-
Utter rubbish. I work in a senior role for one of the world's largest news agencies so I am fully aware of the geopolitics. It's not idealism, it is the current reality. Which you may not like, but that's how it is.
There is a consensus, here and now. It's utterly feasible because it already exists. The media has to follow rules set out by society (statutory rules - i.e. the law) and voluntary codes (IPSO in the UK), which might not mean much to some outlets but we adhere to rigorously.
People going around murdering journalists who are merely exercising their right to freedom of expression makes for a fractious environment, not journalists reporting the news.
Fox-
I don't care what your position is, I just don't buy your reasons for showing that video.
I don't want to keep coming back on here and explaining myself. There is no mystery to my position: I just don't think there's any need to show people that sort of footage, because I consider it both intrusive and voyeuristic. Moreover, people are quire capable of comprehending the horror of it without seeing it.
Can we just leave it at that - agree to disagree?
The_Kindness_of_Trees
Sorry, but your argument is starting to sound like that of an idealistic teenager who believes in absolute freedoms. The geopolitical reality of the situation is far more complex. Unbridled freedom of speech is all well and good, but it makes for fractious environment.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to suggest your idealism is born out of naivety, just that in an uncensored world nothing would ever get done, on the basis that consensus just isn't feasible.