to think the ITV news last night was shocking?

[CoralRose]

Or possibly I'm being naive as it's the first time I've watched the 10o'clock news in a long time.

Of course, I don't think we should be sheltered from the horrors of what is happening around the world, and the events itself are truly shocking,

however

surely there could have been explicit warnings before they showed those dreadful pictures last night.

I honestly couldn't sleep.

I'm not sure such graphic images are completely necessary are they?!

I'm talking about the first piece on Syria.

Thank you to those that have responded seriously. The examples given do make sense, and I can see why I might have enraged people that just skimmed my OP.

I dunno, I still feel slightly uncomfortable with it. I think there's also the thought of the people being filmed, and how they feel about being in such a desperate, horrific situation and having a camera pointed at them. Although I'm sure most would want their voices heard and stories told, can the same be said for the children captured grieving whilst their father lay dead in front of them? The parents of the dying baby?

Am about why this has been moved here though. Although... this story can be accessed on the ITV news channel, with no warning of the content.

Eh? The OP is talking about a programme for adults on after 10pm at night! This has nothing to do with 'suitable for children'.

I didn't see it so I'm not aware of what was shown. However I do follow several war correspondents on twitter and the images all come through them.

Personally I feel that these things should come out if it makes the rest of the world take a bit more notice.

It's all so bloody heartbreaking, but I prefer to know what's going on than have it hidden away.

However I understand why many people find it hard to watch. On the other hand I can't watch violence / horror or anything nasty on films / drama etc. Real life is shit enough without watching the pretend stuff.

Sorry Coralrose I was responding to the move then and it x posted with your response. I think the issue of whether coverage is intrusive or not is a totally different one tbh. We do have a double standard in that regard in this country. ITV and the BBC would not show pictures of British children grieving for a father but they do show that type of thing from abroad.

The Syrians themselves are filming the events and trying to get them in the public eye via the internet. I would assume they are also complicit in hiding and attempting to protect the western journalists, so I would guess, that yes, while having a camera in your face while your child is dying, is not going to make your pain any easier, they do want this shown to the wider world.

Like another poster pointed out causing western public outcry is probably the only chance they have of getting outside help.

Wouldn't you want the world to know your suffering if your own child had been taken in such horrific and preventable circumstances and no-one who mattered seemed to care? I would.

This is the piece, there is no warning before it plays so:

WARNING _DISTRESSING

www.itv.com/news/more-suffering-in-homs57057/

It's headlined "More suffering in Homs" that's self explanatory in my mind. It's hardly going to be children skipping merrily in a meadow is it? Unless you have spent the last few weeks living under a rock you were well aware before you watched this of what is going on Syria.

I don't understand why this is being moved to parentport, a topic I've never heard off.
If it should be moved at all, surely it should be In The News?

all. We may have been a little Shuffle The Threads Around happy.

The relation was an OFCOM one but this section is specifically for issues regarding inappropriate viewing for children.

Apologies, we will move it back

agree with meg

I cant watch SAW/Hostel or the like

But this is serous and real and in a weird way I think it deserves to be seen, in a way its for me respoectful for the losses as it ackowledges them in some way

and there is NOTHING that can be done, can even send MSF

I can agree with the OP in relation to THERE WAS NO WARNING.
I fully agree these things should be broadcast, but there should be warnings in place.

I agree that the report was shocking, I also agree that there should have been more of a warning, but I can't agree that this type of report shouldn't be shown. As someone said a few posts back (sorry, on a new page and can't see who it was ) the most important news is often that which we don't want to see.

One more thing OP - maybe you could channel your distress into something positive: write to the government to express your concerns about the situation, or donate to the Red Cross/Crescent who, as far as I know, are the only aid agency able to operate inside the country at the moment.

Dh was a journalist in print and on tv for many years, covering wars, conflicts, disasters... His experience was 100% that the people involved wanted their stories to be known 'outside'. Those families will certainly have consented to filming. Someone else seeing their suffering gives the merest hope that there might be someone out there who can make it stop.

the horror of war should be fully exposed.

our culture has glorified & sanitised warfare for thousands of years. that glorification has made genocide and cover-ups possible. it is horrific what those people are going through but it's REAL.

if the 7/7 bombings were treated differently, they shouldn't have been, frankly. the realities of terrorism are just that - realities. just like the realities of war.

it's not all fluffy bunnies & to pretend it is is to support falsehoods & rhetoric that are used to murder people, en masse.

the horror of war should be fully exposed

Hear, hear!

