[canus insanus]

You should watch Russian TV for dead bodies on the news. They don't hold anything back. When I was out there in 2002, the siege of the Nord-Ost theatre was in full swing, and when the Spetsnaz troops went in after they pumped gas into the ventilation system, they headshot all the Chechen bodies to ensure they were completely immobilised. The results of all of that were filmed for the Russian TV news, and even shocked a hardened bastard like me...

[Silkyman]

I can see both sides of the argument on this one. Stark, graphic pictures provoke emotion, and might jolt some people into action to stop it. On the other hand, dead children are one of those things which you just do not show photos of, on grounds of taste.

Either way, being on the front page is a poor show.

They were front page of the Mirror yesterday as well.

No need.

[Siuan]

While I'd like to say I was really torn about the DM publishing the pictures of dead people (including children), it wasn't much of a dilemma in my head: I think it's a good thing on the whole.

Yes, perhaps they should not have been on the homepage, but people would have been less encouraged to read the terrible news if they weren't. And just because we 'shouldn't' have to see it, it doesn't make it any less real. It certainly made me think about the plight of Syria more than anything else has done - and wish that more could/would be done to lift its people out of crisis.

Of course, images like this will generate clicks, and comments, and there will be a core group of Mailites who will always contribute nasty, throwaway comments and slurs about the forrins. In this case, I prefer to live with that if it means close international attention is being drawn to what looks like a terrible atrocity.

I know it's hard on occasion to resist the automatic reaction to oppose everything the Mail says or does, but (as I believe another thread here was called), sometimes, just sometimes, they do something which is at least heading in the right direction.

[Kreuzberger]

While I'd like to say I was really torn about the DM publishing the pictures of dead people (including children), it wasn't much of a dilemma in my head: I think it's a good thing on the whole.

Yes, perhaps they should not have been on the homepage, but people would have been less encouraged to read the terrible news if they weren't. And just because we 'shouldn't' have to see it, it doesn't make it any less real. It certainly made me think about the plight of Syria more than anything else has done - and wish that more could/would be done to lift its people out of crisis.

Of course, images like this will generate clicks, and comments, and there will be a core group of Mailites who will always contribute nasty, throwaway comments and slurs about the forrins. In this case, I prefer to live with that if it means close international attention is being drawn to what looks like a terrible atrocity.

I know it's hard on occasion to resist the automatic reaction to oppose everything the Mail says or does, but (as I believe another thread here was called), sometimes, just sometimes, they do something which is at least heading in the right direction.

I am pretty much in total agreement. The Mirror, the mail, The Carnoustie Courier - they are all commercial news organisations and their job is to report the goings on in their particular constituency and to make a profit in doing so whether through circulation sales or online.

In the case of the Middle East, I'd say that this story has high geo-political significance and could well see us move further towards British boots being on the ground. Plus, there's the impact upon crude prices which, in turn, feed through to almost everything we buy.

The mail, of course, rarely behaves like a newspaper but when it does, I am not going to complain.

Should it be front page news? Yes, it should. To relegate it to a secondary slot serves no purpose other than to spare the squeamishness of those who would rather not think about similar (albeit not of this scale) atrocities that happen every day on every continent. Don't like to see news in a newspaper? That's what Closer is for.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Yes. I haven't looked at the Mail's coverage, but the harrowing footage on C4 news moved me, and moved my opinion.

My only concern is that that might be the motivation.

[canus insanus]

Should it be front page news? Yes, it should. To relegate it to a secondary slot serves no purpose other than to spare the squeamishness of those who would rather not think about similar (albeit not of this scale) atrocities that happen every day on every continent. Don't like to see news in a newspaper? That's what Closer is for.

...and the Sun, Express and Star

[Silkyman]

I thought the shot of the bodybags laid out in lines was shocking enough.

You don't need to have the lifeless faces of dead children staring out from the news stands.

Shout about it on the front page headline by all means, it's an important story that needs coverage, but the use of tiny corpses packed in ice as a sales or clicks generator doesn't feel right to me.

[Kreuzberger]

I thought the shot of the bodybags laid out in lines was shocking enough.

You don't need to have the lifeless faces of dead children staring out from the news stands.

Shout about it on the front page headline by all means, it's an important story that needs coverage, but the use of tiny corpses packed in ice as a sales or clicks generator doesn't feel right to me.

"Staring out..."? Hmm, not really. You need to look at a newspaper to see what news it is carrying and only a cave-dweller would be unaware of what is topping the news agenda at the moment. You can always look the other way.

Moving swiftly on; sales and clicks are what drive all commercial media organisations and dominant images are used to tell the reader, often a promiscuous consumer who will flit from one title to another, that they have the full story. That way, they sell more newspapers and, in a country without fully state-controlled media, that is what they are supposed to do.

As I say, no one is being forced to read the press.

[Silkyman]

But you shouldn't have to avert your gaze from the front of the petrol station on the offchance you'll have some horrific image presented to you.

I've never said that the press should shy away from these important stories, just that the most grotesque images should at least be inside to give people the chance to make their own choice about what they, or indeed their kids, see. The headline 'Now they are gassing children' was enough to shock without the image.

On the TV news it will have been preceeded by a warning.

This entire thread is about newspapers often cynically using gruesome pictures as a sales tool.

[Safe_Timber_Man]

Nothing wrong with the report on atrocities being on the front page. This certainly isn't about disagreeing with it because its the Mail, that's quite a silly suggestion. The issue is I don't think people should be forced to see photos of dead children. Within the article, fine. But putting a warning that there are disturbing images within the article only to put that image on the front page takes away the choice people have to see those images. Personally, I don't think it needs to be done to get people to read about what's happening.

[youngian]

Showing the consequences of war can be a double edged sword; a propaganda excercise to demonise one side as evil to mobilise opinion. Or a poignant reminder of the consequences of war in a world of armchiar politician warriors who have never fought in one and shield themselves with bullshit language like surgical strikes.

I've found some of the Mail's Syrian reporting very good and by no means being used to present a simple goodies Vs Baddies narrative. This article gives a less than flattering view of 'rebel' forces-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ebels.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kreuzberger]

But you shouldn't have to avert your gaze from the front of the petrol station on the offchance you'll have some horrific image presented to you.

I've never said that the press should shy away from these important stories, just that the most grotesque images should at least be inside to give people the chance to make their own choice about what they, or indeed their kids, see. The headline 'Now they are gassing children' was enough to shock without the image.

On the TV news it will have been preceeded by a warning.

This entire thread is about newspapers often cynically using gruesome pictures as a sales tool.

Which newspaper(s), when?

I'm looking at

http://www.thepaperboy.com/uk/daily-mai ... StartRow=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and I can't see anything that would part me from my breakfast at a petrol station or anywhere else, for that matter.

[Esqui]

This one's not really about images of death, but I couldn't think of where else to put it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... itter.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those not in the know, there's a person on Twitter who threatened to kill her dog if One Direction didn't follow her, and then followed that with a picture of, supposedly, her dead dog. The Mail adds that "Other Images that were reportedly taken from the @illumivato page before it was suspended show animals in blenders and a small child tied up."

And then proceeds to show the pictures. I'm not sure what justification the Mail can have for posting an image which purports to show a child lying on the floor with its hands duct-taped together...

[Fflaps]

I'm sure profit is enough of a justification; I don't think the advertisers would agree.

[Esqui]

I wonder what BT and Travelodge would think