Olympic tragedy: death video on the news???

Hugh Freaking Dillon

FiveB247x wrote:

I don't think there's a difference at all. You say it's disrespectful to the family, yet you assume this is how they feel, because it's how you would feel/think... not the same thing.

yes, that is correct. I base this assumption on how most people I know would feel. Would you want your son dying to be shown on TV?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Fact is that person chose to put his life at risk on national television. If it was my family member I would know the risk involved and expect it to be shown knowing the news media's tendencies. Would you feel the same way about a bull rider, or a base jumper or Dale Earnhardts death being played over and over? I've heard people across the bored say the idiot shouldn't have been on that bull or going that fast in a car. The video wasn't that bad anyway I've seen much worse injuries in football and other tv shows. Matter of fact I've seen more sickening injuries on a show on MTV which targets kids.

that's idiotic. you are basically saying the guy deserved it based on his profession. So let's show the world how stupid he really is. No family member would EVER think "well, if my son dies, I know it will be on TV". Who the fuck thinks "I hope my son doesn't die". They're thinking "I hope he wins gold".

Yes, I absolutely would feel the same about anyone, bull rider, race car driver, etc. A death should not be shown on TV repeatedly. Keep in mind, his was a practice run. It wasn't on live in the first place. But that's neither here nor there.

How can an injury be more sickening than a death? :?

So if someone happens to catch you being mowed down by a bus on a video camera, that you deserved for it to be on youtube for your family and the world to see because you decided to cross the street?

WOW.

I never said he deserved it. I more or less said you shouldn’t be shocked when you put yourself in risky situations. Likewise you can’t expect the media to not show it, its good news footage to them. Fox didn’t show it out of respect and they are the ones always under fire from most people. What happened there? TV depicts people slowly killing themselves every time someone lights up a cigarette, kids see that every day knowing that it kills people every second. Life involves death, we shouldn’t censor things that are natural. Besides it wasn’t that gruesome, pull your skirt up Nancy.

stop being so goddamn immature. I was disturbed by what I saw, now it disturbs me even more how laxidaisical you are about it.

you said he deserved his death to be shown on TV because he put himself in that position. that's bullshit. You didn't answer my question (as per your usual MO). Was it appropriate for it to be shown during early primetime hours to children would be exposed to it? Do you encourage your children to watch violent R rated movies so they can see "real life"? I recommend you sit down with your kid and watch 24.

Nice parenting.

FiveB247x

If something positive would come from it or it would prevent an accident or similar problem from occurring again, then yes please do show it. Isn't this basically the reason many families of fallen soldiers speak out against war, or families of drug, alcohol, etc... you focus on the sight, yet ignore the impact or positive results which could be significant based on what you presume others should do, want or think. In this example (luge accident), it may not be 100%, but in terms of the larger cause/effect in society it could/would change things. Like I've said previously, it's all in order to protect people from having emotions which are natural and therefore stunt reaction and adjustment.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

yes, that is correct. I base this assumption on how most people I know would feel. Would you want your son dying to be shown on TV?

EddieLedBetter

Johnny Sitar wrote:

stop being so goddamn immature. I was disturbed by what I saw, now it disturbs me even more how laxidaisical you are about it.

you said he deserved his death to be shown on TV because he put himself in that position. that's bullshit. You didn't answer my question (as per your usual MO). Was it appropriate for it to be shown during early primetime hours to children would be exposed to it? Do you encourage your children to watch violent R rated movies so they can see "real life"? I recommend you sit down with your kid and watch 24.

Nice parenting.

I read back to find where I said "he deserved it" and couldn’t find it, only you saying it several times. I'm very mature and capable of witnessing and seeing someone die. After all who's getting their panties in a wad here?

My MO doesn’t involve answering ignorant questions but I'll humor you. Your "how would it make me feel" question for my family to have to watch me die on TV I'd have to say I don’t know nor do I think that I would care because I would be dead. I’d be no longer capable of caring or feeling in this world. I couldn’t tell you how it would make me feel because I've never died. Everything happens for a reason with the way I see it. Now that I think about it, it might be kind of cool to be able to know what exactly was going through a loved ones mind when they were about to die. Think of the impact that could make on ones choice on viewing life and death.

Kids are human too. They will be exposed to everything adults are exposed to. My kid seeing this in a bowling ally would look to me like a really great opportunity to discuss life and death with my child on the world's terms. You and I view death differently judging from the other threads. To me its a beautiful thing. So if "Life is what you make it" makes sense then i wonder if the same applies to eternity.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

FiveB247x wrote:

If something positive would come from it or it would prevent an accident or similar problem from occurring again, then yes please do show it. Isn't this basically the reason many families of fallen soldiers speak out against war, or families of drug, alcohol, etc... you focus on the sight, yet ignore the impact or positive results which could be significant based on what you presume others should do, want or think. In this example (luge accident), it may not be 100%, but in terms of the larger cause/effect in society it could/would change things. Like I've said previously, it's all in order to protect people from having emotions which are natural and therefore stunt reaction and adjustment.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

yes, that is correct. I base this assumption on how most people I know would feel. Would you want your son dying to be shown on TV?

