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.

Now I’m confused… I thought the OP was watching Good Morning Britain on ITV, the one with Susanna and Piers, which is the sort of thing that’ll be on in the background of many houses across the country in the morning.

My views are changed if it’s GB News, but I don’t think they’d be advocates of censorship…

Are you being deliberately obtuse? 🙄

I've seen beheading videos, cartel torture videos and once stumbled across a Jordanian pilot getting set on fire on social media. Should those videos be on the morning news as well?

We saw a trigger warning on Thomas the Tank Engine on tv the other day. I see words ***ed out (kill, death, suicide…)

It’s like dealing with toddlers.

Regardless of this particular story and its reporting, I think that it's worth considering the implications of manipulation of stories and images overall in the media. It may be couched in terms of protecting those who may be upset by things, but it can easily move into 1984 territory.

AI and modern technology means that we can be presented with images and narrative as "truth" designed to elicit a particular response when the reality is vastly different. And even then, we can be told that it's not reality, it's our "perception,". It's a bit gas lighty.

I think back to the film "Wag the Dog" sometimes and think "Well, we were warned".

Strange and interesting times eh?

Your use of the word censorship is disingenuous. It was an editorial choice on a morning magazine show. It’s hardly a state-sanctioned move for sinister ends 🤷‍♀️

It is not right to show graphic detail of events like stabbings where unsupervised children will watch. However a horse that is capable of running from I think, Hyde Park to the Limehouse tunnel is injured but not about to die on camera.
The censorship bar for good taste is getting lower but it is selective. (discus)
The real danger is that we get so used to it that we won't notice when censorship is for political or religious reasons.
Or have I not noticed already?

The announcements at the start of TV programmes warning the pathetic cherubs that they may see violence I find funny, if you're so pseudo sensitive don't watch Midsomer Murders et al.

I am sick of these holier than thou people thinking they can arbitrate which images, previously freely available, they deem unsuitable

You know the images are still freely available, right? You just need to change tv channel. Are you often so easily offended?

The censorship bar for good taste is getting lower but it is selective. (discus)

Again, it's not censorship, it's editorial decisions. May feel semantic but it's an important distinction. They didn't choose to not cover the story. They chose to pixelate the blood, possibly in line with guidelines for current affairs programming.

Oh, please

Well they get moaned at either way as the OP demonstrates. They can't win can they.

I agree with you. People are snowflakes and can't cope with the grim reality of the news. Wake up - it happened!
Poor horse.

Do they really give warnings for Midsomer Murders? I've never seen it so didn't realise it was so violent.

It's morning telly that a lot of people have on. Totally different to news bulletins afterwards as little kids will be getting ready for school with it on in the background, they don't need to be seeing that ffs it's on YouTube if you really need to see an injured horse 🙄

And before you go on about worse being on the news, yes there is, but IME they always block out blood etc in the mornings and little ones don't tend to listen to the words being said, and again IME they can get more upset when they see hurt animals.

For clarity, it was Good Morning Britain, not gb news. I have my fauts, but watching gb news is not one of them!

You are right to explain your opinion in detail. Thank You, I change my mind.

Ok, I see it is perhaps more editorial than censorship.
Thank you!

The footage is uncensored on the BBC website - just saying.

If you're seeing words with letters hidden or changed to numbers on social media it's to do with trying not to get shadow banned/ fully banned by the algorithm. Like people who do educational videos write things like seggs education so they don't get flagged for adult content when they're talking about how important consent is in relationships!

If "this" generation are a bunch of soft snowflakes then who made them that way? Hmmmm...
Maaaybe, being able to identify their own limitations and avoiding the previous generation's mindset of must keep going at all costs is a good thing. Why stick to the mindset of life was tough for me so it should be for you too? Make the world a nicer place, noone thanks you for working every day of your life til you drop dead.

I like the pp about it being editorial decision-making.

Would you want to see a person who had been hit by a car ? See them bleeding would that add to your viewing pleasure ? I mean if that's your thing then I'm sure there is news agencies on the Internet you can watch. Censorship of images is a decent thing to do.

When people ask why do we need to see it, I ask why do we need to not see it. (I don't think we do. I think a short "switch channels now if you don't like blood" statement is sufficient)

People don't generally like to look at blood.

People generally don't like to see upsetting or unsettling things.

It really is as simple as that.

Those who do like to watch animal or human suffering will always be able to find it but most people don't want to see it so mainstream media blur images. If someone watched it and thought hmm, I would like to see the blood, they're only a Google away. I don't think it's a big deal that the default is blur and the internet is full of the unblurred version for those who prefer it.

Actually here I think it does add something important to the story. We will see over the next few weeks a debate spring up
about whether exercising 150 horses every day in the centre of London is still appropriate in this day and age. Knowing and appreciating the level of injury these animals sustained is important in allowing the public to decide whether they are happy for this to continue.

Personally I adore the use of horses in ceremonial events and would hate to see that end, but what happened yesterday was horrible. I’m not sure where I stand on this issue yet, and when we know more about the injuries horses and riders sustained that might help me. But I do think these images are useful in informing the public

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68887823

Very topical and a big “democratic” question.

What Ofcom does is very important.

I don't think seeing bleeding and injured animals adds anything especially on breakfast television where there might be children around and do they need to see it to appreciate the incident? upsetting images do upset people, injured and distressed horses which are apparently in a critical condition. will distress some humans it isnt a case of snowflakes or whatever rubbish people are called. Injury and blood isn't always a spectator sport to get the gist of the incident.