To be pissed off about having images censored because 'someone might get upset'

[VestibuleVirgin]

Yesterday, the TV and social media were showing film and photographs of the bolting horses in London. Clearly they were terrified, and the grey had an obvious injury, with blood on its chest and legs.
This morning, GMB has blurred the grey's chest area to preserve sensibilities.
I am sick of these holier than thou people thinking they can arbitrate which images, previously freely available, they deem unsuitable.
This top-down censorship, particularly by tv companies, is not in the name of decency, just some pathetic attempt to prove that they can dictate life because they understand what the 'community' wants.

You're right @goodluckwiththat .
There's a big difference between censorship and editorial control. This was an editorial decision. Every day news organisations decide what to cover and how to cover it. Some stuff gets shown and some doesn't. And they don't have to follow the mindless, endless uploads of social media.

Also, as a PP has pointed out, social media is not comparable to tv, radio and newspapers. They are regulated by broadcaster guidelines and ofcom regulations, with whole departments dedicated to compliance.

Social media is simply a platform for publishing stuff. Anyone can do it, there are no checks or guidelines over content (beyond toothless ones for legality and indecency). This is the real reason idiots like Brand and Morgan exist on social media - they don’t face regulation and fact checking. It’s not a stand against censorship, it’s to bypass truth.

I'd have been bothered had news stations done this but it's GMB. I understand why they did it. YABU for ignoring their audience and timing context

It is ridiculous, but the media outlets don’t want to do this. They are bending to the whims of the easily offended audience because everyone is triggered by some mundane shit these days. If they hadn’t blurred it out you’d have several threads on this site about how shocked they were to see a bleeding horse (plus the obligatory shaking and crying).
And if your children watch tv before school you need to take a hard look at yourself.

As a rider I think it is important to see the reality of this.

I can't help thinking that it was poor form for the riders of these horses and the police present not to attempt to block their exit.

There were police on horses there who just seemed to be too slow to react and it was the same with the soldiers who were not unseated by their own horse and just watch it happen without doing much.

Lessons should be learned from this so it does not happen again and to give better training on how to deal with these emergencies...

Children are used as an example but the rules aren’t just in place for them. The content allowed at certain times on entertainment shows as opposed to news ones, for example, is different.

It’s always been this way. It’s not a new ‘snowflake’ thing. If anything, the guidelines and interpretation has been softened to allow for less sensitive audiences. You’ll see a lot more violence, nudity, sex and swearing these days than you would have 30 years ago.

What a weird thing to get angry about. If people were paying attention and properly educated on sources, they’d be much more upset by the lack of fact-checking and deliberate obfuscation of news and opinion in some broadcasters and newspapers.

Is it because of the 9pm watershed? Not sure young kids need to see it really.

Such a measured and reasonable post, perhaps it would have been better for the OP to pose a question about why it might have been blurred rather than screeching about censorship.

I’m not sure - haven’t seen lots of footage but what could any of them really done against a bolting horse? Riding after them at that speed risks injuring more animals. I did wonder why people didn't try and catch them, but my other half pointed out most people have no experience of galloping horses, which is a fair point.

Interested to know what I should be looking for when I’m taking a hard look at myself this morning? Cannot wait to be enlightened by your superior parenting skills 🙂

OP you sound like an offended snowflake

Honestly, why on earth would you put your child in front of the tv before school. It’s just bizarre

Thanks, your explanation was clear as mud 👍

Ofcom has rules and certain stations already in trouble - think GB News- so they have no choice but to follow the rules. There is also a difference between News and Current Affairs with differing rules. If people have complained then they have to tread cautiously. They are all going to be careful for now especially in the run up to the election.

I’m more surprised a MNetter watched GB news! It’s slagged off here left, right and centre! Much like all the links to the Daily Mail that no-one reads…anyway, there’s lots of uncensored photos of the bloodied horse in the media for those who wish to see it.

I don't like seeing pictures of people in their worst moments, people injured, bloody, scared. It adds nothing to the news except for satisfying that sick fascination part of us, humans are fascinated by trauma. We love to know the graphic gory details. But I think pictures are crass, invasive and disrespectful. I extend that same courtesy to animals.

The pictures offer no new information, it's not like an undercover investigation into farming to show how poorly animals are treated, the pictures have value and are needed becuase it's so hidden in our society. It's not that my delicate sensibilities are offended by the sight, it's that I don't think news channels should have as much rights as they do.

I don't think technology has been good for "the news" it's not about informing the public, it's about getting views and it's very exploitative and conceited. The news is regularly responsible for making public crisis worse. They scaremonger and bait people into panic. They should be here to provide the facts, nothing more.

Agree, a simple "the following report contains images some people may find upsetting" is fine.

British TV is a lot more cautious with these sorts of images and has been for a long time. I remember when I first lived in Spain in the 90s being very shocked that their tv news showed images of dead bodies after a natural disaster or crime, that's something that's never shown here and still isn't. You might see a foot, or what's clearly a body wrapped in a sheet or something, but not a full frontal of someone.

I dont want to see gore first thing in the morning. Censor away.

To be fair, I don't want to see an animal covered in blood. If you're desperate to, there's images all over the internet and videos too if that doesn't satiate you.

Well we now seem to have "safe spaces" at universities, colleges etc in case young people "feel overwhelmed"
How the hell did we all survive!! 🤣🤣

I saw it on sky news yesterday afternoon. It was breaking news so little info at that point, and they said 'either blood or paint' and didn't censor it.

Whilst I agree that warnings that 'some may find the following images distressing' are overzealous, let's face it, they cba getting complaints. If you so desperately want to see an obviously injured horse in all its glory then just look on twitter. As PP said seeing it blurred or not doesn't make a difference to the story itself. It's not really worth making a thread about.

I must admit though, it wasn't a nice thing to.see, that horse covered in blood. I sincerely hope that he/she is OK xx

I agree. It is pointless to pixelate images in the era where the same images are freely available online.

I generally agree with your point, but many more children will be watching GMB in the morning than the evening news (which parents of sensitive children will avoid if children are around), and I’m not sure I do want children going to school with images of blood soaked horses in their mind.

I think provided ‘proper’ images (preserving the dignity of others) are used in the actual news, I can get over this.