4 ms·

FWIW, I find it crude and tactless to show identifiable personal possessions of the victims. Surprised that the BBC stoops so low. (Note: a friend of mine pers

by FabHK 8y ago

FWIW, I find it crude and tactless to show identifiable personal possessions of the victims. Surprised that the BBC stoops so low. (Note: a friend of mine personally knew several students on board via AIESEC, a student organisation. RIP.)

anc84 8y ago
I felt the same as I saw the photo. What a disgustingly heartless way of treating the relatives or even the depicted.
- gowld 8y ago
  I'm more concerned by the heartlessness of running a chronically unsafe airline and glossing over the reality of the suffering it wreaks.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    That's a good point. In general, aviation safety is amazing, and an emotional response to an accident (as after MH 370) doesn't help. In Indonesia, on the other hand, corruption and lax attitudes to safety seem wide spread, and political pressure to rectify the situation might improve things.
- grkvlt 8y ago
  the bodies depicted in such images are not capable of caring about how they are treated anymore, though. i agree that often relatives get upset about images of their loved ones bodies being used in newspapers or tv, but sometimes the journalists have to weigh the public interest value of showing the image against potential distress. for example, the famous vietnam 'napalm girl' photograph. i'm not suggesting a return to 'if it bleeds, it leads' shock-value journalism, just pointing out that sometimes distasteful images have real value and should not be censored.
  - FabHK 8y ago
    Agreed, but I think for the most part aviation safety is well under control, and there's not need to shock people into action. However, Indonesia might well be an exception. Note also, though, that this only works if shocking pictures are used very sparingly, and only really to make an important point.
cyberferret 8y ago
When MH17 was shot down, an Australian paper published a large picture on the front page which showed actual dead bodies tangled in the wreckage. No blurring or obfuscation. You could clearly see a young woman's arm held up as if to ward off an impact in the foreground. Highly distasteful and inappropriate IMO.
- FabHK 8y ago
  Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised to encounter such stuff on Twitter, or the Indonesian/Malaysian/Australian/UK yellow press, but the BBC?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  MH17 was shot down. Someone actually had to lock an anti-aircraft system onto a commercial airliner and give the order to fire. I don't disagree with putting something graphic on the front page in that case. The public deserves to know what happened and whitewashing it just serves to protect those who committed that crime. With a purely accidental tragedy I think it's a little different but not much. I don't see the point in trying to bubble wrap the world. Shit happens. Sometimes it will be messy and ugly.
  - whamlastxmas 8y ago
    Bubble wrapping has a lot of value. There's nothing I can to stop accidental airplane crashes. It's not healthy for for many people to be surrounded by negativity and violence. It serves no purpose other than making me feel bad
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      Not reporting also limits backlash when preventable things happen. I don't see running a graphic picture to be substantially different than reporting the details on that guy the Sauidis sawed up. One man's bubble wrap is another man's sweeping things under the rug.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
danso 8y ago
I imagine they do it as the only way to convey the human loss, without actually showing human body parts.
- randyrand 8y ago
  You can also use pictures of the victims from when they were alive.
  - danso 8y ago
    They don't have that info the day of a plane crash -- it requires the airline to release the list of victims, and then the families to release any photos on request, which is what you sometimes see several days later when a news org takes the time to collect the photos and stories. But that doesn't happen with all mass casualty incidents. Not just because it's resource-intensive, but because the news cycle moves so fast. We've just learned the names/ages of the 11 killed in the Pittsburgh shooting. How many people remember any of the names of the people who died 3 weeks ago in what was the U.S. worst transportation accident in a decade? Same-day and day-after coverage is typically when most people are most focused on any given tragedy, and images are often what stays in people's memories. A photo of disaster workers picking up pieces of metal doesn't convey much of the human tragedy at all.

by FabHK 8y ago

anc84 8y ago

I felt the same as I saw the photo. What a disgustingly heartless way of treating the relatives or even the depicted.

gowld 8y ago
I'm more concerned by the heartlessness of running a chronically unsafe airline and glossing over the reality of the suffering it wreaks.
- FabHK 8y ago
  That's a good point. In general, aviation safety is amazing, and an emotional response to an accident (as after MH 370) doesn't help. In Indonesia, on the other hand, corruption and lax attitudes to safety seem wide spread, and political pressure to rectify the situation might improve things.
grkvlt 8y ago
the bodies depicted in such images are not capable of caring about how they are treated anymore, though. i agree that often relatives get upset about images of their loved ones bodies being used in newspapers or tv, but sometimes the journalists have to weigh the public interest value of showing the image against potential distress. for example, the famous vietnam 'napalm girl' photograph. i'm not suggesting a return to 'if it bleeds, it leads' shock-value journalism, just pointing out that sometimes distasteful images have real value and should not be censored.
- FabHK 8y ago
  Agreed, but I think for the most part aviation safety is well under control, and there's not need to shock people into action. However, Indonesia might well be an exception. Note also, though, that this only works if shocking pictures are used very sparingly, and only really to make an important point.

cyberferret 8y ago

When MH17 was shot down, an Australian paper published a large picture on the front page which showed actual dead bodies tangled in the wreckage. No blurring or obfuscation. You could clearly see a young woman's arm held up as if to ward off an impact in the foreground. Highly distasteful and inappropriate IMO.

FabHK 8y ago
Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised to encounter such stuff on Twitter, or the Indonesian/Malaysian/Australian/UK yellow press, but the BBC?
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
MH17 was shot down. Someone actually had to lock an anti-aircraft system onto a commercial airliner and give the order to fire. I don't disagree with putting something graphic on the front page in that case. The public deserves to know what happened and whitewashing it just serves to protect those who committed that crime. With a purely accidental tragedy I think it's a little different but not much. I don't see the point in trying to bubble wrap the world. Shit happens. Sometimes it will be messy and ugly.
- whamlastxmas 8y ago
  Bubble wrapping has a lot of value. There's nothing I can to stop accidental airplane crashes. It's not healthy for for many people to be surrounded by negativity and violence. It serves no purpose other than making me feel bad
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Not reporting also limits backlash when preventable things happen. I don't see running a graphic picture to be substantially different than reporting the details on that guy the Sauidis sawed up. One man's bubble wrap is another man's sweeping things under the rug.
  - craftyguy 8y ago

danso 8y ago

I imagine they do it as the only way to convey the human loss, without actually showing human body parts.

randyrand 8y ago
You can also use pictures of the victims from when they were alive.
- danso 8y ago
  They don't have that info the day of a plane crash -- it requires the airline to release the list of victims, and then the families to release any photos on request, which is what you sometimes see several days later when a news org takes the time to collect the photos and stories. But that doesn't happen with all mass casualty incidents. Not just because it's resource-intensive, but because the news cycle moves so fast. We've just learned the names/ages of the 11 killed in the Pittsburgh shooting. How many people remember any of the names of the people who died 3 weeks ago in what was the U.S. worst transportation accident in a decade? Same-day and day-after coverage is typically when most people are most focused on any given tragedy, and images are often what stays in people's memories. A photo of disaster workers picking up pieces of metal doesn't convey much of the human tragedy at all.