Graphic words
Many listeners are concerned about the graphic content of some our radio reports. This is an example of editing on the grounds of taste. The original report came from our correspondent in Baghdad, and dealt with a video that showed the mutilated bodies of American servicemen. The soldiers had apparently been killed in retaliation for the death of an Iraqi girl.
The first paragraph of the original report included this phrase: "The camera lingers over the bodies of two American soldiers. Their torsos are terribly mutilated, one is headless, the head is swung in front of the camera. Now and then a foot appears to prod a lifeless corpse."
This was cut as I thought it was too strong for a teatime audience (although it is only fair to say not everyone here agreed). And this is what was broadcast: "The camera lingers over the bodies of two American soldiers. Their torsos are terribly mutilated; one is headless."
My own view was that conveyed a sufficiently powerful image.
Tim Bailey is editor of the Radio 4 Six O'Clock News
Comments
If community initiatives to catch terrorists-in-process are to succeed, NIMBYs and 'I dont do politics' morons should be made to see these images. War and terrorism are not picnics with flower hats and flowing dresses. A sanitised view of the world is not what adults should expect. By now they should know better.
If people are worried about kids being exposed to this, then may be 91Èȱ¬ could consider a kids' news programme (NewsRound does it, does it not?). Kids who watch any other 91Èȱ¬ bulletins either find Newsround too immature (in which case, they are 'competent' to choose), or are violating parental diktat (in which case, see the bodies and see how the real world is, now dont go crying to mummy...)
Should people be hidden from the realities of news? If wars are being fought in our name, we should be aware of the consequences. Equally, if we're being attacked by terrorists, we should be able to see the impact. We should be able to edit news ourselves - mentally...
Of course there's a risk of desensitising people to violence, but if people were honestly aware of how things actually were more might be done about the ultime ideal - "world peace"...
I think you've now convinced me that many 91Èȱ¬ editors are unable to see the wood for the trees. On the day you post this contribution (and on several previously) a major (nuclear) military power, with total backing of the world's single super power, including it's most sophisticated weapons, is, with apparently total certainty of impunity, blasting vital civilian resources, and plain civilians (including children) in an almost defenceless neighboring country with which it has not declared war. This in addition to doing the same in other areas effectively under it's own control after occupation in war. Geneva conventions created with great difficulty and providing the public's sole protection against repetition of the terrors of past wars, over thousands of years, are simply being ignored. And the 91Èȱ¬'s much lauded news programmes provide not the slightest hint even that there are supposed to be protections against such crimes, never mind that they are being utterly ignored. Isn't that frightening on a somewhat larger scale than a verbal description of some corpses? It certainly is to me.
When laws on that scale are just treated as never existing, with impunity, what help is there for any of us?
Every country that ratifies those conventions is supposed to ensure that it's population knows about them. It rather seems like not only does the British public not know about them, but the journalists who should be informing them about them, and using knowledge of them to inform their own questions, reports and opinions, don't know about them either. Or if they do they keep it all very quiet.
These treaties, conventions, agreements, are the creation of civilisation to protect all of us against barbarity. They are some of the greatest works of humankind for peace. When the 91Èȱ¬ adopted the motto "nation shall speak peace unto nation" it was information about such works, and fostering respect for them, that was meant, in part. What happened to that?
Jenny, you clearly are ignorant of the facts regarding the Middle East conflict. You've been reading too much 91Èȱ¬, Guardian and Daily Mirror.
I wonder how "name" got their posting, doing nothing but trying to denigrate me, past the 91Èȱ¬'s moderators? If this site isn't moderated more thoroughly than this it will rapidly decline into a mess like so many others. That isn't the intention, surely?