Censorship of "distressing" items in the media.

[vindaloo]

Just watched a BBC article regarding the California Highway Patrol and one of its officers beating the crap out of a deranged woman. There's footage showing him punching her head 15 times or so. BBC wouldn't show any of the strikes.

 

Question is, is this censorship the best thing for us? Is the ommission of "gore" etc in the mainstream media leaving us vulnerable when emotive videos appear all over the internet?

 

Dear BBC, can we have a grown ups news please, maybe after the watershed, but please let's have the option of being "distressed" if we want to.

 

J.

[nellyboy]

If you saw the blows you might want to beat the crud out of an authority figure when you had an altercation with a pig headed pig. Eye for an eye is fair, if they can do it so can we. That is why I look for these events on liveleak to see the real footage. I want my family to be hardened to viewing such things so when they happen they can still think and react instead of staring in horror like a rabbit in the headlights. Censorship of violence is my choice I think.

[john999boy]

Euronews doesn't censor quite as much but you're able to see most of the gore on Liveleak.

[theezenutz]

That's what YouTube is for their is an abundance of video just like that. But unfortunately I have been hearing that "they" who ever "they are, are trying or starting to censor the internet. Removing content from YouTube channels for whatever reasons.

We now have a limited version of free speech, we have a limited ability to LEGALLY protest so basically we are not responsible as adults to determine what right from wrong only most of the time it's not us that's doing wrong.

Not good.

[Dr Zoidberg]

The BBC choosing not to show the worst details is very much an editorial decision rather than censorship. They will go into more detail on news night, but the 6pm news and much of news 24's coverage is intended to be family friendly. I certainly wouldn't want graphic details shown while we are eating our tea.

[Adam_]

Just hearing the story has enough impact why would you want to watch it as well?

Sicko ; P

[Aspman]

The BBC choosing not to show the worst details is very much an editorial decision rather than censorship. They will go into more detail on news night, but the 6pm news and much of news 24's coverage is intended to be family friendly. I certainly wouldn't want graphic details shown while we are eating our tea.

 

^ 1+

 

they'll show a lot more on the 10 o'clock generally.

[gadgetman]

The BBC choosing not to show the worst details is very much an editorial decision rather than censorship. They will go into more detail on news night, but the 6pm news and much of news 24's coverage is intended to be family friendly. I certainly wouldn't want graphic details shown while we are eating our tea.

+1 along with having young children (2 & 4) who I don't want exposing to anything on TV stronger than Disney would show.

[theezenutz]

+1 along with having young children (2 & 4) who I don't want exposing to anything on TV stronger than Disney would show.

Disney have got quite a shady past but that's for a different thread and another time lol

[gadgetman]

Disney have got quite a shady past but that's for a different thread and another time lol

Of course they have.