Happy murderer photos

[Iwanttoliveonamountain]

With all the stuff yesterday about the Southport killer’s Photo I see a photo today of a man who killed three people in a horrific manner, but they’ve got a lovely smiley photo of him. Do newspapers try to modify our reactions to a murderer by publishing a positive or negative Photo of the murderer?

Your post is irrelevant. I was making a comment about the photos of him that were published showing a rather nice smiley looking man.

You're asking about a mug shot which the police were unable to obtain.
We have all see the smiley young boy who was on the BBC. This is just an updated version of that boy.
So why is my post irrelevant?

I do not know what you are getting at but the photo I saw today of the Southport murderer is pure evil. Not sure why it is only now that there is a recent photo of him and have not read the whole thread. We were shown only sketches of him in court and a photo when he was a child back to when all came out. If anything it seems that they were preventing us to see his evil empty stare.

@LordEmsworth

"They are only interested in selling papers, not thought control..."

Whilst I think it's ridiculous to suggest it in this instance, newspapers are very much interesed in thought control. They have their own political slants and agendas and promote them by any legal (although not necessarily moral) means. It's their stock in trade and (almost) everyone knows it!

Yes, all newspapers have a political stance.

But they also have a profit motive. They write stories to sell papers.

And "he's just a poor misunderstood little boy, deep down" is not a story that sells papers.

People buy papers that reflect their own political stance. They (we) don't buy papers that don't reflect our own views, and then change our views as a result.

What political stance do you believe "the newspapers" are taking, if you genuinely believe they're trying to make the public think this murderer is actually a dead nice bloke who just made a bad decision that's probably not really his fault? What are you actually accusing them of? Because I really cannot see what you think "the newspapers" stand to gain.

I repeat, half an ounce of common sense would tell you that your theory deserves a tinfoil hat.

The picture in today's paper gave me the chills he's looks dead behind his eyes.i can't say what should be done to him. them poor 3 girls and there familys it's absolutely heartbreaking, let's hope he NEVER gets out.

Oops wrong post 😬

But that’s just it. that was the look he was going for.

They have a political slant in order to sell papers.

They do not sell papers in order to convince people of things that are not true.

They are there to make a profit. They have a political stance that they know their readers like, and want to have reinforced by stories that prove them right. Their political stance is driven by their profit motive.

That is very much not the same thing as trying to convince their readers that they're wrong about something they think. "The newspapers" reinforce biases, they don't undermine them.

Just realised we’re talking about two different photos. And people

Who are we actually talking about here?

There are lots of murders happening.
The news today has been the Stockport killer and the crossbow killer.
Which one are you on about if it’s not the crossbow killer?

I think a lot of public paranoia comes from an almost touching belief that “they” - newspapers or whoever - could do anything and are choosing to do this thing. But so often newspapers for example are in the same position as you would be if you wanted to find a photo of a person I randomly picked and gave you the name of. They can google them and try to get permission to use a picture they find, or print it anyway, they can look on social media, they can get in touch with people who know them and ask whether they have a picture. I won’t go over the Southport thing again as there was a long thread yesterday but this crossbow murderer hasn’t had a mugshot released yet - how would the papers access it? There are also rules around what newspapers can print about people who are on trial as he apparently still is. So I guess they’re reliant on perhaps old profile pics he’s posted of himself or something like that. So yes unsurprisingly those pictures are quite flattering and not psychotic looking.

I don't think phots of the perpetrator should be published next to the victims. The victims don't deserve that.

I thought he'd changed his plea to guilty?

His photo is a lot more wholesome than the Southport murder that looks completely deranged.

Guilty for murder, not guilty for another charge. Which explains the whole photograph issue.

The dog attack ones, they almost always use a massive XL Bully or Mastiff type , rather than this:

Yep, and often long before they know what breed was even involved!

I have certainly seen human images where theres been lots of images available but the one where the person in question looks a total shambles or totally psychotic is picked for the journalist/papers own reasons...

Of course, if there is a choice of image... often there will not be, but again, they could choose to run a story without an image .

They could have run articles about Joanna Yeates murder without any images of Christopher Jeffries who was innocent, and yet because he presented as a somewhat eccentric 'wild haired' figure, in those photos went and they absolutely contributed to the leaping to the conclusion he was guilty when he was not!

These days they seem to just go on the person's FB profile and nab the profile pic and maybe a few quotes.