Death In the Browser Tab 96
theodp writes: "There you are watching another death on video," writes the NY Times' Teju Cole. "In the course of ordinary life — at lunch or in bed, in a car or in the park — you are suddenly plunged into someone else's crisis, someone else's horror. It arrives, absurdly, in the midst of banal things. That is how, late one afternoon in April, I watched Walter Scott die. The footage of his death, taken by a passer-by, had just been published online on the front page of The New York Times. I watched it, sitting at my desk in Brooklyn, and was stunned by it." Cole continues, "For most of human history, to see someone die, you had to be there. Depictions of death, if there were any, came later, at a certain remove of time and space." Disturbing as they may be (Cole notes he couldn't bear to watch the ISIS beheading videos), such images may ultimately change things for the better. Is it better to publish them than sweep them under the carpet?
More eyes make bugs shallow... (Score:2)
I would apply the old open-source aphorism to this as well. It may take time for the wheels of justice to move in your favor, but at least there is still a reasonable expectation of movement in that area.
Re: (Score:2)
It may take time for the wheels of justice to move in your favor,
Yes, but is that meatspace time, Internet time, or Web 2.0 time? Or maybe even crowdsourced time?
Re:More eyes make bugs shallow... (Score:4, Funny)
I for one (Score:1)
Don't want to see them and I will actively avoid them.
Re: (Score:1)
To answer that, I can think of no good reason to keep such videos hidden, so I support publishing them. Yes, there is the argument that it helps the cause of assholes, I mean terrorists, but I feel that it would hurt whatever their cause may be more than it would help it.
News Agencies Responsible for Murder and Terrorism (Score:5, Informative)
By showing their propaganda videos, it means said publisher is condoning the acts displayed,
No it doesn't. The act of making such videos accessible to others, and approving of the actions within the video, are two entirely different, wholly separate things. You can make the video available without approving of the contents.
But by making it available you take some responsibility for the consequences of the reporting.
A bunch of reporters were kidnapped in the middle east around the Iraq conflict until it stopped being news and became less common. Then soldiers were kidnapped (IIRC in the lead-up to the Israel-Lebanon war) and the Press made a big deal about it, so they started kidnapping more soldiers. The Press shares some responsibility for the increase in soldier kidnappings. Not as much as the people who kidnapped the soldiers, but still some, because *without the press they would not have been kidnapped.*
The same thing is true for school shootings after Columbine.
And the same thing is true for 9/11. Right after the 1993 WTC car bombing, the news media began explaining of course the towers didn't come down *because they were designed to withstand the impact of an airplane.* Osama Bin Laden followed western news about his attacks; this suggested to him the idea of flying planes into the towers. Without media coverage and publicizing the fact that the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a plane, we probably would not have had hijacked planes flown into the twin towers.
News is important; coverage of important issues matters. But coverage of *single events*, when done without regard to the consequences, can cost a lot of lives.
Re: (Score:2)
And there we have the problem. Who gets to decide what is an important issue?
Single event vs. series of events might be a good first wave cut. Also, at least in the US and probably in many other places, journalism is one of the few professions that has ethical training and standards. What I'm suggesting is that when reporting on a single event, reporters and their publishers should be much more careful about the *consequences* of their reporting.
I'm not suggesting we have a board of censorship or anything like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Bin Laden was intent on committing an act of terrorism. Had he not hit the WTC, he would have hit something else. The root cause here was that Bin Laden was a terrorist.
No, you're focusing on one part of a much bigger picture and saying that it was the problem. "Root cause" is a phrase that doesn't mean very much. It's pretty ambiguous when you're dealing with a lot of moving pieces.
If the Afghani royal family had been better able to steer the economy of their country in a positive direction and less interested in hollywood decades ago... if the Taliban hadn't been so anti-western... if the soviets hadn't invaded Afghanistan... if the CIA hadn't armed the mujahadeen... i
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists are looking for reaction. We can fairly assume that they are going to tune their actions toward public exposure in any case. If reporters did not choose to report on any terrorist actions, they would simply find the next best thing. Perhaps spending more time working terror at the local level or moving toward bigger and more harmful actions in an attempt to gain a response.
