/2011 21:32

News articles of this nature come with the disclimer 'footage contains violent images' - and here's a tip - use the off button. Or watch News at 10 when they are in bed

Hmm Troisgarcon obviously missed the newspapers today then.

LadyEvilEyes · 21/10/2011 21:33

I'm surprised so many children seem to have seen it. When my son was young he paid no interest when the news was on.
The first images came through live, the cameras just kept filming, that was their job.
Of course the images were vile, they were also real. As long as there are Wars and Dictatorships, there will be the images to go with them. When I was a child my father had a series of books on the second world war. There were graphic photos of victims of the Holocaust. I asked questions and just remember how sad it made me.
There is also a classic photo of a little girl running, covered in napalm, during the Vietnam war. It is now one of the most famous photos in the world and changed the view of millions of people, who just saw it as a war in foreign lands and nothing to do with us.
Showing images like these tell our children that actually, this is the ugly truth of war and violence, it's not a movie or a computer game.

troisgarcons · 21/10/2011 21:34

Trois reads newspapers online - Trois isn't stupid enough to pay a quid a day for something she can get for free. Grin Trois also doesnt click film footage on online newspapers when she thinks it might put her off her breakfast and she can see the stills quite clearly

troisgarcons · 21/10/2011 21:36

I remember the napalm footage in Vietnam.

Twin towers was another one - my children were still in infants when that happened. It happens, you explain it as best you can.

EdithWeston · 21/10/2011 21:38

I think that, if we are to have a watershed on the main watershed channels, then it should be observed.

If the majority view is at anything can be shown at any time, then abolish the watershed.

But let's not have mealy-mouthed justifications for content that breaches the rule that is currently in force. Snuff movies at 6pm are just not right.

Because although all this may have been, as another poster put it "indecent and inhumane" - we have standards because we aspire to do better.

AmberLeaf · 21/10/2011 21:40

Trois, I dont buy papers either.

papers on display in a shop

Do you understand?

LadyEvilEyes · 21/10/2011 21:41

And maybe to teach these standards to our children, they have to see those images at some point.

UnlikelyAmazonian · 21/10/2011 21:41

this is a country that has autumnwatch ffs. How desensitising is that?

Our children will grow up to work anywhere in the world now. We have internet, googleanything, FB, twitter, bebo, skype, newspapers on and offline, tv, radio...the list is endless.

The Libyans have taken full advantage to show the world their plight. Hitler would have been stopped in his tracks if our current technology existed back then.

Our children will know and see all this very early on and it's up to us as parents to explain what's going on with honesty. yes, appropriateness too. but then TV has scheduled listings.

there are other things than telly Confused

stop blaming the messenger. Take your kids out more. watch the late news when they are bathed and in bed.

BoffinMum · 21/10/2011 21:42

TBH I was a bit shocked at the petrol station to see so many extreme headlines and graphic shots of the corpse. I don't think that makes good news reporting.

Swipe left for the next trending thread