4 ms·

I thought the Guardian might decide not to show a photo of a corpse of someone probably with living friends and close relatives. Nope, they do it too, like the

by neilv 3mo ago

I thought the Guardian might decide not to show a photo of a corpse of someone probably with living friends and close relatives. Nope, they do it too, like the Daily Mail, but with a big yellow GUI control to reveal it, like a weird macabre vintage "multimedia". > Use the slider below to show a picture of the body of the climber known as Green Boots where it lies on Mount Everest. Some readers may find the image distressing Just because the photo has been shown before doesn't mean it needs to be shown now, especially now that it's been identified, in in this context.

Dylan16807 3mo ago
> Nope, they do it too, like the Daily Mail, but with a big yellow GUI control to reveal it, like a weird macabre vintage "multimedia". What a weird description. You make the content warning sound like it's a bad thing. Slider versus button hardly matters. > I thought the Guardian might decide not to show a photo of a corpse of someone probably with living friends and close relatives. You can't see anything but his clothes and this happened decades ago. A hidden by default photo isn't going to hurt those people. Maybe we could argue the article and attention itself could be distressing and shouldn't exist, but I think the news value wins out there.
epihelix 3mo ago
If poor Green Boots was staring up at the camera, empty eye sockets and all, I'd understand this. But there is nothing distressing in the image; the out-of-focus fuzziness makes the photo seem if anything substantially more macabre than it actually is. Given Green Boots' fame, it was interesting to see what the actual scene climbers experience was. So I think the inclusion of the photo was justified, in these unusual circumstances.
bambax 3mo ago
I don't understand why we should not show photos of dead people, esp. famous ones like is the case here? And his face isn't even visible? What's the harm?

by neilv 3mo ago

Dylan16807 3mo ago

> Nope, they do it too, like the Daily Mail, but with a big yellow GUI control to reveal it, like a weird macabre vintage "multimedia". What a weird description. You make the content warning sound like it's a bad thing. Slider versus button hardly matters. > I thought the Guardian might decide not to show a photo of a corpse of someone probably with living friends and close relatives. You can't see anything but his clothes and this happened decades ago. A hidden by default photo isn't going to hurt those people. Maybe we could argue the article and attention itself could be distressing and shouldn't exist, but I think the news value wins out there.

epihelix 3mo ago

If poor Green Boots was staring up at the camera, empty eye sockets and all, I'd understand this. But there is nothing distressing in the image; the out-of-focus fuzziness makes the photo seem if anything substantially more macabre than it actually is. Given Green Boots' fame, it was interesting to see what the actual scene climbers experience was. So I think the inclusion of the photo was justified, in these unusual circumstances.

bambax 3mo ago

I don't understand why we should not show photos of dead people, esp. famous ones like is the case here? And his face isn't even visible? What's the harm?