Has reporting become too graphic?

[GothAnneGeddes]

Is it me, or have the media descriptions of the child porn found on Jon Venables' computer been needlessly graphic.

Child porn is horrific enough, we aren't stupid, we don't need to know exactly what was featured.

I'm sure that 10 years ago the papers would have said 'unsuitable to be described in a family newspaper'. Why don't they do that now?

Yes, the descriptions have become more graphic and without any real cause beyond 'competitive journalism'... ie. who can get the most gory details into their report. The Yorkshire Ripper story recently included rather more details about the original crimes than reports did at the time. It's pornography of a different kind.

Precisely the point I was making on a similar thread...I don't understand how people read the sort of papers that peddle this quasi-snuff, and then complain about it.

Having said that, this is becoming more common in the broadsheets, and I felt there was a bit of unnecessarily detailed info in yesterday's Guardian for my liking.

Seems there is a lack of understanding of the difference between that which is 'in the public's interest', and that which 'interests the public', and the papers are always happy to capitalise on it.

Yes, I agree. When the child abuse stuff came out about the Little Teds nursery some of the stuff reported in The Metro upset me for days and days and still does
I avoid reading the paper now, especially things that are upsetting, but just because they are upsetting, doesn't mean it's not happening does it?!

Cho - It was actually the Guardian piece that prompted this. I don't want to link it, but the details featured were totally unnecessary.

Indeed, normally I am don't find myself exposed to the salacious details, and I am extremely about the motives for publishing that sort of stuff, so as you can imagine, I nearly dropped the lentil espadrille I was knitting when I saw it in the Graun!