Post Number: 66
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:14 am: || |
I have been watching the events that have unfolded since yesterday in Virginia and am totally horrified at what I've seen. The senseless murders of all of the students and teachers at Virginia Tech has terrified me, and saddened me.
I also have been watching news coverage and the picture on the front page of this mornings Free Press has been shown many times on all stations. However, the one distinction between television coverage and the Free Press is that television has been blurring out a portion of the picture and the Free Press didn't. This poor young man was injured and is being carried out by police and emergency personnel...getting him to safety. The Free Press chose to publish the picture, exposing this young man and what looks like his genitals totally to the public. Hopefully he was not one of the dead, but I am horrified that this exposure will be his legacy from now on. Why expose this young man on the front page of the newspaper? What was the Free Press thinking? Did anyone edit the picture or even look at it for that matter? I think not!
Post Number: 342
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:25 am: || |
Post Number: 382
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:35 am: || |
I am purposely staying away from all news. It's so horrible and the news coverage is, to me, the most senseless part.
Who needs to see pictures? It's disgusting.
Post Number: 68
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:45 am: || |
I understand why you say that, but I picked up my paper this morning off my front porch, got my coffee and opened it up and there it was. I hope I am wrong at what I see, but even someone at the Free Press told me this morning that "yes, it does look like what you say" and they wondered the same thing...why publish an unedited photo of a poor victim.
Post Number: 411
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:46 am: || |
I think you're right. See for yourself....
Post Number: 806
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:51 am: || |
The Detroit News has also published the picture online. I would be surprised if that dangling "item" is what Buyamerican thinks it is.
Post Number: 383
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:54 am: || |
OMG, I know Buy american. It's like there you are having a fine morning and, bam, just like that you are assaulted with a picture that you would never in your life CHOOSE to look at.
The people at the papers just HAVE to know that they are doing that to people.
I wasn't saying that you WANTED to look at that at all. I hope noone else thinks that's what I meant. It's hard to put your voice inflections and facial expressions on the computer, you know?
I'm sure while I'm channel surfing today or tomorrow I will come across some disturbing sight. Makes me mad.
You just can't close your eyes or plug your ears and hum to yourself fast enough these days.
Here's a question: If I ran a newspaper and had a picture like that, would I choose to print it?
I would hope I wouldn't, but I don't know because I've never been in charge of something like that. Does it take a calloused person to print a picture like that? Do you become jaded at some point as a newspaper person?
I guess so.
Post Number: 69
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:56 am: || |
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that. I am ashamed of the Free Press for doing this and hope that they apologize to its' readers AND to the person in the picture.
Post Number: 384
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 9:58 am: || |
I just re-read my post above and I hope no one thinks I'm yelling the words HAVE and WANTED they should be italicized (sp), but I don't know how to do that, so it isn't that I'm yelling, which is what I think capitalizing words means.
(seriously worried about being taken wrong here )
Post Number: 344
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:07 am: || |
Here is an article that may provide some insight on newspaper policies and choices in events such as this. It is about another newspaper covering a violent shooting. It is worth the read.
Two quotes from the article:
"We did think about the impact such a picture might have on the family and friends of the victim," Hawpe said. "And we also thought about the need to confront readers in our community with the full consequences of gun violence."
"Widow of James Wible, wrote: "I would want people to remember that my husband died violently - senselessly - and I don't want anyone to forget it."
Post Number: 323
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:11 am: || |
If you look at the higher res pics online, that's not his penis if that's what everyone here is thinking it is. It looks like a tourniquet, but could also be a piece of dressing for his wound, maybe a piece of ripped clothing.
Post Number: 314
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:26 am: || |
Please censor my news and paint a pretty picture for me. I want to be lied to. I do not want to believe reality. Is that what you are saying?
Please don't sensationalize the news for me or turn into a tabloid. Just give me the facts as they are, with depth and truth and unbiased.
The fact is that people should not have died.
Post Number: 489
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:32 am: || |
There's been some issues lately with photoshopping of newspaper photos - some photographer for a newspaper in ohio i think it was just lost his job over it, and his alterations seemed relatively minor, but 'journalistic integrity' won out. Given that, I am not surprised the picture is not edited.
However, that does not excuse the freep from their decision to post this particular picture on the front page, even if that 'item' is not what it appears to be. Another, similar picture (sans genitals) could have been used to show the aftermath, without exposing this victim in such a way.
If it wasn't for the genitals, i would have no problem with the picture. If you have a problem with photographs of those killed through senseless violence, blame those should lie with those who perpetrated the crime, not those who reported it. If you have enough energy to complain about the papers printing it, redirect that energy towards some organization that works to prevent such things. By blasting the papers for printing it, you sound like you're upset that didn't have any warning to stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'LALALALALA' so you could ignore the world around you when something happens you don't like.
Post Number: 1559
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:47 am: || |
Yeah, that is not his penis people.
Post Number: 323
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:54 am: || |
I'm not sure what's more warped, that people are imagining a penis where none is actually shown, or that they think newspapers should sugarcoat something like this.