While on the one hand you may be exciting evil doers who's actions were taken to prompt this kind of notoriety, you may al
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's a difficult balance, and one that I think journalists should be looking at more closely. Putting a moratorium on certain types of news might help, even a brief one--you know the rush to sensationalize. Or maybe when you have an event that kills more than ten people, you require a review of coverage by a specialist on the lookout for that kind of problem. Obviously not a government person, but a psychologist who can say "we should probably play this down a little so it doesn't provoke more terr
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna go with a big fat bullshit.
The evildoers are the ones responsible, not those who report on it.
Negligence can cause death as easily as deliberate murder.
Re:I for one (Score:5, Insightful)
If sticking your head in the sand is what you want to do, then by all means. Doesn't mean that bad shit doesn't happen though, and if you're a citizen of a country whose military goes off and does these things, you have a right and a responsibility to know what's being done in your name.
Actually what's worse than remaining ignorant is responding to imagery of dead people with outrage for the people who presented you with the information. In a normal world, with a public that has its collective head screwed on straight, the reaction to the July 12, 2007 Baghdad air strike would have been disgust in the military, not disgust with the person who brought the atrocity to light. But no, Chelsea Manning took the fall for it instead.
Re: (Score:3)
I can want to know about what's happening without needing to watch it.
Hearing "White cop kills yet another unarmed black man" is enough; I don't need to revel in the spectacle of death.
(Totally agree with your second paragraph, though).
NO, it is not enough! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hearing 'White cop kills yet another unarmed black man' is enough."
Absolutely not. Cops have been killing unarmed black men for a long, long time. It is only now, when video is frequently available and the media has decided to pursue the matter, that we see a national awakening to the problem. It is hard for most Americans to imagine what it's like to be a young black man living under the control of a brutal police force. We all want to believe that the police are there to protect and serve. It is only when we can see the evil with our own eyes that it becomes real and becomes intolerable.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying that "these videos shouldn't be available" - I'm saying that I, personally, don't want to watch these (which is what the thread is about).
I agree that recording the police has been an invaluable tool to wake this country up and expose injustice.
Re: (Score:2)
This is similar to the "I don't want to see what I eat slaughtered" argument.
That it happens often is not a reason to not watch it.
Not wanting to watch something does not mean that it is not happening.
And yes, I'm a hypocrite. I really hate killing animals, and wish that I didn't have to.
Note : that last statement was about our roosters we had to kill. I've not got a compulsion to kill animals.
Re: I for one (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People should be desensitized to violence. That will make them to make a conscious moral choice of not applying violence (or applying when necessary), not just avoiding violence because they are nauseated at the sight of blood.
Re: (Score:2)
Empathy is important.
Um... (Score:2)
Empathy is important.
Oh, quite, but given that I've gotten stuck with comforting somebody who watched a classmate bleed to death because nobody was sufficiently desensitized to provide first aid, I'll go with the policy of mass desensitization, basic first aid training for all, and free-to-at-cost first responder training for anybody who wants it.
Empathy may be important, but it needs to be properly calibrated so you can do something useful to help instead of freezing up, unable to render aid--which may include the proper appli
Re: (Score:2)
Don't want to see them and I will actively avoid them.
Too bad! I want you to see them, so you'll be aresed to pull your head out of the sand and do something about it.
Running man (Score:2, Insightful)
Anything that brings clicks and the mighty ad money. Fuck people.
Am I doing this right?
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree entirely.
We've been systematically exposed to murder, rape, fraud, theft, and every other crime imaginable since the day we were born. Tom and Jerry, Wile E Coyote, etc. used to "kill" each other with mallets, dynamite, whatever was to hand. Games have gone from pixels touching to realistic 3D representations of killing prostitutes while the in-game characters whine about how they got in their way, "bitch".
And yet STILL, roughly the same percentage of people ever commit those kinds of crimes.
Re:Reality desensitizes. See enough, you go nuts. (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, in some countries, crime figures are going DOWN per person, not up.
Actually, crime is going down in most countries. Reduced crime is correlated with rising literacy, and economic growth, but is most strongly correlated with banning leaded gasoline. There is little evidence that links crime rates to prevalence of violence on TV or in video games, although there is some evidence that video games reduce crime by keeping young men off the street during their prime crime years (age 15-24).
Virtual sex and violence (Score:2)
"There is little evidence that links crime rates to prevalence of violence on TV or in video games, although there is some evidence that video games reduce crime by keeping young men off the street during their prime crime years (age 15-24)."
A corollary to this is that widespread pornography is responsible for the decline in the developed world's population because of the increasing numbers of young men who would rather watch it than do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to remember a study showing that pornography reduced sexual assaults and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime is going down in just about _all_ western countries. The leaded gasoline correlation does not apply in recent years.
