Hacker News Reader

Comment by FabHK | Hacker News Reader

FWIW, I find it crude and tactless to show identifiable personal possessions of the victims. Surprised that the BBC stoops so low.

(Note: a friend of mine personally knew several students on board via AIESEC, a student organisation. RIP.)

View on HN

I imagine they do it as the only way to convey the human loss, without actually showing human body parts.

You can also use pictures of the victims from when they were alive.

They don't have that info the day of a plane crash -- it requires the airline to release the list of victims, and then the families to release any photos on request, which is what you sometimes see several days later when a news org takes the time to collect the photos and stories. But that doesn't happen with all mass casualty incidents. Not just because it's resource-intensive, but because the news cycle moves so fast. We've just learned the names/ages of the 11 killed in the Pittsburgh shooting. How many people remember any of the names of the people who died 3 weeks ago in what was the U.S. worst transportation accident in a decade?

Same-day and day-after coverage is typically when most people are most focused on any given tragedy, and images are often what stays in people's memories. A photo of disaster workers picking up pieces of metal doesn't convey much of the human tragedy at all.

When MH17 was shot down, an Australian paper published a large picture on the front page which showed actual dead bodies tangled in the wreckage. No blurring or obfuscation. You could clearly see a young woman's arm held up as if to ward off an impact in the foreground. Highly distasteful and inappropriate IMO.

MH17 was shot down. Someone actually had to lock an anti-aircraft system onto a commercial airliner and give the order to fire. I don't disagree with putting something graphic on the front page in that case. The public deserves to know what happened and whitewashing it just serves to protect those who committed that crime. With a purely accidental tragedy I think it's a little different but not much. I don't see the point in trying to bubble wrap the world. Shit happens. Sometimes it will be messy and ugly.

I don't know why you're being downvoted.

The public needs to see graphic imagery of humans causing other humans to suffer. We need to know the harm we inflict and we need to turn the raw emotion of pain and disgust into action.

I don't think it's appropriate to show blood and gore when there's nothing at stake, but these are not such instances.

Bubble wrapping has a lot of value. There's nothing I can to stop accidental airplane crashes. It's not healthy for for many people to be surrounded by negativity and violence. It serves no purpose other than making me feel bad

Not reporting also limits backlash when preventable things happen. I don't see running a graphic picture to be substantially different than reporting the details on that guy the Sauidis sawed up. One man's bubble wrap is another man's sweeping things under the rug.

In the case of the plane that was shot down, you can lobby your government to actually give a shit and do something about it. But hey, it happened to them and not us, so why should we care, right? Graphic imagery showing that they are humans too might help people understand that it's not a 'us vs. them' thing.

I don't think it is appropriate to put it on the front page of a newspaper though, because there is no control over who can see it.

If your husband/wife/son/daughter/parents were killed in that crash, would you want your young child walking past a news stand in the street to see their mangled bodies in a field displayed for all and sundry to gawk over? Would you want the rest of the world to see and remember your kin like that?

Somewhere in the mix, there has to be an element of basic human dignity and respect towards deceased people, and their loved ones who have to come to terms with that fact.

You just described the front page of the newspapers in countries like Peru basically every second day showing bus crashes.

These used to be staples of US newspapers too, so much so that journalistic slang had its own term for them: the "bus plunge story."

A good exploration of why they were so prominent and how they've become less so in modern times can be found here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/11/the-rise-and-fal...

Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised to encounter such stuff on Twitter, or the Indonesian/Malaysian/Australian/UK yellow press, but the BBC?

I felt the same as I saw the photo. What a disgustingly heartless way of treating the relatives or even the depicted.

I'm more concerned by the heartlessness of running a chronically unsafe airline and glossing over the reality of the suffering it wreaks.

That's a good point. In general, aviation safety is amazing, and an emotional response to an accident (as after MH 370) doesn't help. In Indonesia, on the other hand, corruption and lax attitudes to safety seem wide spread, and political pressure to rectify the situation might improve things.

the bodies depicted in such images are not capable of caring about how they are treated anymore, though. i agree that often relatives get upset about images of their loved ones bodies being used in newspapers or tv, but sometimes the journalists have to weigh the public interest value of showing the image against potential distress. for example, the famous vietnam 'napalm girl' photograph. i'm not suggesting a return to 'if it bleeds, it leads' shock-value journalism, just pointing out that sometimes distasteful images have real value and should not be censored.

Agreed, but I think for the most part aviation safety is well under control, and there's not need to shock people into action. However, Indonesia might well be an exception.

Note also, though, that this only works if shocking pictures are used very sparingly, and only really to make an important point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com