But should you be watching it last thing at night before you go to bed ? Only if you can then put it to the back of your mind and blank it out.

I listen to PM at 5 pm on radio 4. It covers the news but you don't have to watch it too.

PS does constantly being bombarded with grizzly scenes start to make us immune to the horror of it all?

But the Ten o Clock news usually has a "tonight on ITN...this...this...and this..." bit during the opening credits, doesn't it? And then something like "our main story tonight...more fighting in Syria...over to so and so with their report."

Perhaps they thought that was warning enough that they were going to show some of the footage, although usually they do also say "some viewers may find this distressing" before they show some items.

I agree a warning should be given if something is going to be particularly upsetting or distressing to people, but I would never want it not to be shown for fear of causing upset to someone just watching. Sometimes there are events that are so shocking that to turn away is to do the people suffering a disservice.

I can think of a few things that I have seen on the news which have been really awful but turning off was not an option because it was happening to real people who deserved it to be witnessed.

When I was at school we were studying WW2 and not once in the six weeks we were learning about it did anybody mention the Holocaust or the camps. When I found a picture in a book of what looked like a pile of old clothes, that I then realised were dead people and then realised again that perhaps not all of them were dead I was shocked, I can't describe how much. I was furious that our teacher hadn't mentioned it and furious that I was fourteen and had never known about it before. Since then I have read more about it and the one thing that has really stood out, in books like Forgotten Voices of the Holocaust, is how the survivors say over and over, we need to tell our stories so the world cannot forget, so people cannot deny this happened, so people can't pretend it was not as bad as it was. We must tell our story so this never happens again.

That's what these reports do, IMO. The news in Syria might be censored but the world can still see what is happening. It can't be denied, it can't be played down and I bet there are people all over the world who will never forget that baby. What happened to those people is so awful that it is only right the whole world witnesses it.

Noonesgoingtoeatyoueyes- thank you. You've completely changed my stance with that example.

I do still stand by my 'should have been a warning' point , though. I think most agreed with that though.

Excellent post, NoOnes.
We can, of course, sit in our comfy homes and stay blinkered to the horror of war. But that way we will never learn.
I just wish there was something we could do.
Where are the Arab League and the UN?

Given that Marie Colvin, whose report that was, was subsequently killed, I think your objection is ill-timed and crashingly self-absorbed.

it's supposed to be shocking. It's supposed to leave you shocked and distressed. We all need to know about these things. Do I want a rose tinted news report, or the true reality of the situation?
Frankly, having a sleepless night is a small price to pay for being properly informed about world events. It's only by knowing what's happening, that we can do something about, protest, put pressure on governments etc.
And at lease you were able to sleep. Marie Colvin won't be sleeping or breathing again. Ever.

on the subject of how the Syrian people are feeling about their suffering being broadcast, i would agree that they are desperate for their stories to be told.

i come from a country that has suffered atrocities and is still attempting to recover from them, and i am galled sometimes by how others (in developed countries) often simply do not want to hear what happens in real life to real people.

it's as if it's considered impolite or uncouth or distasteful or even inconsiderate to reveal the truth. i think when i hear people asking for a warning [post-watershed - i can understand the impulse to protect children], that is what it sounds like to me (right or wrong).

that feeling of being marked as being something-people-shouldn't-have-to-see really is difficult to take, really really difficult, when all you want is feel you've been heard, that your story has reached someone's ears and eyes and heart. writing this has made me quite emotional, for this reason.

being a witness is what makes it possible for violence to end. violence thrives when people turn a blind eye or feel too uncomfortable to engage with its realities

I agree its hard to watch, I often cry at the news these days. However I do think it can desensitise, I remember seeing someone being shot in the head as a youngster and the image stayed with me for ever. my DC see stuff on the news and I often think does it have an impact? they have seen images on games and films so i don'y think it has the impact it did on me as a sheltered child

Yabvu

Think about those poor bombed people rather than how you feel upset for yourself because you are watching it

So self-centered.

Rhinestone- you have that wrong