CNN airs Michael Jackson autopsy photo
- Thread starter nighttimer
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
I have a few ignorant questions... What kind of context was provided for the image? Were they necessary to understanding some sort of accusation against Murray that words were at a loss for? I'm genuinely curious.
But, yeah. What the heck is the FCC doing? You can't broadcast images of genitalia, but you can broadcast images of an even more intimate nature... someone's intestines.
But, yeah. What the heck is the FCC doing? You can't broadcast images of genitalia, but you can broadcast images of an even more intimate nature... someone's intestines.
A dead body has always been ok. It's just anything that could be even remotely viewed as sexual that causes the corruption of minors. Oh and cursing as well. So those are the things we need to be protected from. Obviously.
I disagree. Go back and see if you can find any footage of smoking corpses and smashed bodies from those who jumped from the World Trade Center towers. You won't find it.
There's plenty of footage available all over the Internet of dead bodies everywhere. It wouldn't take but a Google search with the settings turned off to find it. It's just that you don't usually find once-respected news channels plumbing those kind of National Enquirer depths.
CNN wouldn't show autopsy pictures of Caylee Anthony. Or maybe they would. It's hard to tell where the line gets drawn if it prompts a bump in the ratings.
I think we must have different cultural taboos. What has CNN done that is so bad?
If it's a news program and the news is about someone who has died or the inquiry into a death - then surely photos of the death are expected?
What is so bad about it?
In the 2005 Tsunami - CNN showed footage of dead bodies.
In the 2008 Myanmar Cyclone - CNN showed footage of dead bodies.
Is there a feeling that anonymous dead bodies of strangers are more acceptable than the body of someone known to the audience?
On a similar issue I've noticed that it is acceptable to show dead bodies of animals cut up in shops, but it is often considered poor taste to show the dead animal before it is cut apart.
They are genuine questions - I'm curious at what is considered acceptable in other cultures.
Mac
(PS: One of many references to previous dead bodies on CNN: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/cnn-gets-graphic-in-myanm_n_101395.html)
If it's a news program and the news is about someone who has died or the inquiry into a death - then surely photos of the death are expected?
What is so bad about it?
In the 2005 Tsunami - CNN showed footage of dead bodies.
In the 2008 Myanmar Cyclone - CNN showed footage of dead bodies.
Is there a feeling that anonymous dead bodies of strangers are more acceptable than the body of someone known to the audience?
On a similar issue I've noticed that it is acceptable to show dead bodies of animals cut up in shops, but it is often considered poor taste to show the dead animal before it is cut apart.
They are genuine questions - I'm curious at what is considered acceptable in other cultures.
Mac
(PS: One of many references to previous dead bodies on CNN: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/12/cnn-gets-graphic-in-myanm_n_101395.html)
Last edited:
Shaka Zulu aired nekid people when it was shown on TV, but they were black so it didn't count.
They never explained why
They never explained why
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,057
- Reaction score
- 574
- Location
- The Swamplands
- Website
- www.galehaut.com
In the US, I've never heard of it being okay to show an actual dead body identified as a specific person that's been split down the middle with the skull cracked open and the brain sitting on the autopsy table.
USAmericans are fairly desensitized to gruesome violence as long as it's fake. This is far from fake.
I also want to know what was so important about showing the photo. What could the doctor have done that would show up in an autopsy photo? He wasn't beaten to death.
OTOH, the footage of Haiti really brought the situation home to me. I've never seen so many dead bodies live on TV. It really did move me more than not seeing the situation. And it was still judicious use of the images, nothing like what you'd see if you were there.
OTOH, the footage of Haiti really brought the situation home to me. I've never seen so many dead bodies live on TV. It really did move me more than not seeing the situation. And it was still judicious use of the images, nothing like what you'd see if you were there.
Personally, I wonder what kind of person actually wants to see the autopsy pictures. Who are CNN catering to here?
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- 1,139
- Age
- 56
In my most recent murder case, the victim did have her skull bashed in by her killer. As many of you know, 48 Hours will be airing a show about the case and, to their credit, they never asked for the autopsy photos, which were in the official (and public) record of the trial.
Just wanted to let you know that some news shows do have standards related to decency and relevancy (to the story). Heartening.