No comparison (Score:5, Interesting)
Other than the fact that they are both depicting the end of a human life, I don't think there's any comparison between airing beheadings done by terrorists and a US citizen being shot in the back by a police officer.
Airing the former on the world stage only aids the terrorists' cause, the latter allows us to see something we SHOULD see, which is how police in this country comport themselves when they think no one is looking.
Re: (Score:1)
Airing the former on the world stage only aids the terrorists' cause, the latter allows us to see something we SHOULD see, which is how police in this country comport themselves when they think no one is looking.
(1) The ISIS videos don't actually show the beheadings, only the before and after. It is kind of weird actually. They might have shown the Jordanian pilot burning alive, I didn't watch it.
(2) The civilized world needs to see ISIS for what it is too. The death of the Jordanian pilot galvanized anti-ISIS sentiment within Jordan and the result was Jordan finally committing to fight ISIS. Sure it also galvanized a small core of ISIS supporters within Jordan, but they were already on that path anyhow because
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. Who are the "should see" police? Especially with less stark examples.
Re: (Score:3)
Look, I understand what you're trying to say. If they're trying to hide their atrocities we should expose them, if they're using them as propaganda and to terrorize we should suppress them. But as a guideline that would be very confusing and hard to live by since it assumes you know the details of every conflict and who wants what, assuming they're all in agreement which they're probably not. Not to mention the answer is probably (d) all of the above, some are inspired to fight against the atrocities, some
Re: (Score:2)
Airing the former on the world stage only aids the terrorists' cause
I'm not sure where this "repeating propaganda only serves to reinforce it" meme has come from, but it's dumb. Reading Mien Kampf can and does serve a purpose other than creating more Nazis. There are many different arguments for the execution videos to be shown, but I think that they are most important as an illustration of ISIS's attitude towards human life, psychological warfare and financing--do not forget, these people were beheaded because a ransom was not paid. Other countries caved in and paid a lar
Re: (Score:1)
How does it help IS?
By bringing fear of death?
So that's what my politicans and media is busy with? Being afraid and hence naive and ignorant lying bastards?
I just though they was politically correct and stuck with the stupid invasion they have brought upon us. With no laws and ruling over the invaders.
Re: (Score:2)
I know (or hope) you meant well, but what does it matter if the person shot in the back is a US citizen or an illegal immigrant?
A police officer shooting a person running away in the back is an act of police brutality regardless of the country of citizenship of said person.
When you make this about a police officer shooting a US citizen, you are (hopefully inadvertently) denying the brutality that is committed against non-US citizens by the same police, for the same absurd reasons.
Does it matter if the behea
Death is immanent, if not imminent (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand, in pre-modern eras (as well, sadly, for much of the 3rd-4th-world today) death was everywhere.
Most people lived/worked on farms, where animals were killed more or less in front of you, for you to eat that night, or later. Every family lost children, with medieval death rates for 2 yr olds reaching 50%, mostly to drowning. The slightest injury could easily (and more or less quickly) be lethal through infection, while waves of typhus and other communicable diseases were almost a constant fear.
I think what the author meant to say is that our little niche of modernity when we were safe from most random environmental deaths, yet insulated and never actually confronted by death, may have ended.
Re: (Score:3)
well (Score:2)
Well... if the police stopped murdering people in cold blood as a routine part of their job, we wouldn't have much video to air would we? The fact that there are people that still defend what the police do baffles me.
The cops that put 137 rounds into the car of 2 unarmed men that they pulled over because their car supposedly backfired... just got acquitted. How the hell does that work? How many in the local naighborhood were in mortal danger because of their actions? It's insane that any of those officers s
Re: (Score:2)
Not accurate at all.
The prosecutor decided that the 137 shots fired by the officers in the dozens of patrol cars involved in the chase were perfectly legal. What the prosecutor didn't think was reasonable was the officer who jumped up on the hood of the car, after the 137 shots had been fired, and unloaded another 15 rounds into the two unarmed people in the car.
I agree with the prosecutor that what that officer did was unreasonable. But I disagree with the previous 137 shots being reasonable, at least give
Re: (Score:2)
Not accurate at all.
