A Malaysian plane has been shot down in the Ukraine.

[WeAreEternal]

The flight mh17 from Amsterdam to kuala lumpor with 295 people on board, it was a boing 777.
It was shot down with a buk ground to air missile.
They say there are no survivors.

It's awful.

I don't find it exciting. I find the propaganda disturbing and the hawkish rhetoric frightening as to what it might lead to. The Daily Mail calls John McCain a "hawk" and many news sources call him that. I call Yats a puppet because I think he is a pawn in a political battle that he says is "a war against the world" and I call Poroschenko a puppet too with his statements that the Russian are "done for".

Quite simply horrific. The pictures of the passengers is beyond distressing

I've just heard that there are witness reports from several people saying they the plane broke up into several pieces in the sky, the burning pieces fell and the larger parts exploded as they hit the ground.

As horrible as that sound I hope it is true as it would mean it is highly likely most of the passengers were killed when the missile hit and were probably not aware.

I think posters have a responsibility to strike a balance between the political ramifications of this terrible act and respectful mindfulness of the victims, here.

Who has been disrespectful to the victims?

Th

The mass of social media showing and sharing footage of bodies, passports, the crash scene and releasing transcripts is such a double edged sword.
On one hand it makes a cover up harder, we have seen it for ourselves.
It allows us to get and share information quickly.
We see evidence in its pure form without any political spin on it.

On the other hand it makes us all jump to conclusions perhaps without seeing a balanced view.
We can see the scene and the identity of the bodies is not preserved. That makes the formal identity of the bodies much harder and ultimately the investigation much more complex.
Relatives may be able to identify their loved ones or see the crash scene through social media which would be horrific for them.
The general public are seeing raw uncensored footage of bodies and the crash scene which are incredibly distressing.

They've named 3 of the Britons onboard:

John Alder and Liam Sweeney, travelling to see Newcastle United play in New Zealand.

Glenn Thomas, a WHO press officer likely to have been heading to the HIV/ AIDS conference in Sydney.

The videos are hideous. I saw one that panned to show the bodies and had to switch it off as I couldn't bear to look.

Is this something new then? In terms of the immediate access social media has had to this tragedy? I can't think of another example.

The stuff being shown on the telly is old-school media outlets feeling they're lagging behind the New (Internet) Media and rushing to put stuff out there without applying proper quality controls. Without this, by the time they put something considered out, the story will have moved on dominated by the up-to-the-minute unfiltered stuff coming from the Internet.

I think we're stuck with media being slapdash and sensationalist now.

Sky News coverage far superior to BBC. Not unbiased but more informative. Interviews with people on the ground, videos of Poroschenko saying that this is "a warning to the world" and news of what Russia is beginning to say about it.

Exactly my point, you're frightened of "what this might lead to" without pausing to think about what it led to for the victims. "How does this affect me?" rather than, "I'm sorry for how it affected them." Unless I missed your post giving consideration to the tragedy?

Anyway, points been made and I don't want to argue any further.

Very good responsible statement by Cameron with Sky interviewer.

He has not apportioned blame because he has said we must find out what happened.

'Unless I missed your post giving consideration to the tragedy?'

I didn't post that because it goes without saying. I feel as deeply for the loss of life as you do even if you think you feel it more deeply.

"How does this affect me?"
I care for how it affects the world, not me. I said we can do nothing about it. Yats and Poroschenko can't do anything about it either. It is the hawks who will decide what happens.

The 'trouble' with the BBC is that it verifies sources and makes sure things are reputable as possible before broadcasting.

I don't see coverage from Sky as therefore being superior. Sky's style means they do report things sooner, however they are less reliable.

Therefore the BBC plays a very important role in an age of instant and 24 hour news coverage.

They are not perfect, I still think we are fortunate they are not going down the same route to the same extent as other news sources.

I think you shouldn't rely on any one news source as a rule though - just know their strengths and weaknesses.

The pictures in the DM have not all been censored. I can see body parts in some of them. I know they're not parts of the aircraft.

What happened to censorship?

' Sky's style means they do report things sooner, however they are less reliable. '

Yes that may be right. But I have been watching BBC News 24 for an hour and have learned very little. I switched to Sky News and in five minutes I saw an interview with someone on teh ground, a video of Poroschenko and news of what Russia is saying followed by an excellent interview with Cameron who made very responsible and statesmanlike comments.

'I think you shouldn't rely on any one news source as a rule though - just know their strengths and weaknesses.'

Yes, you are right. They all have different strengths and weaknesses.

The 'trouble' with the BBC is that it verifies sources and makes sure things are reputable as possible before broadcasting.

I don't see coverage from Sky as therefore being superior. Sky's style means they do report things sooner, however they are less reliable.

This is exactly right. Look what happened when the BBC dropped its standards in the McAlpine business. Parliament gets involved and questions are raised again about the funding of the BBC. If Sky had done similar, the approach would have been "does this adversely affect the bottom line, if no, let's pay him off and move on".

'The pictures in the DM have not all been censored. '

Yes I don't like that about the DM. I can't broswe their website often without coming across picturs or stories I don't wish to see. They should issue better warnings and prompt you before showing some pictures.

But I'd agree with that there's definitely something missing, an acuteness or a boldness perhaps, these days from BBC news right across the board.

Chunderella, exactly. The HIV/AIDS researchers for one, small example of all the lives on board...how much they will be affected.

I've been lurking on here up to now, but wanted to add something about all the footage of the victims. In E Europe/Russia it is much more common to see graphic footage like this. The news websites in the country where I live (bordering Ukraine) regularly show horrific pictures from car crashes and at least one actually has a cameraman on a motorbike specifically to get quickly to sites and shoot footage.

This may account for why there are so many graphic shots around. But it doesn't excuse it, especially when victims can be identified so clearly.

'But I'd agree with that there's definitely something missing, an acuteness or a boldness perhaps'

Yes, it is a playing safe with the illusion of impartiality, but notice how they very rarely inetrview any Russian experts or spokespeople or avaiation experts etc, but give lots of coverage to the hawks and the Ukrainian ambassadors and spokespeople and Yats and co.

Sky is biased but at least with Sky they do show more and interview more, so you can draw your own conclusions from a base of more information.