Just wanted to let you know that some news shows do have standards related to decency and relevancy (to the story). Heartening.
If the photo was newsworthy, then fine. I've seen Kennedy autopsy photos on TV, as well as the up-close and slow-mo Zapruder film on TV. Has the public benefited from seeing Jackson's autopsy photo? I don't see how. I don't like seeing the Kennedy stuff on TV, but it can be argued that it's history of global importance and therefore relevant.
Back in the 80s (IIRC) a woman was murdered on camera in a Florida cemetery. She and a reporter were walking, the victim's ex-husband ran up and shot her on camera. NBC aired the footage, and the issue was that the murder was not of national importance; jealous husbands shoot ex-wives all the time. The fact that it was caught on camera was the only thing that made it unique. Years later, ABC's Nightline ran a panel discussion of what is news and what isn't, and showed the clip twice. Tom Brokaw gave Ted Kopel a nice, smug smile as he pointed out the irony.
Back in the 80s (IIRC) a woman was murdered on camera in a Florida cemetery. She and a reporter were walking, the victim's ex-husband ran up and shot her on camera. NBC aired the footage, and the issue was that the murder was not of national importance; jealous husbands shoot ex-wives all the time. The fact that it was caught on camera was the only thing that made it unique. Years later, ABC's Nightline ran a panel discussion of what is news and what isn't, and showed the clip twice. Tom Brokaw gave Ted Kopel a nice, smug smile as he pointed out the irony.
Let me revise my earlier remark, Shadow Dragon. Apparently, CNN did superimpose a black bar to cover the deceased King of Pop's genitalia.
How tasteful. CNN thought of the children.
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 6,341
- Reaction score
- 2,261
- Location
- Somewhere in the recesses of my mind
- Website
- www.jeanmariewiesen.com
I'm happy CNN thought of the children. Why couldn't they have considered the rest of us.Let me revise my earlier remark, Shadow Dragon. Apparently, CNN did superimpose a black bar to cover the deceased King of Pop's genitalia.
How tasteful. CNN thought of the children.
Is there any point in showing Jackson's body to the entire world.
Of course not. Outside of sensationalism.
This is one more reason that I don't watch CNN. It's getting more and more difficult to locate a real news station these days. One has to flip channels, read many outlets and disseminate for themselves. Then, discuss w/ friends to share opinions.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2005
- Messages
- 18,984
- Reaction score
- 6,937
- Location
- At some altitude
- Website
- www.jamie-mason.com
It's sad for me to imagine how horrified Michael Jackson would be by the exhibit. By all accounts, he was extremely particular to the point of neurosis about how he looked.
I can't see how it's newsworthy. It's a voracious curiosity about celebrity that really doesn't need a second helping of its never-ending supper.
I can't see how it's newsworthy. It's a voracious curiosity about celebrity that really doesn't need a second helping of its never-ending supper.
Aside from all the other reasons why it's bad, it is bad because they specifically said they would not do it, because they "have some standards" and then they did it.
It reminds me of the time FOX said they weren't going to show the video of the Virginia Tech killer, and then did. If you admit you shouldn't do something before you do it, it makes it worse.
they could have saved the money it took to redact the genitalia by simply clasping his hand over them, in death as he did in life.
I'm so glad I didn't see CNN when they decided to show MJ's autopsy photos.
I'm sorry, the comparison of MJ's autopsy to Kennedy's assasination is flawed on so many levels.
The DOJ is always supposed to error on the side of the victim and the victim's family.
Likewise, the Media in my humble opinion has a duty and moral obligation to be sensitive to the victim and the victim's family.
Can you make an argument for releasing the photos? Sure.
But will that argument outweigh the argument for consideration of the victim and the victim's family? In my opinion, and in this circumstance-- No. Not even close, not by a million miles...
Mel...
I'm sorry, the comparison of MJ's autopsy to Kennedy's assasination is flawed on so many levels.
The DOJ is always supposed to error on the side of the victim and the victim's family.
Likewise, the Media in my humble opinion has a duty and moral obligation to be sensitive to the victim and the victim's family.
Can you make an argument for releasing the photos? Sure.
But will that argument outweigh the argument for consideration of the victim and the victim's family? In my opinion, and in this circumstance-- No. Not even close, not by a million miles...
Mel...