To think national newspapers shouldn't have torture in their headlines.

[ExtraordinaryBehaviour]

I think mn will think iabu, but whilst I know that horrors in war happen, I don't wish to know, nor do I think they should be routinely shared. I have just seen on a headline something awful, I will not share, I do not think it helps the tortured rather it celebrates the aggressors.
I donate to help because I understand the horrors but can not see how knowing the details helps anyone.

Yanbu the details of torture should not be shared on mainstream news outlets

Yabu. What happens in war should be broadcast so that everyone knows the horrific details.

dont buy newspapers? That contain news? That is sometimes… bad?!

It’s a newspaper. It is full of news. This is news. A lot of things that happen are horrifying, and not knowing about them risks, amongst other things, complacency.

I did expect this response, but this was a particular type of torture, particular detail. I can cope with bad news, and I don't wish to shy away from the issues in the world but detailing torture methods seems inappropriate/not the word I am looking for, grotesque maybe

If you don't tell us what it said what's the point of the thread?

But my first thought is YABU; where else do you expect news and facts to appear in public life, but in the news? How are leaders to be held accountable for things like torture if they are essentially kept secret in case some readers felt a bit queasy reading about it?

So you’d prefer to hear a sanitised version rather than an accurate report?

Everyone can imagine what torture is. I have found this report particularly upsetting when I happened across it, I have no desire to share misery.

Although I appreciate your thoughts, and leaders do need to be held accountable, but articles announcing war crimes and torture is surely different to articles explaining in detail?

Sorry above was to woman

Duck we read sanitised reports every day. Road accidents just say fatalities, they do not describe the injuries, we read of suicides, murders and rapes, we understand the horrors but the details are left out.

Yabu
The news isn’t always good; don’t read it if you’re upset by it

A newspaper or a website?

was it a daily mail headline? They are always graphic so if it was them YABU

I think it's a slippery slope when you start censoring what news can be reported.

whilst I know that horrors in war happen, I don't wish to know

That's your issue. Don't read newspapers 🤷🏽‍♀️ some of us very much do want to know.

But I want to read the news Shox I just feel extreme details should at least be a click away. In fact usually details are left out, back to the RTC example above, I was unfortunate enough to witness one, the grim details were not published. Yet in war it appears it is acceptable.

Beacause even in war, different things happen. E.g. current the current Russian invasion is evidencing - among other genocidal events- systematic sexualised torture which is not common to all wars. When this happens, it is very newsworthy and unfortunately needs to be spelt out and just referred to in a roundabout way.

not just be referred to in a roundabout way

bong rape is a common theme in all wars, it is only the volume of it that changes and the demographic, always women then depending on the savagery children and men. The more ill disciplined, the more savage the greater the number of victims.

I miss phrased that. I don't wish to know the intricate details, or at least not as a headline. A video was released locally of dangerous driving whilst drunk, you could see the dangerous driving but it cut before the impact. Seeing the impact would not have added anything to the knowledge of the person watching.

OP was it called something related to a flower? If so, I saw that too.

I have read many (hundreds?) accounts of torture over the years due to my studies. I no longer do it in general because the number of ways humans can mutilate others physically or psychologically are endless, but centre around certain themes. Nevertheless the "flower" reference was disgusting but the reporting was not to detail it (although I have no doubt there was a sick glee at the excuse to detail it), but because his mother supported him doing it.

It would have been hard to actually convey the shocking-ness of that story without the detail. Especially by a lazy write/editor (which it was).

The level of detail in headlines however, could be tempered. Not least because kids can and do search for news on things they're interested in and Ukraine is an area of interest these days.

I understand the discomfort you feel and partly agree that you should need to click for extreme details but I do think it should be reported. I do think it helps victims in some way that their stories are told and the atrocities are recognised for what they are. The motivation and level of dehumanising behaviour/thought is relevant particularly in war. Yes atrocities happen in war but some actions go beyond fear mongering, collateral damage (I hate that term with all my being) or eliminating a threat and soldiers/civilians/commanders need to be half to account in some way.

I saw that and completely agree, the details in the headline paragraph were gratuitous and beyond necessary.

I agree. Totally gratuitous.

Yes dare and it does feel like sick glee to me. I think sitting that is why I feel so uncomfortable. It didn't seem to be telling a victims story rather celebrating the aggressor but maybe dare is right and it was the only way to convey how shocking it was.

pragmatic gratuitous was the word I was searching for earlier, it certainly felt that way to me.

Given you’re now clearly talking about the ‘21 roses’ article on the Daily Mail website, are you really so shocked you find anything in that rag gratuitous?

ine point though, how should it focus on the victim when there’s no names or confirmed victim?