Compared to the massive head wounds and pools of blood that could have been shown to truly illustrate the magnitude of this, the picture chosen is rather mild.
Post Number: 683
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 10:57 am: || |
If that's his penis, he's got two. One on top and one on the bottom.
Post Number: 1521
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:01 am: || |
A newspaper is a business, a business that will make more money if it prints violent or bizarre or possibly sexual photos. A rumor that there is a penis on the front page of the Free Press will sell more papers. As many as if there really was such a photo.
Post Number: 796
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:07 am: || |
It was the same picture on the front of the Charlotte Observer down here (issued by the AP). The picture is not bad or good it just is what it is: showing a candid photo of a horrific scene.
Post Number: 51
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:09 am: || |
I think that is part of the ligature.
Post Number: 324
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:11 am: || |
If that were the case, that it is all business trying to sell gore, there are dozens of far more gory pictures of this incident out there, including nauseating crime scene photos that the media has access to but has not printed. If your theory were correct there would be photos of victims with gunshot wounds to the head lying in a pool of brains and blood, rather than what is a relatively tepid photo.
Also, I don't think the Freep is relying on a handful of weirdos with bad eyesight on some forum to create a buzz about a purported penis in order to sell a handful more newspapers.
(Message edited by hockey_player on April 17, 2007)
Post Number: 823
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:21 am: || |
Are you kidding me, people?!? Seriously... This is such a horrific scene and all you can focus on is that the guys PENIS may be showing?!?
I mean, seriously? Get off your GD high horse and deal with the fact that we are humans and we all have those parts and if it happens to be in the newspaper photo or in the Super Bowl, Who gives a flying fuck?
Americans are so uptight about the human body and sex, it is unbelievable. You people have made my point by ignoring the Horror of what has happened and focusing on a possible idea that this guy who has been shot, MAY have his penis showing. Unfucking believable. It is more acceptable to show a bloody dead person, but, OH NO! NOT boobs or a PENIS!!!! We're all going to burn in hell! That's dirty!!!
just unFUCKing believable......
Post Number: 3350
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:34 am: || |
How many people are dead? ....and somebody's focused on speculation over a possible dangling body part in a photograph?
Try this paper...no possible penises here:
Post Number: 3
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:37 am: || |
yes that thing on the top is his penis. the bottom thing hanging looks like a ripped piece of clothing, but the top is definetly his penis. some of the news stations on tv are blurring it out, while others are still showing it. i just cant belive that no editors have noticed that yet. i must have seen that pic on the news a hundred times yesterday.
Post Number: 70
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 11:51 am: || |
Uptight isn't the word for it. Ashamed that the Free Press didn't have enough respect for the victim to edit the photograph. Some of you who have replied to my post don't seem to understand why I posted it. I don't care about the Free Press selling papers or a photographer making a huge amount of money selling this photograph...I am concerned with the victim in this picture (and am concerned about all the victims). His privacy should have been respected and the picture should have been edited...not sugercoated as suggested.
There was no question that many people are dead because of this nut, but I will never concede that the Free Press had a right to publish this picture of this poor man.
Post Number: 345
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:10 pm: || |
Of course they have the right to show it. Free Press!!!
Post Number: 1522
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:14 pm: || |
I agree with you, Buy. All I'm saying is the newspaper business is not interested in dignity or restraint. They are a business and they don't care what you think.
This site isn't the only one talking about this photo.
Post Number: 71
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:15 pm: || |
Out of decency they should have respected this victim and either edited the picture or picked another one for the front page.
Post Number: 143
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:25 pm: || |
If the widow had a problem with it then I could understand outrage for the privacy of the victim but read the widow's quote from above. These kind of photos need to be shown. We are so out of whack as a society that a blurred white lump could cause such an outrage, when 33 people have just died.
For those outraged i would suggest not going to the Science Center anytime soon, and to avoid the DIA. There could be possible penis sightings.
Post Number: 4
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:38 pm: || |
well, last time i checked, its against fcc rules to show a penis on tv, whether or not its related to a massacre. and i would hope the free press would have the decency not to show a picture like that, especially when the student in the picture has yet to be identified.
Post Number: 347
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:42 pm: || |
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable"
(Message edited by stecks77 on April 17, 2007)
Post Number: 1523
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:44 pm: || |
Again, Buyamerican, you are talking about respect and a major corporation. They only understand sell papers.
Post Number: 5
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 12:48 pm: || |
like i said, its against fcc rules to show a penis on TV. i know the fcc doesnt regulate newspapers. but like i said, i just seems a little wrong to put a picutre of a student that is bleeding and has his penis hanging out on the front page.
Post Number: 174
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:13 pm: || |
I really don't see a penis in the photo, but even if it is, why the HELL are we focused on that? Like it's goddam important whether it's his penis or not. What's important is whether this guy survived his wounds or not. And how this asshole Cho got his hands on a gun in the first place.
(Message edited by harpernottingham on April 17, 2007)
Post Number: 211
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:24 pm: || |
Thats not his penis. Its some kind of belt or something. How did Cho get ahold of a gun? Come on Harpernottingham. Its soooo easy to get a gun its not funny! I bet if you tried, you could have one in an hour. But guys thats not his penis. Terrible terrible situation though!
