Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Disgusted at BBC using image of dead Gadaffi on hompeage

79 replies

Reveller · 20/10/2011 18:29

I am disgusted at the BBC for using image of dead Colonel Gadaffi as it's leading image on the BBC News homepage.

I had thought of the BBC site as a family friendly place but now I know better.

OP posts:
Sparklingbrook · 20/10/2011 18:32

I agree. Don't want my children seeing it. It will no doubt be all over the papers in the morning too.

ShowOfHands · 20/10/2011 18:34

I'm disappointed that it's on my google homepage too and quite cross that it was also splashed across the opening headlines of the bbc news with little to no warning.

It's unavoidable. Goodness only knows what the front of the newspapers will have etched across them tomorrow.

Sevenfoldedbloodybodies · 20/10/2011 18:34

yabu it is a major major news story

GuillotinedMaryLacey · 20/10/2011 18:35

Well the BBC news site is, well, a news site so I'm not sure what you expected to be on there. Same with the news and of course it will be on the newspapers.

I agree it shouldn't be on the google homepage though.

BecauseImAWerewolefIt · 20/10/2011 18:36

Not there any more.

But - YABU. It is a national news site and this is one of the most important developments in the whole Libyan war.

We can't protect (and IMO shouldn't protect) children from the news. And if you think your children are too young to see images like this, then don't show them the BBC site.

ShowOfHands · 20/10/2011 18:36

Major news story being reported = fine

Pictures of a dead/dying body all over the web, news and probably newspapers tomorrow without warning = not fine

OP wasn't asking if she was being unreasonable.

Sparklingbrook · 20/10/2011 18:36

I understand that it's a big story. Just not sure everyone (especially children) would want to see a picture of a dead person without warning.

Sevenfoldedbloodybodies · 20/10/2011 18:37

ShowOfHands i know [hblush]
I will rephrase it
I don't agreee

Original poster
Reveller · 20/10/2011 19:19

I don't think it is unreasonable to want to be able to access news and events without being faced with a close up of a dead and bloody peron no matter who they are.

I also think it is important that children have access to and are encouraged to be interested in current affairs and while their internet usage should be carefully monitored, How many of you would object to or proactively block their access to the BBC site or other news sites.

OP posts:
MotherPanda · 20/10/2011 19:21

yes I was shocked too, glad i'm not the only one.

Original poster
Reveller · 20/10/2011 19:21

I know my parents never stopped me watching the news and current affairs programmes as a kid, but then I don't remember such graphic imagery being widespread.

OP posts:
gemma4d · 20/10/2011 19:24

I think its a shame that the BBC are putting it across as a simply fantastic, wonderful thing. Fair enough if libyans want to celebrate, and I'm not saying his death is a bad thing. Perhaps he had to die. But to mortally wound a person and then drag them through the streets ... and to celebrate in such a no-holds-barred way : its not mankinds proudest moment now is it.

Wigeon · 20/10/2011 19:24

Front page on Guardian website. Never mind the DC, I think it's quite inappropriate full stop to be on the home page (think I wouldn't object if it was later on when you proactively click on that specific news story). Feel a bit sick.

MotherPanda · 20/10/2011 19:24

Real;ly - i'm not upset about it because I don't want my children to see it - I'm upset because I didn't want to see it.

Jbck · 20/10/2011 19:28

The video images of him still alive being dragged about then his presumably dead body being hoisted up & down were pretty gory for any time of the day. I was particularly shocked however to see it at six o'clock. I did have the sound down fairly low as DDs and I were talking but I caught the gist of it and didn't hear any explicit warnings on the BBC news. I thought it'd just be his body and a quick shot of that.
DDs 10 & 3 rather put off their tea at the sights and pretty frank discussions had to ensue which are not normal tea time conversation. I hadn't heard any news this afternoon so didn't realise or I'd not have decided it was a good night to have a wee 'treat' tea in front of the tv. I still thought it was too graphic for that time of the day.

Ponders · 20/10/2011 19:34

Jbck, they had that clip on a loop for minutes on end on News24 before 6 o'clock - I was interested to hear what was being said behind it but ended up turning off because it was so hideous & unnecessary.

They seem to think that NEW FILM!!! must be shown repeatedly regardless of its value to the viewer Hmm

(otoh I was touched by the young Libyan film-maker who was interviewed about what was happening; at the end when the presenter said thanks for joining us he said "thank you for having me" Smile)

EdithWeston · 20/10/2011 19:35

SKY were good at giving very explicit warnings.

The BBC should not be showing this pre-watershed at all, and should be able to give warnings at least as competently as SKY.

I do not think it should be on the front page of a website, and any link to it should carry a warning abou content. Newspapers, if they must run it at all, should do so on an inside page.

These are images many do not want to view, and they should not be thrust upon the public in ways that are unavoidable. Especially to children, via the early news or on front pages on newsstands.

Ponders · 20/10/2011 19:37

the BBC did give a warning on the 6 o'clock news - the usual "viewers may find some of the images disturbing" (I forget the exact wording)

(I turned it off again...)

HarrietJones · 20/10/2011 19:39

BBC didn't give much warning at 3pm. I wasn't particularly happy to see it.

headfairy · 20/10/2011 19:41

BBC definately gave some warnings before running the pics on 6 o'clock news... But I was quite shocked that they used them at all. They're normally quite prudish (I'm saying that as an insider iyswim) They baulked at showing the pics of Bin Laden and I saw those and they were much less graphic. Those pictures of Gaddafi alive and being dragged off are quite disturbing to me and I'm quite hardened to such images.

ShowOfHands · 20/10/2011 19:47

They only gave the 'viewers may find some images' etc warning before the actual item.

In the headlines summary at the beginning they just said 'shocking images shown around the globe' whilst showing the shocking images. No warning.

donnie · 20/10/2011 19:49

I know I probably should care. But I don't.

Fair play to the rebel forces, tbh.

headfairy · 20/10/2011 19:49

As I said, I was very surprised they used it at all. Bad form to put in the headlines.

gregssausageroll · 20/10/2011 19:51

Does anyone know how he died? I get he was probably shot but I watched the video of him on the back of the truck alive and then he stood up so I am thinking someone just shot him dead thereafter as his injury didn't look life threatening on the video?

Jbck · 20/10/2011 19:53

I did have the sound low but I was sure she said pictures I didn't expect albeit very poor quality video of such graphic scenes. I thought it completely unecessary for myself let alone children.