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!

Children need to know the truth about world events. I don't go out of my way to tell them about terrible things but if I asked I tell them as honestly as I can. I don't think many children would have been bothered about the image TBH. How would they know he was dead anyway.

That isn't the point however. The photo was totally outrageous. The man was dead - isn't that enough? Displaying his beaten bloody corpse is quite unneccesary. I felt it was like some gruesome hunting trophy. Perhaps Messrs Blair and Bush would like his head stuffed and mounted on a nice mahogany plaque? And, no, it doesn't matter what he's done; the punishment for that was his death not this humiliation afterwards.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads, you can wish to protect your children from violent front pages as well as caring for the children who die in the conflict. I don't want to stick my head in the sand, buit I want to stick my childrens head in the sand just a little bit longer. In fact, I don't only want to protect them because I worry about them getting upset, I also wory about them getting to used to seeing dead, starving people in far away countries in the papers.

zippitippitoes, a 4 year-old needs to develop a world view and morality, but in their own time. I prefer my children to be introduced to the reality of the world in a more gentle way than bloody images they can not or do not know how to process in their mind.

saadia, yes it is true there are strong lasting images of war and suffering like the ones you mention and it's a very fine line to walk I feel.
I do think it's my responsibility to sensor the insde of the papers for my children just like I turn off the news on tv, but I would like the papers to sensor their front pages because we cannot control who sees them and it should be easily done. Or does the bloody images sell more papers? Now that's a scary thought!

I honestly don't understand why some of you think it's necessary that a 4 year-old or even a 7 -year-old need to see photos of murdered people? I also think children are different. Some of you might have children who don't react much to these things yet, but mine do. Mine start to worry.They feel sad for the children affected and unsafe. They don't understand the world and I don't expcet them to understand. Afterall, it's impossible to understand for adults, why want a reality you can do little about affect a 4 year-old? It won't mean they will grow up to be teenagers or adults who care little for the world around them. On the contrary I think.

I found it offensive too in the paper and on the news..quite a shock and no warning.What i found most offensive was hearing an American man in combats showing the footage of the bombs hitting the house and how marvellous they all are but neglecting to say that at least 6 people including a woman and child were blown up as well.I wonder if pictures would be shown of Bush if he gets wiped out.Probably not on the west but maybe in the Arab news.

Joelalie we all need to hear the truth about world events..but i wiuld imagine we rarely do.

FM- I get the impression that you are a bit different though, in that your children have been on anti war marches, presumably you've talked to them about the wat etc, I think a lot of people don;t want these images because they don't want to have to know what is going on. It's much easier to ignore if you don't have to look at the images.

TBH I think there are 2 diffferent arguments, 1) Should gruesome images of the war be shown and 2) Should they be published in places that children might see them.

My personal view is that yes they should be shown, its all too easy here to ignore what is actually going on in Iraq. I have some symptahy with the view that showing this particular picture was more of a trophy tahn news, but if you're reporting war then yes I think dead bodies should be shown.

Should they be shown on newspapers- well yes - its an adults medium not a child's. Should they be shown on Newsround? no.

I think ds2 and ds3 have the potential to be far more upset by going into ds1's school than by seeing some dead terrorist they've never heard of in a newspaper. They will learn earlier than most that some children are so disabled that they won't make adulthood. Should they be shielded from that? No I don't think so, it's part of life, and part of their borther's life. So they do go into his school (and we deal with questions that arise).

But jimjams - if it was all about informing us, then it can just as easily be on page 2 or further in. I agree, newspapers are for an adult audience (ignoring those papers that have a reading age of 6 or whatever for the time being).

It's not though. The reason those photos are on the front page or to sell papers, pure and simple. The more sensationalist the better.

Of course I want to know what is going on, and I find it intensely patronising to assume that just because I don't want death and gore on the front page of the paper that I somehow want the world's problems swept under the carpet.

As others have mentioned. There have been some stunning pieces of photojournalism that speak volumes and are very powerful (many of the famous ones actually aren't that graphic, but are emotionally grabbing). The picture in the Guardian was a shot of a corpse - the modern equivalent of the medieval practise of sticking your enemy's head on a stake somewhere along the battlements. It wasn't good photojournalism. It gave us nothing new. Its purpose was to sell papers.

Incidentally, I chose not to view any of the beheading videos that came out a year or so ago. I didn't want to see them. I knew they would be highly disturbing. I know people who viewed them and wished they could turn back time so they could not have seen them.

In your world we should all be forced to view them regardless.

I know they went through horrors, I want it to stop. I don't see how me viewing those videos could have made any difference whatsoever or furthered their cause in any shape or form.

I don't want to participate in a media that pedals ghoulishness.

oh fgs I don't care that much about it, I certainly don't want to force people to watch beheadings (nor do I particularly want to watch a beheading myserlf thanks very much). I did say in my last post that I took the point that this particular photo was more of a trophy shot.

I just don't buy into this childhood's so precious that nothing remotely nasty can be published anywhere a child might see it. And like CD I think of a newspaper as being an adult publication, and I don't think adults need to be fed a sanitised version of the war.

If you want to interpret that as me marching people enmasse to sit somewhere and be forced to watch public executions, well so be it. Whatever. It's all getting rather ridiculous.

I still maintain that my younger 2 children are far more likely to be upset going into ds1's school than by an image in a newspaper. Because that'r real life shit happening in front of their eyes. And no I don't sit them down to watch beheadings online either. Sheesh.

Doobydoo...
"Joelalie we all need to hear the truth about world events..but i wiuld imagine we rarely do. "

ITA..which is why I said 'as best I can'. Truth is subjective...truth filtered through the modern media doubly so.

Ah sorry Joelalie didn't realise that's what you wre saying.What does ITA mean?AS i can't find it on the list.

ITA = I totally agree.

No it probably isn't on the list...sorry. It's one I picked up elsewhere.

interesting thread. I can't help being slightly amused at the irony of this though: Zarqawi was notorious for filming the murders he committed then uploading the footage onto the net for our delectation. He allowed us to view the corpses in close up. Now someone has done the same for him. Nice.

I can see both sides of this argument but I personally feel that ultimately children will get to see and hear what is really happening in the world whether we like it or not. By the time I was about 6 I knew all about the IRA, Red Brigades etc...that was what was going on in the early 70s. My dd1 is 4.5 and often sees snippets of unpleasant things on the news and hears them described on the radio. How much of this she actually imbibes is anyone's guess.

good point donnie about Zarqawi's own gruesome habits.