Post Number: 4141
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:35 pm: || |
I agree this picture was awful and in poor taste, penis or no penis. But this is the land of free speech, so we should all just look away when something offensive is posted... right?
Too bad they didn't post any of the internet Al Qaida beheadings here like they do in European papers. Now that would really give you folks something to snipe at each other about... after all isn't that what it's all about keeping it real, and not sugar coating it?? OR??
(Message edited by Gistok on April 17, 2007)
Post Number: 1808
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:38 pm: || |
32 young brilliant people gunned down and you want to argue about a pecker.
Give me a break.
Post Number: 828
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 1:47 pm: || |
I have no problems with the image. It show the events as they happened, horrific, bloody.
If you happen to find the image in poor taste don't look at it.
Post Number: 5026
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 2:24 pm: || |
I don't think this has anything to do with good or poor taste. It's reality and it's shockingly scary to behold. We need to be disturbed by that image and find a way as a society to insure that events like this never occur again. People need this as a point of reference to discuss. We should all be horrified. I'd worry more if we weren't.
Post Number: 72
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 2:46 pm: || |
Give me a break. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, FOX all have blurred this picture. It's not the penis that is the main concern on this photo folks...it's the man's privacy and respect for him and his family. The Free Press does not show photos of auto accident victims, or suicides, or people with maimed limbs...why plaster this picture on the front page? It's a matter of respect, not freedom of information, not free press; it's decency for a family who may be mourning this person.
This is my opinion, some agree, some don't.
(Message edited by Buyamerican on April 17, 2007)
Post Number: 42
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 3:19 pm: || |
I think TV's blurring it because of the possibility that it might be. Everyone I've talked to says they think it's just a piece of ripped clothing or part of a tourniquet. It really isn't that clear.
Regardless, I think the fact that it was printed in so many papers indicates that nobody was thinking "WOW, let's print a dirty photo to sell more papers and piss off the guy's family!!!!" Gimme a break. There are so many other considerations, I'd bet nobody looked twice at that part of the photo until Drew & Mike started snickering about it this morning.
Post Number: 1928
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 3:36 pm: || |
Has anyone seen this issue being discussed in the freep forums? I tried to look for it but I'm not very familiar with their setup.
I'm curious whether they'll apologize or even mention it at all in tomorrow's paper.
Post Number: 24
|Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 4:09 pm: || |
It's not a penis!!!!!!!
Post Number: 22
|Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 7:27 am: || |
Here is an article from the Hartford Courant newspaper with reader reaction to "the picture".
You can get a better look at the picture by clicking on the second photo down.
According to their photo editor, it's a belt.
Post Number: 39
|Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 8:16 am: || |
What's hanging DOWN is a belt...but I believe that the genitalia shows on the top. I agree that there are bigger issues here, but still...there was no need to choose this particular photo when I'm sure there there others that would have had the same impact.
Post Number: 75
|Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 8:39 am: || |
It's a matter of decency and respect for this students privacy and respect for the family of this young man. I saw the picture again today, on GMA, and someone obviously cloned in some grass to delete the genitals. Since they wanted to use this particular photo, that should have been done BEFORE publishing the picture in the paper. So much for the "privacy" act that everyone has to sign before even speaking to a physician! The shooter has more privacy and "rights" than the victims, take my word for it. A professor couldn't contact Cho's family regarding his weird behavior because of Cho's rights...he had to be notified and asked permission before any family contact is made. Too bad the victims here don't have the same rights.
Post Number: 217
|Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:20 am: || |
Sometimes a photo captures the horror of a situation.
The photo of Kim Phuc (the girl running away from a napalm attack during the Vietnam War) comes to mind.
Post Number: 928
|Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 12:27 pm: || |
If that's his penis, he's hung like a horse.
Sorry, not a penis.
Post Number: 4150
|Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 10:44 pm: || |
Ro_resident, I remember that black/white photo of the naked young Vietnamese girl screaming in horror running towards the camera. Didn't that one win a Pulitzer Prize?
Also, penis or no penis.... the young man is alive and recovering, even though he was shot 3 times. He saved his own life by putting a tourniquet around his own leg, and stopping himself from bleeding to death.
So he is not among the dead, and is on his way to recovery, thank God.
Tasteful or not, I think some of you are going to look pretty silly if this picture at some point wins a Pulitzer Prize in the near future.
Post Number: 3364
|Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 12:11 am: || |
A picture of naked little girl in the paper?
That sure wouldn't happen today,(print media has lost a good bit of its' testicles, and TV never had any) and the only way that was possible at the time was that the subject was non-white. (Think about the old National Geographic Photos of topless women..)
That picture referenced showed the insanity of US Policy (dropping flaming toxic chemicals on places where people lived) and the horrors of war. For damn good reason it won a Pulitzer.
For my money, if some of my family members were slaughtered by a random stranger, I'd want the photos published...This kind of madness happens regularly in our country; you'd expect such actions only in a country at war, and politely stepping around the bloodstains, calling the incident an isolated tragedy, and pretending that this won't happen again next week or next month is getting old.