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

I don't want to see a man with blood on his hands

116 replies

CreatureRetorts · 22/05/2013 20:13

AIBU? Dreadful news about Woolwich killing. Front page of a news website has the picture of a man with bloody hands and weapons. The blood of the murdered man.

AIBU to not want to see this and have a choice? They could take it off the front page FFS

OP posts:
pinkballetflats · 23/05/2013 01:43

For me personally the line would be at video footage of the actual attack being shown.

StuntGirl · 23/05/2013 01:55

Seriously? I clicked on the Guardian last week and one of the lead stories was about the bombings in Syria. The picture was of multiple dead bodies lying scattered in the street. Pretty grim. Bet nobody complained to Ofcom about that.

happyAvocado · 23/05/2013 02:02

I agree StuntGirl I agree with you

ComradeJing · 23/05/2013 02:08

I remember when they used to warn that images were graphic on the news. Do they not do that any more?

YANBU, I think it's horrible.

dufflefluffle · 23/05/2013 02:09

I saw this on CNN - wasn't expecting it as other channels chose not to be so graphic.
Am I being unreasonable too then to think that this sort of unlimited access to the horror numbs people TO the HORROR - much like horrific computer games do????
Did you notice (I looked sporadically at the screen) that onlookers were foolhardishly bravely approaching the victim and perpetrator.
I hate this in-your-face aspect of modern life.
Hoolyberry: bombings are usually showing the aftermath - not blood and gore but I agree that the reactions are as frightening as the original crime

StuntGirl · 23/05/2013 02:22

I do agree that the sight of such things can be a sharp shock though; I didn't find the image of the dead Sunni family pleasant.

I don't have the book to hand so can't find the quote, but in A Hundred and One Days by war reporter Asne Seierstad she goes to a makeshift hospital where the women there are preparing the body of a dead child, killed by a bomb. She includes the photograph with the article she sends to her editor, knowing full well the photograph will never be published. She says she just needed someone else to have seen this child and to have known what she went through. I get where she's coming from.

StuntGirl · 23/05/2013 02:23

"Am I being unreasonable too then to think that this sort of unlimited access to the horror numbs people TO the HORROR - much like horrific computer games do????"

YABU duffle - there is no evidence to show this is the case in either scenario.

Decoy · 23/05/2013 02:37

There was no need to show it.

RiaOverTheRainbow · 23/05/2013 02:45

Showing things like this tells sociopaths that if you want your message publicised murder is the way to go. When people kill for attention it should be reported as un-sensationally as possible.

StuntGirl · 23/05/2013 03:02

It was shown precisely because he wanted to be filmed. A murderer calmly walking up to cameras, happily being filmed and chatting calmly to people after the attack is extremely unusual, and therefore newsworthy. It's not like they are showing the murder itself.

fuzzypicklehead · 23/05/2013 04:04

The first thing I knew about the attack was when my 5 year old turned on the telly. Sadly, DH had left it tuned to a news channel, so she was presented with video footage from the helicopter focused on the massive pool of blood.

She understood that someone had died and was really upset. She kept asking me if everyone dies and bleeds a lot and cried and said she didn't want to die.

She finally went to bed with DH, and I stayed crying downstairs. I was nowhere near ready to have that conversation.

angelsonhigh · 23/05/2013 05:25

How do people develop such hatred. The killers have English accents so presumably they were born in Britain or migrated at a young age.

I am in OZ at the moment and they are blurring out the blood on the hands which I am thankful for.

Can't believe the bravery of the people who tried to help and the lady who kept one of them talking so he wouldn't go on a rampage.

angelsonhigh · 23/05/2013 05:28

duffel These people were not foolish. Just brave. That poor man deserved to have someone who cared near him in death.

Original poster
CreatureRetorts · 23/05/2013 06:56

That's horrible fuzzy :(

So defenders of showing these videos willy nilly - do you think that's ok? To risk letting children see these things Hmm

OP posts:
StuntGirl · 23/05/2013 07:18

I think images should be pre and post watershed appropriate, but your initial question wasn't anything to do with children, it was about you not wanting to see the images.

Binkybix · 23/05/2013 07:25

FWIW I don't think we should be shown dead bodies etc after bombings either. It just seems so disrespectful to the victims, just to feed our need to see everything. As someone said earlier I don't need to see this man with his hands covered in blood talking to the camera to know that it happened, and I don't need to see bodies to know people have died. What good does it do?

Evenstar · 23/05/2013 07:35

We shouldn't have seen this, my DH died suddenly of a heart attack away from home in 2008, I can tell you that the thoughts and fears you go through when a loved one dies away from home and without you are bad enough even when they didn't die at someone else's hands. I don't know how you could go on having seen your husband/father/son's killers boasting on national television with the blood on their hands. It is horrific and not something we should wish to see in a civilised society.