They would be taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again regardless if it was shown on the news or not.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Fact is that person chose to put his life at risk on national television.

here's where you said it.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EddieLedBetter wrote:

After all who's getting their panties in a wad here?
My MO doesn’t involve answering ignorant questions but I'll humor you. Your "how would it make me feel" question for my family to have to watch me die on TV I'd have to say I don’t know nor do I think that I would care because I would be dead. I’d be no longer capable of caring or feeling in this world. I couldn’t tell you how it would make me feel because I've never died. .

Obviously, like the other thread you started, you are here for no other reason than to flame and start shit. I have legitimate questions and you respond with this tripe. I'm not getting my "panties in a knot", I'm getting annoyed at your inability for a decent discussion.

Grow up.

FiveB247x

Ok let's magnify this thought process for a moment.

How many people die from drunk driving in a given year in our nation? A fairly large number.

Does this fact alter people from drinking less? No.
Does this fact alter people from drinking and driving less? No.
Does it get discussed in the media but the effects are pretty much not shown in a graphic manner to protect people's eyes and emotions? Yes.
Does this alter people's behavior or enable it's continued poor behavior? Enable.

So what good or help does protecting people's eyes and emotions to this behavior? None.

What possible good or help could be done if we did show more graphic cause/effect to people? Could make people think twice or be more informed on the issue. Could cut down on the amount of drunken driving and accidents. Could make people more responsible.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

They would be taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again regardless if it was shown on the news or not.

g under p

FiveB247x wrote:

Ok let's magnify this thought process for a moment.

How many people die from drunk driving in a given year in our nation? A fairly large number.

Does this fact alter people from drinking less? No.
Does this fact alter people from drinking and driving less? No.
Does it get discussed in the media but the effects are pretty much not shown in a graphic manner to protect people's eyes and emotions? Yes.
Does this alter people's behavior or enable it's continued poor behavior? Enable.

So what good or help does protecting people's eyes and emotions to this behavior? None.

What possible good or help could be done if we did show more graphic cause/effect to people? Could make people think twice or be more informed on the issue. Could cut down on the amount of drunken driving and accidents. Could make people more responsible.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

They would be taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again regardless if it was shown on the news or not.

It worked for me back in the day when drivers education was mandatory in high school. They showed graphic car crashes of teenagers and adults that had driven drunk. Also placed a wrecked car out front of the school of someone who had driven it while drinking. It made me think twice at those teenage years about drinking and driving. I once turned down a ride with friends who were at a party drinking, walked home instead. Only to find out the next day they had crashed and received multiple broken bones and injuries. No one was killed but that could've been me in that car.

So showing those graphic images in the case of a teenager and driving/drinking I believe will make a difference and consequently saving lives.

Peace

FiveB247x

Thank you (for agreeing I guess..hehe).

Anyways, I feel the same way bout most things in our society, whether big (like drunk driving) or small (like rare luge accident). Inform in an uncensored manner and the results will pay off.

g under p wrote:

It worked for me back in the day when drivers education was mandatory in high school. They showed graphic car crashes of teenagers and adults that had driven drunk. Also placed a wrecked car out front of the school of someone who had driven it while drinking. It made me think twice at those teenage years about drinking and driving. I once turned down a ride with friends who were at a party drinking, walked home instead. Only to find out the next day they had crashed and received multiple broken bones and injuries. No one was killed but that could've been me in that car.

So showing those graphic images in the case of a teenager and driving/drinking I believe will make a difference and consequently saving lives.

Peace

JD Sal

g under p wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Ok let's magnify this thought process for a moment.

How many people die from drunk driving in a given year in our nation? A fairly large number.

Does this fact alter people from drinking less? No.
Does this fact alter people from drinking and driving less? No.
Does it get discussed in the media but the effects are pretty much not shown in a graphic manner to protect people's eyes and emotions? Yes.
Does this alter people's behavior or enable it's continued poor behavior? Enable.

So what good or help does protecting people's eyes and emotions to this behavior? None.

What possible good or help could be done if we did show more graphic cause/effect to people? Could make people think twice or be more informed on the issue. Could cut down on the amount of drunken driving and accidents. Could make people more responsible.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

They would be taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again regardless if it was shown on the news or not.

It worked for me back in the day when drivers education was mandatory in high school. They showed graphic car crashes of teenagers and adults that had driven drunk. Also placed a wrecked car out front of the school of someone who had driven it while drinking. It made me think twice at those teenage years about drinking and driving. I once turned down a ride with friends who were at a party drinking, walked home instead. Only to find out the next day they had crashed and received multiple broken bones and injuries. No one was killed but that could've been me in that car.

