# Death pornography



## DDT

No, this thread is not meant to be about sex. I heard this expression a couple of months ago while talking about the public hanging of Saddam Hussein. A friend talked of "death pornography" in order to express her vision of an event whose meaning goes far beyond a simple mediatic mass phenomenon.
This time it's the turn of Doaa Khalil Aswad, a poor teenager whose sin was to be fallen in love with a boy belonging to another ethnic group. Once again we can sit and watch the video of a murder...my question is: what's next? After being offered (and swallowing) thousands (or more) of films satisfying every appetite for violence & co., are we going to seek for something "real" because it adds a sort of non fictional thrill? Basically I try not to judge, yet I find it hard not to be affected by the way the things are going. I wonder about the possible consequences of the trivialization of war, death, violence...
I am not against the possibility of finding the most different kinds of videos in the web, but I don't have a taste for seeing people die.
I know that in the past public executions were a normal thing and so on...we didn't have any idea of human rights either...
So my question is: what do you think about the way society "welcomes"/accepts this kind of mediatic trivalization? and what about its possible consequences?

DDT


----------



## audia

It is repulsive and sad. I am not a prude but I believe that the development of human civilization is too precious to return to such barbarism just so that someone(perhaps) can make a profit from showing it.
People who watch that stuff need to get in touch with (their) humanity and get a (more interesting and fulfilling) life!


----------



## PocketWatch

audia- I agree completely.


----------



## LouisaB

And I.

'Snuff movies' have been around for years, but what is frightening about this latest development is that the videos are accessible to 'ordinary people', and somehow gaining a kind of terrible respectability. Even British newspapers now show pictures of such executions, which a few years ago would have been unthinkable. It's impossible to escape a sense of salaciousness about the whole thing - and I believe your friend's description of it as 'pornography' is absolutely right.

A few years ago, a TV programme called 'The Human Body' explored human development from birth to death, and actually showed (for the first time on British television) a man die. I have no problem with this. It was done with enormous sensitivity, and with the full consent of the man and his family, who allowed the team to follow them all through the illness to the man's last moments. It served to demystify death, and actually take some of the fear out of it. It gave the man dignity. But the difference between that and the kind of thing we can see now (if we choose) is exactly like that between sex education and pornography. 

In some ways, it's worse than the barbarity of public executions of the past. There was at least something open and honest about that. This is peep-show degradation, and I find it quite intolerable.

Louisa


----------



## Etcetera

I agree with Audia and Louisa. 
Let alone that such videos can be seen by kids.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

DDT said:


> I know that in the past public executions were a normal thing and so on...we didn't have any idea of human rights either...
> So my question is: what do you think about the way society "welcomes"/accepts this kind of mediatic trivalization? and what about its possible consequences?
> 
> DDT



It's a chicken-and-egg question, isn't it?  Did those public executions dished up as entertainment reflect or create a violent culture?  Is it the same with these videos?

Inflicting pain and degredation, be it on a human or an animal, diminishes the torturer.  Feeding on that suffering for viewing entertainment may well diminish the viewer even more than the torturer.


----------



## The Scrivener

Some people are filled with morbid curiosity, which is beyond my comprehension.  I suspect this was the reason for watching public executions.

When there is a motorway pile up, here in the UK, cars travelling in the opposite direction will stop so that the drivers can have a good look at the horrific scene.  Likewise, if someone gets seriously injured by being knocked down by a vehicle, a large crowd will gather round to gawp.

No doubt, with the ability to snap the scenes with their mobile phones, some 'sickos' will post the pictures on the internet.

It is all very alarming.  The internet is a wonderful tool but to use it for showing scenes of death and horror is disgusting.


----------



## Etcetera

The Scrivener said:


> No doubt, with the ability to snap the scenes with their mobile phones, some 'sickos' will post the pictures on the internet.


That's really disgusting. 
I can understand a person's hastening to to a site of a car accident only if they're a doctor or just have some medical knowledge, so they maybe able to help the injured.
But stand here and simply look at the injured person, let alone photographing it? It deserves short-time imprisonment, if you ask me!


----------



## papillon

Sorry DDT for quoting you somewhat out of context , but this was the point I wanted to address.


DDT said:


> ... but I don't have a taste for seeing people die.



Well, those people probably didn't have a taste for dying... But dye they did. In many parts of the world death is an everyday occurrence. 

So I think this topic isn't as simple as it may appear. Death is not something we want to see, say, on our evening news. But what about the people who face the death and the dying evey single day, be it poverty or war?

Maybe, just maybe, if people are allowed to see what the reality is, grim as it may be, death included, perhaps they would act/live/vote differently.


