Why do papers feel it is okay to print pictures of "unidentified Briton being helped by medic"...

[ElfOnTheTopShelf]

... can you imagine how awful it would be to be searching the net and find a picture of an injuried friend/relative splashed all over the paper?
Idiots.
thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/expats/expats_news/article1113478.ece

would be utterly horrendous

Papers regularly print pictures of victims of bombs or war or natural disaster from all the countries of the world. Including pictures of grieving relatives and even dead bodies. Why should they make an exception for British people?

maybe they shouldn't do it in any country?

It has values since its Briton, to be more personal, than a picture of especially non western peoples who are either victims are injured.

Not nice either way, don´t like to watch or see that sort of stuff, but it sells apparently

Don't understand, papillon - are you saying that an injured British person has more value than an injured Pakistani person? I'm sure you're not, so I must have misunderstood....

I think that papillon ( hello paps!) indicates that to label it as "a Briton" makes it more of an attachment to British readers in a British newspaper, tis all.

Hmmm - well, I am more affected by a close up of the face of a Palestinian man whose wife and 4 children were killed by a bomb the day before than I am by a picture of an alive bus crash victim. I don't think the nationality matters - the intrusion does. So, both or none - I don't think the rules should be different for British people.

I only highlighted "injured Briton" because it is a UK paper!! No other reason!

When Dh and I were first married a fighter jet, flown by two of his friends, flew into the sea and both the navigator and the pilot were killed.

The ITN new broadcast their names before the parents of one of the guys had been contacted. Their excuse? Public interest.

these guys flew into the sea, no-one was at risk, and they couldn't wait until the family were informed.

I always thought that it was kind of protcol to ensure all the family were informed before any names were given out.

Obviously I am naive enough to think the press may have morals.

I think more latterly they are required to recognise the feelings of families involved. But only when they had been compelled to. No, media are that competitive they are only bound by law. "Codes" never work.

Yes thats what I meant, as Pan said (hi pan )

I think culture does influence reactions, not just how intrusive it is in content. Suppose coming from a country with only 4 million people we are rather close knit in comparison. World news in our papers tends to page 4 or 5, we are so into ourselves downunder