So showing those graphic images in the case of a teenager and driving/drinking I believe will make a difference and consequently saving lives.

Peace

Ok, so something positive can stem from showing graphic images of drunk driving accidents, but what good will come from showing the luge death on TV? People who were thinking of taking up luge might now think twice? I don't see the relevance to this specific tragic event and how the drunk driving example applies to it.

norm

JD Sal wrote:

Ok, so something positive can stem from showing graphic images of drunk driving accidents, but what good will come from showing the luge death on TV? People who were thinking of taking up luge might now think twice? I don't see the revelance to this specific tragic event and how the drunk driving example applies to it.

it doesn't


it amazes me how people are defending nbc for showing this accident repeatedly for nothing more than ratings and money and somehow connect it to drunk driving and public interest...some people here should must be working for politicians...really good 'spinners' here

FiveB247x

I think whether large or small, these issues or occurrences are reflections of society and we can change for the better as a result.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

norm wrote:

JD Sal wrote:

Ok, so something positive can stem from showing graphic images of drunk driving accidents, but what good will come from showing the luge death on TV? People who were thinking of taking up luge might now think twice? I don't see the revelance to this specific tragic event and how the drunk driving example applies to it.

it doesn't


it amazes me how people are defending nbc for showing this accident repeatedly for nothing more than ratings and money and somehow connect it to drunk driving and public interest...some people here should must be working for politicians...really good 'spinners' here

thank you.....finally a couple sensible people joined the discussion.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

FiveB247x wrote:

I think whether large or small, these issues or occurrences are reflections of society and we can change for the better as a result.

so, then, in your opinion, should the luge and any other sport that might accidentally cause death should cease to exist. guess what? that would be ALL OF THEM.

good call.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

FiveB247x wrote:

Ok let's magnify this thought process for a moment.

How many people die from drunk driving in a given year in our nation? A fairly large number.

Does this fact alter people from drinking less? No.
Does this fact alter people from drinking and driving less? No.
Does it get discussed in the media but the effects are pretty much not shown in a graphic manner to protect people's eyes and emotions? Yes.
Does this alter people's behavior or enable it's continued poor behavior? Enable.

So what good or help does protecting people's eyes and emotions to this behavior? None.

What possible good or help could be done if we did show more graphic cause/effect to people? Could make people think twice or be more informed on the issue. Could cut down on the amount of drunken driving and accidents. Could make people more responsible.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

They would be taking steps to make sure this doesn't happen again regardless if it was shown on the news or not.

and how could you possibly quantify your "facts" with actual figures? there are too many variables, so it's impossible to know either way.

But again, to me it just comes down to what's tasteful. Not "protection" or being a "wuss" or whatever you people have called me. I'm pretty sure I can teach my kid about death just fine without the evening news doing it for me in graphic video.

With your "let's not sheild our kids from reality" take, then let's show porn on tv, let's show priests molesting kids in action, let's show dogs getting run over so we don't have to tell them the lie about their dog going to the farm, etc. Hey, it's all happening out there, it's all "natural" as ELB said it (his phrasing means that "natural" is anything that happens causing harm-I'm not sure how else someone flying out of a luge track is natural), so let's put it all out there and let our kids deal with it in their puny brains.

Hogwash.

FiveB247x

I never said you were a wuss, I basically said we're shielding people for unnecessary reasons which in the long term have effects.

In terms of what a child does or doesn't see should be up to the parent. The society should not be responsible for censoring reality or things we'd prefer not to see or hear about. In media's and entertainment, there's a very simple answer - change the dial or parent your child. We are a society that doesn't want to do this, because we're too busy, or don't want to bother with the necessary effort. So instead, we have become a society so obsessed with what children do, see, feel and think, that our children don't actually know the world around them and when the time comes where they enter that world or it doesn't go the way they were taught, it has adverse effects on them and in culture.

Also, and this leads me to another point - why is our society so wrapped up in the minute details of instantaneous accidents and trauma's yet something long term we ignore? To me it says a lot about the nature of our society and how we deem things appropriate or not.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

and how could you possibly quantify your "facts" with actual figures? there are too many variables, so it's impossible to know either way.

But again, to me it just comes down to what's tasteful. Not "protection" or being a "wuss" or whatever you people have called me. I'm pretty sure I can teach my kid about death just fine without the evening news doing it for me in graphic video.

With your "let's not sheild our kids from reality" take, then let's show porn on tv, let's show priests molesting kids in action, let's show dogs getting run over so we don't have to tell them the lie about their dog going to the farm, etc. Hey, it's all happening out there, it's all "natural" as ELB said it (his phrasing means that "natural" is anything that happens causing harm-I'm not sure how else someone flying out of a luge track is natural), so let's put it all out there and let our kids deal with it in their puny brains.