Original poster
CreatureRetorts · 23/05/2013 08:43

So I cannot ask anymore questions?

These images were not watershed appropriate. I had no choice in whether I could see them or not. They were on the front page. I think it's sad that some people think they have the right to see these images, as if words aren't enough. I can't change that. I do ask that I have a choice not to see them as you cannot undo it once you've seen it.

OP posts:
KingRollo · 23/05/2013 08:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NotGoodNotBad · 23/05/2013 08:51

The video of one of the murderers was on the BBC news last night. I think he shouldn't have been given a public platform - not just because of the sensitivities of people watching, or even his family, but because his actions were abominable (sorry, that's not strong enough but can't think of a horrible enough word) and he shouldn't get to air his views via such actions.

thecatfromjapan · 23/05/2013 09:07

I don't get it. All the research into (aeroplane) hi-jacking in the 70s, all the research into serial killers and mass shooting ("Bowling for Columbine" covers it) - and the BBC is now showing a. what are basically adverts and b. graphic images.

Anyone who thinks that limiting the circulation of this footage in mainstream media amounts to censorship should reflect that a. news, and what constitutes news, is filtered all the time, and filtering does not equal censorship b. you can tell a story in a variety of non-graphic, non-sensational ways.

Those who think that mainstream media must show this sort of footage in order to compete with less regulated social media might like to reflect on what makes mainstream media unique, trustworthy, and a benchmark of what is reputable and substantiated. Perhaps the way to compete with gonzo-media is actually to maintain a boundary as to what is presented so that people know they can go there in order not to see this. It might prove more sustainable, and profitable, in the long-term than attempting to meet social media on its own, less-regulated, terrain.

SarahAndFuck · 23/05/2013 09:40

While I agree that the news shouldn't be censored, I don't see why they can't keep the graphic images off the front pages and give people the option of reading further, with a clear warning that some people would find the images upsetting. As they should do with the news reports, a warning that the images will be upsetting and a moment to give people the chance to turn over before they show them.

And there is no need at all to show the amateur footage of one of the men covered in blood and ranting at the camera. That sort of thing should be saved for the trial, not least in case they manage to claim the jury was prejudiced by seeing it first on the news.

DS is four and saw the picture of the man with bloodied hands and holding cleavers on the front page of a newspaper this morning. He didn't really understand what he was seeing though.

If, god forbid, the man murdered had been someone close to me, I wouldn't want to see those images of his body or of the men covered in his blood or see them ranting on the news, over and over and over. I feel that it's disrespectful to him and to his family to keep showing pictures of him laying on the road and them spouting their hate into the camera.

And the people who approached to try and help, the woman who went to sit with the body, I would have been grateful to them that in the last moments of his life and the first minutes after such a terrible death, there were also people offering kindness, people who cared about a stranger, people who didn't want him to be alone. I think that's very brave and very wonderful, a complete contrast to the men who took his life.

Bumpotato · 23/05/2013 09:46

Yesterday, some poor soul, while collecting for charity, lost his life at the hands of two murderous lunatics.

All anyone needs to know is that it happened and a bonus would be if it was reported accurately. No person not involved with the investigation or the immediate family needs to see the pictures. We can all work out in our heads, if we desire, what the end result of a machete attack would be.

I wish I could unsee the footage and feel ashamed on the behalf of the media of their behaviour in the way this has been reported. I can't imagine being the mother/sister/child/cousin/friend/auntie/granny/girlfriend/wife of the man who died and having to see that. I imagine that when it was first reported many, many relatives went into a panic until they heard from their own that it wasn't them.

The world is a darker place today.

FoxyRevenger · 23/05/2013 10:02

SarahandFuck I agree. Whilst watching the news last night I was wondering what a Syrian/Iraqi/Afghani person would make of the fact that we devote thousands of news hours to the death of one man.

It would be unfathomable to them.

HorryIsUpduffed · 23/05/2013 10:08

I have avoided explicit footage by not clicking on links with warnings. The words have told me as much as I need to know. I'm glad that the news sources I use give me the choice to view or not.

Regardless of censorship, I do not think that even the stills are appropriate for the Six. Daytime news reports deliberately use different language and euphemism on the understanding that children may well be watching. Adults can draw inferences easily that are beyond children.

We usually let the DC at the Sunday papers during brunch - they can't read so even the headlines aren't an issue. But this weekend I'm going to want to filter them first. I expect that the complaints today will temper the Sunday summaries, but you never know.