I see dead people. On the news. And it sucks.

[tangentgirl]

I feel like showing pictures of dead bodies on TV or on the Internet is really disrespectful and disturbing. At the very least, online, there should be a warning before you click about graphic images, and only people who actually want to see something like that would see it.

Two recent events come to mind: Muammar Gaddafi and Michael Jackson. I have thought I was clicking over to news stories - today just from Google News to CBS' site - and bam, pictures of corpses.

I get that we have a free press, and I totally get that we want to see proof of certain deaths, like Gaddafi or Osama Bin Laden, but it just seems like the media, especially supposedly respectable outlets like CBS, could find a way to handle these images with more dignity and warning.

All in all, I think that, as human beings, we should not desensitize ourselves to images of death, especially graphic and violent images, but these pictures, shown again and again, do just that.

Is anyone else bothered by this? Is it me or is it more prevalent these days?

[Biciclista]

I think we are actually so sheltered from dead bodies these days that it is a shock to see them.
During the Vietnam War, we saw atrocities in living color in our living room every day, thanks to a much more unrestrained news media of that time. People like me turned off their tv's... You could even see these photos in the Weekly news magazines .. full color..
all i can tell you is.. turn off the TV.

[PamNY]

I agree with Mimi -- though I don't watch television much these days, there was very graphic coverage (both television and still photography) during the Vietnam war era.

If you look at the history of war photography, you will find some very graphic images from a long time ago.

Coverage of events like 9/11 was very restrained, I thought (and probably appropriately so).

I would suggest avoiding television news for the most part.

[TsPoet]

Is there a difference between one and many?
Lets see if I can explain what I mean - when I see photos of Holocaust victims, I still have to keep myself from being physically ill and stop myself from crying. When i see Qaddafi - I find that morbidly curious.
Then again, I find Qaddafi morbidly curious even when he was alive. I am not appalled by his dead body (I actually haven't seen it, I've only heard talk in the hall at work about his death).
I think a photo of his body - who care's?
photos of human atrocities on large scales - maybe that's sort of a good thing, to drive it home?
But, I asked a random guy at work, and he said when he sees piles of dead people, they are no longer people to him. whereas Qaddafi is identifiable as an individual, so more upsetting to him.
I know, I just rambled...

[PamNY]

Is there a difference between one and many?

That's a very interesting question.

A second question I would raise is whether there is a difference in still photography and video.

[Pax]

I remember watching CNN very late at night back when it was a relatively new station. I was watching live footage of a hostage situation and they showed the bad guy walking out of the store with a shotgun to the head of the hostage, a moment later you could see the bad guys head explode as he fell to the ground. A police sniper had gotten a clear shot and took it.

I remember feeling stunned, I had just seen another human being die. As a former medic I'd seen many many dead people, but only watched a few die and at those times I was working feverishly to prevent that outcome. It was surreal.

[Vanilla]

It's all very well telling people to turn the tv off if you don't want to see it but I was confronted with the face of Gaddafi yesterday on the BBC homepage when I opened it to check the local news and weather. I was not impressed and did complain to the BBC about it.

[shootingstar]

We are sheltered. Those images do have to be accompanied with contextual appropriate information. Otherwise it's just images.

As a child and teen, how I even understand the atrocities of Auschwitz if I didn't at least see a few photos? Or even what happened with bombing of Hiroshima.

I also remember as a child occasionally seeing dead bodies on tV during Vietnam War.

I don't agree with the established press doing anything that means constantly flashing images like that every hr. or even several times per day.

Am I traumatized? No, but became more sensitized at that time as child that it truly motivated me to read more about some of the "crap" during WW II to understand...and hope it is never repeated again.

It does become problematic with digital cameras, social media dissemination of images. So that facet is problematic.

[OakLeaf]

I don't think it's anything new. It's just a demonstration of an ugly side of humanity.

Historically, executions (whether legal or extralegal) were social events. True or false, I remember being taught in middle school history class that picnickers set up camp to watch the first Battle of Bull Run.

People subjected to industrialized medicine are indeed insulated from death, to all of our detriment, but I don't think those are the same forces at work when a political assassination is sensationalized on TV. IMVHO, the deaths that are ignored by the TV are at least as important as the ones that are replayed over and over to the tune of "Buckwheat Has Been Shot."

[Velocivixen]

So is it the images of the actual corpses or do you feel that the media is being insensitive by sensationalizing someone's killing?
I worked in nursing homes with the elderly and people often died. I often went to say "goodbye" to someone if I had heard that they just passed away and the funeral home had not arrived yet. It's natural to die.
I find that the way the media treats it is disrespectful and sensationalizes it for their ratings. That's what I find offensive. Not the actual images of dead bodies.

[Crankin]

It doesn't bother me. It's part of life. I agree it's sensationalized at times, but, war is war, people get shot, and there's an unbelievable amount of violence in the world. Not acknowledging it is like sticking your head in the sand. You can turn the TV or computer off, of course, but it reminds me of a friend I had years ago. She never watched the news because "it was depressing." Well, OK, but if you are not informed, how can you help the world change?
I don't know. Maybe having a son in the military has hardened me. And, I'm a news junkie and I could never not watch.

[OakLeaf]

Maybe it's just me, but in my head there's a world of difference between an image of a corpse vs. a video of someone getting his throat cut, complete with spurting blood...

Still, I agree it's tough. It's the act that should outrage us, not the broadcast of the act.

[PamNY]

I'm really bothered by random people taking photos of bodies. Twice I've seen bodies recovered from the river. While they were on the dock waiting for the medical examiner, a lot of passersby took pictures. The bodies were covered, but still. It seemed rude to photograph them.

I was also bothered by people taking photos of the World Trade Center site while the body recovery was still going on. I was quite vocal about that, too. I'm sure many tourists decided I was a crazy lady.

Granted, any given photo probably contained nothing disturbing, but the idea of people doing that seemed awful to me.

In both of these cases, legitimate news photography wouldn't have been disturbing. Perhaps I'm illogical, or maybe old-fashioned. It's a different world when most phones have a camera, and everyone is a photographer.

[shootingstar]

Truly, Pam I agree that it should be only the police, coroner (medical examiner) and accredited journalists who are allowed to take the photos.

It's bad enough the sensationalism is among the press.

Worse when it's bystanders who just want to get attention for their pics of a horrific tragedy among their friends/whatever.

What is most disturbing is how high technology in war is used to target for bombing and shooting. People at the controls in ...a room. They never see who they kill. That's pretty sick. Therefore one does not face the tragedy in front of their face.

yea, so what if the killers get traumatized? Isn't that what war is about in terms of the after-effects, among other things?

[Pax]

Truly, Pam I agree that it should be only the police, coroner (medical examiner) and accredited journalists who are allowed to take the photos.

It's bad enough the sensationalism is among the press.

Worse when it's bystanders who just want to get attention for their pics of a horrific tragedy among their friends/whatever.

What is most disturbing is how high technology in war is used to target for bombing and shooting. People at the controls in ...a room. They never see who they kill. That's pretty sick. Therefore one does not face the tragedy in front of their face.

yea, so what if the killers get traumatized? Isn't that what war is about in terms of the after-effects, among other things?

Seriously? A young person is called by their country (whatever country) to serve, they answer the call, and their trauma elicits a "so what" from you? Unbelievable!

You can disagree with war all day long, but don't degrade those who serve. It sucks so much to be pulled away from everything that matters to you in life, to be put in a position to do the unthinkable, and then have to live with the aftermath. If you want to toss off a blase "so what" save it for the idiots in power/authority who send kids to take care of their business.