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

I see I x pisted with a number of other sane people

i wonder if the mn thread promoted the news story

Georg- that was in reply to Lady.

Does something like 'John Cravens newsround' no longer exsist?

The news should report news and some people do view the world through rose tinted glasses and need to realise what actually goes on it.

or posted even!

I think the important bit is the 18 people who walked past

And then realising the reason the reasons they did so

Someone raised the issue of "big" stories like Diana's death. There was quite graphic footage of her lying injured in the wreckage which was considered unsuitable for transmission in the UK (I believe the French showed it on TV). I would imagine that would be shown here now. I remember one big story that was the beginning of my disenchantment with the rolling news media and that was the death of Pope John Paul II. I am not a Catholic, the gentle death opf a very old man did not distress or affect me, but I did find it prurient and offensive the way the news media had their crews camped out outside the Vatican waiting for the news he was gone. They were there for days, continually flashing to the their updates of er, nothing happening, because he didn't die as quickly as anticipated and they didn't want to pull out because he obviously was going to die any minute. I found it very distasteful. The 24 hour news media has got worse and worse ever since.

Without it being shown, you would have had posters automatically saying; perhaps the didn't realise what happened, perhaps they thought it was a plie of rags, perhaps the van driver didn't know he had hit something etc.

When the truth is that there are people who don't have any feeling towards injured/any children, other peoples or their own.

When the truth is that there are people who don't have any feeling towards injured/any children, other peoples or their own.

I think we all know that. I don't need to see footage of that kind to know that life in a city of 16 million in communist china is held very very cheap. I agree with whoever said the coverage on the radio has been a far more illuminating discussion of the subject than on television. Showing graphic images sometimes removes the need for newscasters to interpret and explain the news, which I think is very important.

Ridiculous to suggest that if you don't want to watch a child dying at 5.30 then you have a rose tinted view of life!

I disagreed with the showing of Diana and the Pope's death, because they were natural/accidental, but a death which shows a lacking in human feeling or needed to prevent the stirring up of more deaths via terrorism/war, is different.

The showing of that video was to put pressure on the Chinese Government to address this. This has been ignored for over a week and will now bring about new laws on helping injured people.

People wouldn't understand the full horror of the story without seeing exactly what happened. That poor girl. If you tell someone what happened, it's not the same as seeing it. Plus this is TV news - it's the nature of the medium that they need pictures. No pictures = no programme. No programme = the story can be safely ignored by the authorities.

SEA - how? I didn't see the sky broadcast mentioned in the OP> I imagine it was shown again as the little girl had died. and Sky like to get as much emotional effect out of their broadcasts as they can.

I'm sure a thread on here had zilch all to do with it

and I agree that seeing these pictures again and again desensitises people to the events.

It's counterproductive.

Yanbu, at all. I am 30, I heard about it, believe it happened yet choose not to watch the video. Why do I need to see it? How is it going to change my life other than for the worse? If by watching it I could change the outcome or something I would, 5 times over...but I can't.

Although it is true that broadcasters usually choose less extreme images for tea-time news when families may be watching. It would be interesting to compare Sky's 5pm broadcast with the BBC 6 o'clock news the same day.

Is that right birds?? Good if so..

I read the thread about this video. I had no idea about the way china worked regarding going to hospital and even calling an ambulance!

It was an enlightening thread which didn't show china in a good light. Any changes in their laws to come from this can only be a GOOD thing. The reason she was left is because of money. That's why she died

Ninky..... It's not the child you need to see. It's the way people looked and walked on. If the child had been edited out then it's still worth seeing.

There are stories within the story about this incident,

" According to The Shanghaiist, the driver of the first car to hit Yueyue placed a call to the toddler's father, telling him that he would not surrender but offering to pay him compensation for the accident. Reportedly, the driver said that he realized it would cost him more to stop and help the child he had nearly killed than drive on and risk apprehension and prosecution."

It has been confirmed that the driver knew when he hit her that he had hit a child.

A 'Good Samaritan' law, which does exsist but is usually ignored, will now become local law and will include the rescuing of baby girls that have been abandoned at the side of roads etc.

People living in these sorts of places need to use the worlds media to help, even having an outraged post because someone has been forced to watch what these people live with daily, helps them.

I think maybe you do need to see it, I watched an edited version where you do not see her getting hit.

The thing is, it's not the fact that she was run over, that is so shocking, children do get hit by cars, as a child I saw a friend get knocked down by a car and as a teen I saw a toddler run over, both were awful but nothing on this, it's not her getting hit, it's the people who so casually and carelessly look down on her and do nothing.

Reading it, it just sounded quite bad, seeing it was truly shocking, sometimes we need to be shocked out of complacency.

I saw the unedited version and really wish I hadn't :(

tbh for me the worst aspect was the idea of a tiny little child, terribly injured, not knowing what was happening to her and just no one rushing over and holding her,

it was the helplessness
I cried when I looked at my youngest child for a few days as though it were him, or a child just like him,

it's really unbearable. I am very glad if anything changes in that Godforsaken place that might stop this happening again