Hogwash.

g under p

JD Sal wrote:

g under p wrote:

It worked for me back in the day when drivers education was mandatory in high school. They showed graphic car crashes of teenagers and adults that had driven drunk. Also placed a wrecked car out front of the school of someone who had driven it while drinking. It made me think twice at those teenage years about drinking and driving. I once turned down a ride with friends who were at a party drinking, walked home instead. Only to find out the next day they had crashed and received multiple broken bones and injuries. No one was killed but that could've been me in that car.

So showing those graphic images in the case of a teenager and driving/drinking I believe will make a difference and consequently saving lives.

Peace

Ok, so something positive can stem from showing graphic images of drunk driving accidents, but what good will come from showing the luge death on TV? People who were thinking of taking up luge might now think twice? I don't see the relevance to this specific tragic event and how the drunk driving example applies to it.

Please don't get me wrong the luge thing is whole other story. I still haven't seen the crash nor do I want to and I feel there's no need for that to be shown on NBC or national tv. If someone wants to see it I'm sure they can catch it somewhere on the internet. I was just speaking to the nature of drinking and driving, oh did I go off topic?

Peace

Hugh Freaking Dillon

FiveB247x wrote:

I never said you were a wuss, I basically said we're shielding people for unnecessary reasons which in the long term have effects.

In terms of what a child does or doesn't see should be up to the parent. The society should not be responsible for censoring reality or things we'd prefer not to see or hear about. In media's and entertainment, there's a very simple answer - change the dial or parent your child. We are a society that doesn't want to do this, because we're too busy, or don't want to bother with the necessary effort. So instead, we have become a society so obsessed with what children do, see, feel and think, that our children don't actually know the world around them and when the time comes where they enter that world or it doesn't go the way they were taught, it has adverse effects on them and in culture.

Also, and this leads me to another point - why is our society so wrapped up in the minute details of instantaneous accidents and trauma's yet something long term we ignore? To me it says a lot about the nature of our society and how we deem things appropriate or not.

no, YOU didn't.

I couldn't agree more with your point about parenting and things should be left up to the parent. But I still feel this was unnecessary to show on national tv. The kids seeing it in the bowling alley (not the parents' fault) was only one small point. The main point I was trying to make is that it does nothing for the story. You don't NEED to show the death of the man in order to make the story true or factual. There is no societal burden on the media, in this instance, for them to show "the truth". This is not a social awareness issue. If you say it is, what is the underlying message the media should be conveying here? DON'T GO INTO SPORTS KIDS-SPORTS KILL YOU!! I'm pretty sure the American government has already done enough to kill sports in your nation at a young age, they don't need to put it on the TV. But that is another issue.

The point is, it is in poor taste to put a man's demise on TV. I don't care if some think it's fine, I don't care if you think we're "shielding" society by not showing it. It's disrespectul of the dead to do such a thing.

End of story.

FiveB247x

Yeah, in a culture that focus's on the raising of fame only to tear it down, let's all shed a tear for the one minute example of accident in an extreme incident. Not gonna happen from me. Call me insensitive, call me uncaring, I really don't care. No one is innocent, no one is a victim. Cause and effect - that's it. We're all responsible for what goes on in our society - there's no innocent bystanders. We're all born guilty. So whether it's a luger or a drive-by shooting - it's our society and what we do or do not do which causes these things. To me there's not much to say of "poor taste", that's merely a reflection of us all. So wag the finger at some tv company for showing the death of a luger, and I'll show you nonstop tv which promotes the use of drugs, alcohol, violence and similar. But let's all just weep or wag the finger as we pick and choose what's poor taste, responsible or acceptable to us all. It's a complete atrocity and sham. If you don't want to see it, live in a vacuum, cause that's the only place you'll receive it.

Johnny Sitar wrote:

no, YOU didn't.

I couldn't agree more with your point about parenting and things should be left up to the parent. But I still feel this was unnecessary to show on national tv. The kids seeing it in the bowling alley (not the parents' fault) was only one small point. The main point I was trying to make is that it does nothing for the story. You don't NEED to show the death of the man in order to make the story true or factual. There is no societal burden on the media, in this instance, for them to show "the truth". This is not a social awareness issue. If you say it is, what is the underlying message the media should be conveying here? DON'T GO INTO SPORTS KIDS-SPORTS KILL YOU!! I'm pretty sure the American government has already done enough to kill sports in your nation at a young age, they don't need to put it on the TV. But that is another issue.

The point is, it is in poor taste to put a man's demise on TV. I don't care if some think it's fine, I don't care if you think we're "shielding" society by not showing it. It's disrespectul of the dead to do such a thing.

End of story.