The prosecutor decided that the 137 shots fired by the officers in the dozens of patrol cars involved in the chase were perfectly legal. What the prosecutor didn't think was reasonable was the officer who jumped up on the hood of the car, after the 137 shots had been fired, and unloaded another 15 rounds into the two unarmed people in the car.
I agree with the prosecutor that what that officer did was unreasonable. But I disagree with the previous 137 shots being reasonable, at least given what information I've read so far.
As somebody who has heard both cars backfiring and gunfire*, and heard tales of people with PTSD from war zones (including gang wars) responding to a car backfiring as if it was gunfire, I think it was a reasonable mistake**--especially since the easiest way to tell them apart is to be able to hear the engine's sounds of agony, not bloody likely to happen under such circumstances.
This is only part of why, if you're stopping for cops, you turn you damn car off. And take decent care of your engine if you're
Re: (Score:2)
People have been defending this sort of behavior by law enforcement for decades to centuries.
I spent some time watching trials and it was apparent that when questioned, officers under oath routinely lie and contradicted themselves until finding an answer that the judge will accept. Somehow ans
Re: (Score:1)
It goes back to medieval wood cuts. Torture and death have always been recorded.
Viewing meat through plastic wrap (Score:1)
Viewing these incidents through you favorite gadget while sitting in your safe, comfortable environment almost completely insulates you from the grusome/violent realities of the situation. IMO, the visceral details of these acts are not being portrayed to the viewer when he/she consumes the information. Kinda like when you buy meat in the grocery store.
Or worse (Score:1)
People see so many they aren't affected emotionally any more.
Roman Colosseum anyone?
I think the sheer amount of movie violence made me desensitised enough to foolishly watch a beheading video, which I walked away from wondering what gets into peoples heads, besides the obvious bullshit of religion.
The Scott video was just another day in the life of a significant portion of our population, that in its self is tragic.
You think this is new to you? (Score:2)
I have a book that's falling apart at the seams from the 1960s, called "our friend the satellite", about electronic communications that wonders the same thing as it shows a picture of a man dying live on TV.
Perverse (Score:2)
Wanting to watch people die is perverse.
What is worse, watching a person being raped or watching a person being killed? Both wrong, both perverse.
Re: (Score:2)
What bollocks. We are evolved enough to avoid danger, we don't need to see people being killed.
Normal people don't want to watch people being killed, it sickens them.
Don't want to, sometimes need to (Score:2)
First, like a bolt of lighting I felt the full weight of human suffering involved and I mused deeply about how depraved someone would have to be in order to inflict this atrocit
Re: (Score:2)
I think it encourages snuff films for causes. (Score:2)
It does not sweep horrid acts under the carpet; it encourages their production.
My main concern is that someone will see that as their ticket to fame and start making the videos for public distribution. This has happened already, all I needed to see was one film on goofball.com 15 years ago where a soldier's throat was cut on film in Chechnya. Their cause gets views and exposure, and that is not a Good Thing.
Yes, yes, freedom of the press, I support it, but the media are also supposed to exercise some amou
Re: I think it encourages snuff films for causes. (Score:2)
Not like produced porn, but haven't you been watching Isis beheadings? Does filmed death not count as snuff?
Human Nature (Score:2)
I agree (Score:1)
I think it would be a good idea... (Score:2)
if it became a societal norm that you didn't surprise people with these things. That is you have to actively do something or maybe two things to view this. I have no problem with gore and death but now when I'm eating lunch.
How about a two click rule?
Roger Waters -- (Score:1)
We were watching TV
In Tiananmen Square
Lost my baby there
My yellow rose
In her bloodstained clothes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw1Dxo_YE24
Death used to be common and familiar (Score:1)
It's only been recent generations that haven't seen death up-close-and-personal. Used to be you had relatives and neighbors die premature deaths ALL THE TIME. If anyone things seeing these videos is "violating" it says more about how artificially and pathologically disconnected from death our society has become. Death is normal and all of us will die (if you believe Singularity will prevent that, you are an idiot and ignorant of both computer technology and human neuroscience - Singularity is just anoth
It's pretty easy for me... (Score:2)
There's a fundamental difference...
ISIS wants to spread the videos to show how badass they are, and to plant fear into people. We shouldn't distribute it, because then we are doing what they want. You can easily report on this without spreading the actual footage.
A rogue cop killing an innocent wants to hide his crime, and should be exposed. This can also be easily reported on without showing footage, but the footage painfully shows how much the cops don't give a fuck about anybody's life.
So the first shoul