----------



## alexacohen

I don't know.
I remember, several years ago, the awful video of a dying little girl during the Rwanda genocide. 
The girl might have been two or three years old, and she was walking and falling on the road, alone, crying. She was famished, she was nude, she was followed by vultures that knew she would soon die. She fell on the floor one last time, crouched and died. 
(I read in the papers the child had died. I couldn't watch the entire video).
What kind of human being can watch and film the agony of a toddler and think just only in the Photography Award he is going to win and how many newspapers are going to buy his awful piece of sadistic porn?
Maybe one who is so used to suffering and death, that the suffering and death of a child don't mean anything anymore. Just a good shot.
We have a saying: If you save a life, you save mankind.
I don't like sadistic onlookers.
Alexa


----------



## Etcetera

alexacohen said:


> What kind of human being can watch and film the agony of a toddler and think just only in the Photography Award he is going to win and how many newspapers are going to buy his awful piece of sadistic porn?
> Maybe one who is so used to suffering and death, that the suffering and death of a child don't mean anything anymore. Just a good shot.
> We have a saying: If you save a life, you save mankind.
> I don't like sadistic onlookers.


Nor do I. 
I can't understand how that man could follow the child with his camera, why didn't he help her?! She might have survived if he helped her...


----------



## Terry Morti

I think there is a valid reason for the BBC and 'good' broadcasters showing the Saddam execution (if not the actual 'drop') - partly to prove that (given the allegations of loss of control of the proceedings) it was indeed Iraqis who carried out the sentence. Although it was a 'pirate' video that was braodcast, it did provide an opportunity for the world to bear witness. It is conceivable that it would be doubted by those with an interest to promote a rumour that he still lived. Which is presumably why the bodies of his sons were shown on all major networks.


----------



## Qcumber

I am not a barbarian so I don't watch such videos, but I find it important to be verbally or textually informed by the media of such horrors lest I should forget civilization is a fragile flower.


----------



## LouisaB

alexacohen said:


> What kind of human being can watch and film the agony of a toddler and think just only in the Photography Award he is going to win and how many newspapers are going to buy his awful piece of sadistic porn?
> Maybe one who is so used to suffering and death, that the suffering and death of a child don't mean anything anymore. Just a good shot.
> We have a saying: If you save a life, you save mankind.
> I don't like sadistic onlookers.
> Alexa


 
My instinct is absolutely to agree with Alexa, but I would question whether someone who takes such a video is _by definition_ a 'sadistic onlooker'. 

The most famous illustration of this debate is the Nick Ut photograph of Kim Phuc running along the road with her clothes burnt off by napalm. The reaction of many people was exactly the same as Alexa's, but the picture did in fact arguably save many lives, in that it shocked the world and played a part in both stopping the use of napalm, and ultimately ending the war. The same might be said of photographing or videoing people dying of starvation - it could ignite the world's conscience and lead directly to action which saves many more lives than just the one.

In fact, of course, the Ut picture doesn't properly fit into this debate, since after it was taken he did pick up and rescue the girl - who did not die. But I suppose it's _possible _the person who shot Alexa's video would have done the same if the toddler hadn't died first. S/he might, of course, be simply a cynical monster concerned only with fame and money, just as the people watching it might be disgusting sadists - but might equally well be a concerned member of the public (as Alexa herself was) who then switches off the television and rushes to donate funds to help the situation. All I would say is that perhaps we shouldn't rush to judgment without knowing a little more.

Louisa


----------



## badgrammar

I was shocked by the video of Hussein, which I believe was shown on French nightly news.  I have also always been surprised that in France you will occasionally see pictures of the dead on newscasts (in war and or disaster and accident coverage), images you didn't see on the networks in the US a decade ago (it may be different now).  I hate those images, they are often difficult to bear and not always instructive.

However, I would like to take the defense of serious journalists/photographers and bring up that there is a big difference between them and amateurs snapping shots of gruesome scenes for their shock value, because they happen to be at the scene of something heinous. 

War journalists, for example, spend their time in places where they cannot always help the people they see _and_ continue to record the event.  And the photos they bring back often do educate, inspire and motivate the rest of the world.  I am sure that these journalists have to be able to remove themselves from what's actaully going on around them, remain observesr.  Otherwise, they would be potentially taking sides, and no longer be "just a journalist, there to record events".  

Even that little girl, do we know if the journalist _could_ have possibly saved her?  Did he have access to medical treatment, food, water, shelter?  If he had tried, would he have been killed by someone else?  In any case, I'm sure these journalists live through extreme situations, I don't think we can imagine.  If they spent their time saving people, they would be re-classified as aid workers, instead of journalists.

