-
This is footage of a live execution - it's entirely different.
Would you happy for it to be shown if it was a small child getting it in the brain, I wonder.
The_Kindness_of_Trees-
I'm not happy about it being shown at all, but because I'm not happy it happened. It did happen and it was recorded and it's horrific but that doesn't mean it should not be seen if seeked to be seen. There is worse stuff to see should you choose and most of that is far less worthy of being shown.
-
No I wouldn't. But that's a completely different scenario.
This was an editorial judgement. We made the same judgement as Vice: we pixelated the actual execution but otherwise showed the footage unaltered.
It is our job to report the news. To accurately portray what happens in the world. If we sat on that footage and didn't show it, that would be censorship. There's already a country which airbrushes the news to take out the bits they don't like. It's called North Korea.
You say that you find it surprising that people find your viewpoint almost laughable (n.b: I don't) but you are arguing for censorship of the media in the context of a violent attack on a media outlet by people who wanted censorship of the media because they didn't like it because it offended them.
Can you not see the heavy irony there?
snottyotter
Fox
Death and the dying are shown every day in the news. Not just on Vice but on mainstream news media all over the world. Every time this happens it is utterly horrible for the family of the person involved. So why do we let it happen? If you make an exception for one why not make an exception for them all?
I'll tell you why: because it is the job, the responsibility of the media to report what happens in the world and it is not our job to sugar coat it.
Be horrified at the act, not the fact is has been reported.
Showing that video is exercising the very freedom of speech Charlie Hebdo were fighting for.