Front pages of papers - so mad!

[harrisey]

I am so mad with today's press. When my usual Guardian arrived today I found myself floundering to explain to my ds (4) what the picture on the front was about. It was the dead body of Al-Zarqawi!
Now I know this is news but heck, I didnt really want to have to explain American 'justice' to a little boy who is not yet even at school. You would think they could take a little more care with their front page - this image could much more tastefully have been shown inside the paper (if we needed to see it at all - I beleive he is dead without then having to show me his face).
It just seems a bit distasteful - and I want to know how they would choose to explain it to a 4yo! So I emailed them!

there was a bbc programme not long ago debating this same issue, wish i could remember what is was called..

\link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,991894,00.html\Guardian Readers' Editor} - piece from 2003 about images used from Iraq.

There have been other similar columns - at least one about front-page images vs inside pages - will see if I can find it.

\link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,,925121,00.html\Another one} - still not the one I think I remember, but about front page images of dead people.

FM children will see newspapers in newsagents. And those papers are aimed at adults, so they will have adult headlines and pics.

thing is, a British paper that showed the dead body of a British soldier is likely to be seen by his family and friends. Pictures of dead Iraqis in the same papers are less likely to be seen by the people who loved them. That's clearly not a good enough reason to end the debate, but it is a factor.

Edam, it really doesn't matter if these papers are aimed at adults. The point is they are seen by children. As parents we should have the right to protect our children against violent pictures.

Haven't read whole thread, but agree that pictures of dead people have no place in newspapers anyway, and are indeed much more likely to be shown if non-white. I have written to the Guardian before about pictures of dead bodies, and they have apologised and removed them from later editions and from the website. If you don't like the photos, tell them. We don't need a colour picture of a corpse to understand a man has died. It's ghoulish and sensationalist.

I agree with Soupdragon's comments.

If you want to bring the war home the relatively insulated British public then show them photos of the real devastation. Show them the dead children and the grieving parents, show them the thousands of families who have lost their homes.

Show them the thousands of children starving in Niger each day and ask why we're allowing this to happen too. Perhaps if they had oil...

Showing a picture of a dead terroist is just a trophy shot. Like hanging a moose head on the wall.

As a parent you have the right to shield your children from such horrors but you can't expect the press to do it for you.

So it's OK to plaster someone's dead father/son/mother/sister etc over the paper if they're not likely to see it??

And how do I shield my children from the front pages of the papers? Should I just stay at indoors with them? Some of you might have children who don't pay much attention to these images. I don't. My daughter had nightmares for weeks and worried herself sick after seeing children covered in blood being carried out after the Beslan-siege. They can't cope with these very expilicit images and quite frankly I am glad they can't. I can hardly cope with it myself. Just because you can eat your cornflakes while reading and looking at graphic pictures in your morning paper doesn't mean you care more or know more about what's going on in the world. If we don't udnerstand the tragedy unfolding in Iraq without having to see pictures of dead children then we really have become de-sensitised I fear. A picture from a market-place just bombed in Iraq showing a child's doll or shoe left behind is just as powerful an image for those of you who need illustrations to the news stories.

And the press should accept that parents want to protect their children from violent images. If you watch the news they often warn there might be upsetting images before they show a news item.

I'm sorry, I don't get the argument (and I've heard it so many times) that it's precious wanting to protect our children from images when children from abroad are living it.

How back to front is that?!

I know - my child is living in hell - rather than stop my child from living in hell, I'd much rather EVERY CHILD IN THE WORLD live in hell too - that'll make my pain so much better, won't it?

How precious of us. We should all immediately move our whole families to a war-torn country right now so our 4 year olds can experience what loss and blood and dying is really all about. We shouldn't molly coddle them after all.

FFS.

FM, are you really saying that the front pages of newspapers should be cleared of any image that wouldn't be shown on Cbeebies?

It's never going to happen.

glad I didnt see this thread before.
I dont feel its worth me commenting now as everything will have been said. but did your 4 yeqar old understand the pic and ask what it was?

And why not Edam? Why do these pictures need to be on the front pages? It's not that many years ago that it wasn't common place to put bloody corpses in the papers at all. The press is constantly pushing the boundaries. Our boundaries. We don't get more upset about what we see, we just get more used to it.
Children are part of ths society too. I really think my children should be allowed their tube journey to nursery/school or pop into a shop without seeing images they do not yet know how to process in the way adults can. I know Britain is one of the most un-childfriendly countries. Everytime someone speak up for children, the reaction seems to be: "And do you really think this will happen just because of a CHILD?" How sad is that:(

If you want to complain about gigantic advertising hoardings for strip clubs, I'm with you. Or pornographic covers on men's mags where children can see them. But newspapers are for news (at least, serious ones are).

do you honestly believe a bloody corpse is more acceptable for a child to view than a topless woman?!

Yep Fairymum agree the more we allow the boundaries to slip the more goulish images we will be exposed to and the future generation. Come on girls stop sticking your heads in the sand and allow your children to have a childhood protected from all this cr**p until it is necessary for them to have to deal with it.

Georgina your missing my point. My point was -if I see some vile image of children in the newspapers, my first thought is of those children, not of mine- who are living a rather protected, comfortable life in the west. I actually think it is rather precious to rapidly run off letters because my child has been affected by X - whatever X is- without also doing something, and giving time to protect those afected by X in real life. It's back to front.

Banning images doesn't mean nasty things aren't happening, it just means we can isolate ourselves from it more.

I would have thought an image of a dead person would have more of an affect on a 14 year old tbh, as they have some understanding of what it means, but I don't think we should be protecting 14 year olds from the nasty big wide world.

war brings with it challenging images and it is through exposure to those that we develop our world view and individual morality

Do you know what? The TImes managed to tell the story without using a dead body as an illustration. They also managed to tell the story on one of the victims of the 7/7 bombs inLondon without a corpse too. They used, instead, vivid language.

images of war have always had a huge impact though, not always as the propagandists would wish either..whereas the written word is more likely to have the agenda of the author at heart

I find both sides of the argument persuasive.

I agree that the media is constantly pushing the boundaries and in a way dragging society down and I also worry about where this will end. Mostly I'm not happy about the use of women in advertising and the media.

The images at Abu Ghraib were shocking but IMO had to be shown, but even they were deliberately blurred in most publications. I haven't seen the photo being discussed so can't comment specifically about that and about the rights and wrongs of printing it.

But throughout this century there have been many pivotal, unpleasant and sad images which have really deepened peoples' understanding about what's happening.

The girl running from a Napalm attack, the Palestinian father trying to shield his son from Israeli fire, the images of starving people in Ethiopia - all of which are potentially terrifying for children but surely needed to be shown.

So I'm not really comfortable with the idea of adult newspapers having to censor themselves in accordance with the sensitivities of a four yr old. It just seems a bit naive to me. Some 6/7yr olds are very good at reading, does that mean the reporting also had to be censored?

I know some children are more sensitive than others and may be deeply affected by nasty images but I think newspaper editors need to be free to tell the true story, within certain boundaries.

Anyone who feels the boundaries have been crossed is free to complain. I think the system as it is is quite democratic.

in fact this image is a case in point it is supposed to make us feel renewed confidence in the US, the war against terror is proving itself at last etc but it clearly isn't necessarily having that effect