There are many, many excellent reflections in the posts above, here's just one from Papillon: 

_*Maybe, just maybe, if people are allowed to see what the reality is, grim as it may be, death included, perhaps they would act/live/vote differently.*_


----------



## alexacohen

My first job was as a journalist in a serious agency. I began translating telex and emails from agencies all over the world. Then my boss decided to give me "street" training. 
I was supossed to cover local news. I travelled with a more experienced mate, of course. The car RF was connected both with the Police RF and the Paramedics RF.
That first day on the streets the RF intercepted an urgent call to the Paramedics. Someone had jumped out of a window and was lying on the pavement of Street XX.
We were the first to arrive. The boy couldn't have been more than eighteen. He looked like a torn rag doll. His skull was crushed, and his blood was an increasing dark red pool which dripped from his broken skull.
My mate inmediately got the film camera and began filming the dying boy.
She shouted, "come on, move, get the other camera, take a shot of his head, move girl". But I couldn't do it. I sat on the floor, and held the boy's hand. I talked to him. I told him he was not alone. And he heard me, because he held my hand fast until all was over.
My mate was enraged "you are spoiling the light, damn you, what do you think you're doing, he's as good as dead, anyway, get up from the floor, stupid kid".
She then stopped filming and began taking shots, still shouting and complaining that I was spoiling a good shot.
I held the boy's hand till the paramedics arrived. He was dead by then.
But at least, he had felt a human hand holding his hand when he left.
When the rest of the journalists arrived, they congratulated my mate, "oh you lucky b****, did you get him before he died? Wow, what a shot, the blood dripping is wonderful, and that piece of skull by the ear is just lovely".
And so on.
I never went back to the office, not even to collect my wages. My mate was left with the equipment and the car and my credentials. 
Sadistic onlookers??
Certainly.
Alexa


----------



## LouisaB

That's a horrific story, Alexa, and while I'm sorry you had such a traumatic experience, I can only be glad for the boy's sake that you were there.

In this instance, there's no question the onlookers were inhuman in their cruelty, and I wouldn't disagree with any name you want to call them. I suppose the point I was trying to make earlier is that it doesn't necessarily mean it's _always_ like this. But you've been a journalist and had to work with people like this, so I totally accept you would know how prevalent this kind of atttitude is better than I.

Louisa


----------



## alexacohen

Louisa, I don't think that all war journalists are sadistic onlookers. My point was that many of them get so used to suffering and death, to blood, tears, corpses and misery that they forget they are photographing, or filming the suffering of human beings. They just don't see it anymore. And if you lose your empathy, your compassion for other human beings, then you lose a big part of what makes you an human being.
Alexa


----------



## LouisaB

alexacohen said:


> Louisa, I don't think that all war journalists are sadistic onlookers. My point was that many of them get so used to suffering and death, to blood, tears, corpses and misery that they forget they are photographing, or filming the suffering of human beings. They just don't see it anymore. And if you lose your empathy, your compassion for other human beings, then you lose a big part of what makes you an human being.
> Alexa


 
I totally agree with you, Alexa - and I think you put it beautifully.

Louisa


----------



## alexacohen

badgrammar said:


> Even that little girl, do we know if the journalist _could_ have possibly saved her? Did he have access to medical treatment, food, water, shelter? If he had tried, would he have been killed by someone else? In any case, I'm sure these journalists live through extreme situations, I don't think we can imagine. If they spent their time saving people, they would be re-classified as aid workers, instead of journalists.


Badgrammar:
I don't know if the little girl could have been saved or not. Maybe not.
But the journalist could have picked her up in his arms, could have caressed her, could have comforted her, sang her a lullaby, could have given her a little human warmth instead of coldly filming her death till the vultures took care of her.
Perhaps she would have died all the same. But there is a difference. If you can't see it, then I'm sorry.

Alexa


----------



## badgrammar

I can see it, of course.  But i have a couple of friends who are photographers and who have been in some dangerous places at some dangerous times.  I can imagine both scenarios, one where the child is picked up and given whatever care is possible, and in another one, the photographer is not in a situation to be able to do anything without risking his or her own life.

Actually, I have not seen the footage you are talking about.  Perhaps if I had I would feel differently.  I do imagine that it must be a real interior struggle for real journalists in that situation. 

On the other hand, I am increasingly shocked by the amount of violent real-life video you can see now, even on cnn, look at today's offerings: A 91 year of Vet beaten while onlookers watch (viewer discretion advised).  I didn't watch.


----------



## alexacohen

I talked about it because I knew. The photographer was interviewed afterwards (incidentally he won a prize). He filmed the whole scene on a road, where refugees were desperately trying to escape the carnage. There were no troops, just refugees walking. He filmed several people, then the little girl caught his attention, because of the vultures following her. 
He was asked the same question I asked: Why didn't you pick her up?
His answer was that it didn't matter, because so many people were dying that one more death just didn't matter. 

And it does matter. He couldn't possibly save all the people who were going to die, but he could have brought some consolation to a little girl. He didn't even thought of it.

But the other photo, the one with the little girl burned with napalm in the Viet Nam war, was different. The photographer did help the girl.
He took the photo, and helped. 

And you are right. There are far too many violent videos or photos around everywhere.

Alexa


----------



## faranji

badgrammar said:


> I do imagine that it must be a real interior struggle for real journalists in that situation.


 
I'm reminded of Bang Bang Club photographer Kevin Carter and how this pulitzer-winning shot kept haunting him till the day he killed himself. (I'm not implying he suicided because of it, mind.)


----------

