to be staggered that this was broadcast at teatime

[LadySybilPussPolham]

yesterday at around 5.30 Sky News showed blurry but graphic footage of a 2 year-old hit and run victim who was then ignored by several passers by as she laid horribly injured in a pool of blood. I'm not normally a weepy person but was instantly in floods of tears at the sheer tragedy, followed by shock that this would be considered appropriate viewing at any time of day, let alone teatime. The brief warning they give before showing explicit content doesn't justify the sensationalist (sp?) broadcasting that seems to be the norm. There are some things that I just don't believe we 'need' to see but as always it's a ratings war and the hunger for viewing figures obliterates any concern for responsible broadcasting. I'm aware that it's been discussed on another thread but the Gaddafi coverage is a case in point. It's as if the story isn't true unless we see a video as proof - actually I can absorb the news that a child has died in horrific circumstances without needing to see it played out. If I did want to watch it I could find it on the internet in a few seconds

This was a particularly upsetting story which I started a thread on earlier in the week...many of us were extremely affected by it.

Poor baby, and yes I agree it was a bad thing to show it at that time of day.

I haven't seen the Gaddafi reporting and tbh don't want to, though the baby girl upsets me far more than that would have I think.

I keep crying about it too.

Well what time of day would be suitable to show this then?

when small children aren't likely to be watching? the watershed used to apply to news too.

The news is never going to be full of niceties! Keep it off if you don't want kids seeing it.

the story could reported without graphic images at tea time. that's what used to happen - the six o;clock news was much tamer in footage and images than the nine or ten o'clock. I don't particularly want to see pictures of a run over toddler or gadaffi's corpse myself.

I'm sorry but YABU why should they not show it? What happened to that poor little girl was atrocious, should it be all sunshine and lolly pops so you are not offended by a little girl dying? So you can ignore her like the people who walked by while she was lying in the street.

sorry, I did try to check if there was already a thread about this but couldn't find anything.
Yes I think the watershed should apply to news programmes - common sense surely? We should be able to watch daytime news knowing that it has been edited for 'family' viewing

YABU sorry, before I had children the 6 o clock was always the news I watched, now I watch it at ten, as I have children and some of the images are not suitable for them.

Adult news is for adults, children shouldn't be watching it anyway.

I didn't say I wanted to ignore it or that I was offended by what happened. My point is the appropriateness of showing the images at any time of day. I wouldn't have been any less affected by the story about the toddler if I hadn't seen the footage

Listen to the radio then

You can't have everything 'child friendly' in this world!

sorry Tiffany but that's just daft. What's wrong with a watershed?

I don['t want everythign child friendly. I just don't want to be visually assaulted with misery porn images when watching the news. There was no need to show the images of the child in order to report the story.

I agree about Gaddafi, I don't think there is any reason to show is dead body with a bullet hole in his head but I think people need to see the video of Yue Yue, until you actually see people walk by or stop and stare and then walk on, it is very hard to absorb. I read the story myself and couldn't picture anyone doing that. When I saw it I cried because surely no one can be that callous.

What happened to her is happening all around the world, people walk by leaving others to be beaten to death, or ignore signs of children being abused and don't want to get involved. If we take this off the news or sanitise it I think it just teaches people that it is an ok attitude and I for one would want someone to help my child not just walk away, it's always the same 'it will never happen to me' so it doesn't matter.

Sorry for the rant it just hurts my heart to think of her alone in pain at 2 years old and no one wants to help her.

News watershed? What all day long? How would channels like bbc24,sky news report for the entire day? With a few hours in the evening when it's not watershed?

Do you want newspapers removed from newsagents because of the front page images?
Big news items which take over normal tv ( thinking Dianas death, sept 11)all left til watershed?people with no children or older children can't see a true representation if what's going on around the world til after the watershed?

I agree with other posters too, Yue Yue video had to be seen to be believed. Would you have believed something so horrific could happen without the evidence? And I mean the people walking by rather than the poor injured little girl

I agree Rud but that still doesn't make it suitable viewing for my 4 year-old. We can exercise common sense without needing to ignore or sanitise anything

I am normally very much in the "its news and shouldnt be hidden from children" camp normally, but even I think that we seem to have moved to a stage where the channels think it fine to show absolutely anything so long as there is a two second warning.

It isnt just the news though.. the watershed seems to be conveniently ignored on many other shows. This Morning seems to regularly feature articles about sex toys, positions, and other items that are quite unsuitable for daytime viewing in my opinion.

I am no prude at all, and as far removed from Mary Whitehouse as is possible.

I can't understand what is so difficult about not showing images of corpses until later in the evening. We managed perfectly well twenty years ago. And rolling news is one of my chief bug bears - it is just plain lazy.

We cannot structure the news to suit 4 year olds, children don't need to watch it.

I think that this needed to be seen to be believed, by as many people as possible. I don't like the rise of 'misery porn' (hate that term), but i think some people need to face up to reality and stop viewing the world and people through rose tinted glasses.

I am not 4, nor do I view the world through rose tinted glasses. I simply don't need to see images of a 2 year old lying dying a gutter to believe it happened.

I agree Georgimama!!

Good grief!!

The issue isn't whether the images are appropriate for children, (and children should watch the news), but whether we need to see them and also for the protection of the victim's families.
If this had been a British or European child I don't think it would have been shown.
Sky news will always show the most graphic images because of ratings.

We all want to help and I agree that we really need to know about the terrible things that go on, but did showing the actual images actually make a difference to what anyone will do?

There was a proper discussion about the incident on the radio and a chinese commentator was telling the full story as it was known, and the outrage it had caused in China as well. He listed all the people at fault; the parents, the minder, the drivers who didn't stop and the passers by. Also the proposal of a law to compel people to assist in accidents.
I think the discussion of the full story and what can be done is more important than seeing the graphic pictures of the accident, in this case.

It all leads to everyone, children and adults, being de-sensitised towards graphic violence, press intrusion etc. I agree with the OP, I have heard the story and can already feel emotional about it, form an opinion, without having to see it for myself.

I don't have children, I'm 46 and pretty unshockable. However, I've actually stopped watching TV news, for the reasons outlined above. Either there's totally unnecessary, intrusive "misery porn" (good phrase, that, for explaining what I mean) or it's annoyingly simplistic - a piece on economics will be illustrated by crass analogies or ridicolous illustrations. I get my news from R4, an occasional website visit and a broadsheet, though even the broadsheet is annoying me at times. For example, I don't like the current trend for photographing bereaved relatives at a funeral - totally unnecessary and horribly intrusive, especially when the people concerned are not celebrities but just ordinary people caught up in a news story.

With regard to the little girl, I read about this story and was shocked/upset as most people would be. I'm aware that video footage was available but did not want to watch it to confirm what happened.

Even though I don't have children, I do think the main terrestrial channels should respect the watershed, and that includes news programmes, though I realise the editorial decisions will be more difficult. For non mainstream channels,though I think it's probably safe to say that all bets are off regarding content but it doesn't strike me as unreasonable that people with families should be able to find one publicly funded channel that's appropriate for family viewing until 9 pm - surely that's one of the functions of a public service broadcaster?

I don't think anyone needs to see footage of a a child being mown down by a car and then left lying in a pool of blood.

That has absolutely nothing to do with viewing the world through rose tinted glasses.

I disagree that it needed to be seen by as many as possible. Why? How would it make any difference. It was horrific, and I wish I hadnt seen it. Just hearing the details would have been sufficient.

mothmagnet and scuttlebutter have explained my position far better than I have. I entirely agree with you both.