Media bias and narrative spinning

[Ryme]

This is totally fine then? A drowned toddler, no blood so it's okay.

I know it's an unbelievably stupid reason, but it's still the reason. People tend to be less offended by death if the body is intact.

[Cairhiin]

Yes you are so civilized on that rock you live on. Drop the act - the media publishes graphic details with slight censoring to make the cut. They chose not to publish the HORRORS of the massacre in france because it will upset the regressive left and muslims.

It might be partially because the boy is faceless. People recognizing their loved ones laying in a pool of blood is a huge taboo in western media. I don't really think there is a hidden agenda behind it. Also as someone else said, the picture of the boy is a lot less graphic. Yes it is horrible, especially because it is a toddler.

[Total Crica]

Keep on being triggered bro, you don't even know the definitions of all this stuff.
reported for calling me a troll.

haha...reporting him means YOU are the one who is triggered, he is hoping for sympathy for the incident - sorry, OP, that ppl like this exist ;_;

[Mifuyne]

haha...reporting him means YOU are the one who is triggered, he is hoping for sympathy for the incident (sorry, OP, that ppl like this exist ;

Who says there wasn't any sympathy for the drowned boy?
Don't be ridiculous.
OP is posting ban'able pictures, just saying the truth.

[Redhell]

It looks like it fine place for you considering you like to post gorey and disturbing images.
The drowned kid equals "disturbing" image(s).
The dead people in France equals "gorey" image(s).
Certainly, both are tasteless in my eyes - but one is worse than the other.

Case closed.

the OP has a point, though. you're just putting your hands over your ears and screaming "NANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU NANANANA."

also, the picture he posted of France wasn't even that gorey outside of the blood on the floor. that's not even close to real "gore" in fact. the media could easily show that picture and just show it in black and white so the red blood doesn't offend incredibly sensitive people like you.

[Total Crica]

Who says there wasn't any sympathy for the drowned boy?
Don't be ridiculous.
OP is posting ban'able pictures, just saying the truth.

he is looking for sympathy for the ppl laying in blood, not the boy, the boy got your sympathy because you looked, no one will look at the ppl laying in blood

[Revi]

http://i.imgur.com/wZwywhm.jpg

This is totally fine then? A drowned toddler, no blood so it's okay. He's brown too, extra points.

You people are a fucking disgrace.

I think you're failing pretty hard at seeing the pictures in context.

[Mifuyne]

the OP has a point, though. you're just putting your hands over your ears and screaming "NANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU NANANANA."
also, the picture he posted of France wasn't even that gorey outside of the blood on the floor. that's not even close to real "gore" in fact. the media could easily show that picture and just show it in black and white so the red blood doesn't offend incredibly sensitive people like you.

Just because it is "not that gorey" doesn't make it "not gorey".
He also didn't edit the picture.
Also, I ain't offended by these kind of pictures at all.
It's called Forum Rules my friend.

he is looking for sympathy for the ppl laying in blood, not the boy, the boy got your sympathy because you looked, no one will look at the ppl laying in blood

Oh yes, nobody is feeling sympathetic at all for those people , especially with ALL the media surrounding it.
Just because you can't see it doesn't mean people don't know how it looks.

[Revi]

the OP has a point, though. you're just putting your hands over your ears and screaming "NANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU NANANANA."

also, the picture he posted of France wasn't even that gorey outside of the blood on the floor. that's not even close to real "gore" in fact. the media could easily show that picture and just show it in black and white so the red blood doesn't offend incredibly sensitive people like you.

Even if they "could", why would they? Do any of you have an actual reason for why they would print it?

[Total Crica]

Even if they "could", why would they? Do any of you have an actual reason for why they would print it?

honestly, why would they not show anything at all that really happened? don't you think real footage is more impactful for helping to establish truth then just hoping ppl will take their word for it that it happened?

[muto]

Why do you need to see the crime scene after with the deceased? It doesn't change anything, unless you think this was a hoax, and no one really died, but if you think that you're beyond denial.

[Mifuyne]

honestly, why would they not show anything at all that really happened? don't you think real footage is more impactful for helping to establish truth then just hoping ppl will take their word for it that it happened?

So you don't believe the media but you do believe them when they show a image (that can be photoshopped)?
This is morely a issue of crazy people thinking the media only lies to them - some countries do it in fact, sadly.

[Valicen]

The media isn't supposed to show what is right and what is wrong; what is acceptable and unacceptable. It (should) show what -is-.

[Mifuyne]

The media isn't supposed to show what is right and what is wrong; what is acceptable and unacceptable. It (should) show what -is-.

And they did it with words and images that weren't visually disturbing.
Keep the gorey shit out of the mainstream - you can look it up on the net if you want too.

[Redhell]

Also, I ain't offended by these kind of pictures at all.

sure doesn't seem that way, mate.

either way, he has a valid point.

Even if they "could", why would they? Do any of you have an actual reason for why they would print it?

if we use 9/11 as an example, do you think people would've been less affected by the events that took place had we not seen them unfold on live TV? at the end of the day, for the majority of people, seeing is believing. do you think people would find ISIS to be more or less of a threat or problem is they saw this picture?

[Valicen]

Why do you need to see the crime scene after with the deceased? It doesn't change anything, unless you think this was a hoax, and no one really died, but if you think that you're beyond denial.

Eisenhower encouraged reporters to expend all their film reel for a reason. Whether right or left, both sides will rewrite and silence history.

[Total Crica]

The media isn't supposed to show what is right and what is wrong; what is acceptable and unacceptable. It (should) show what -is-.

i agree - that is the ENTIRE purpose of it, to show what actually happened, not just filter everything into rainbows first

[Mifuyne]

i agree - that is the ENTIRE purpose of it, to show what actually happened, not just filter everything into rainbows first

How is it filtered into a rainbow first?

sure doesn't seem that way, mate.
either way, he has a valid point.

I disagree!

Media is created for the masses and (most) masses don't see visual gore daily/weekly/yearly.
You can call them sensitive all you want but most westerners don't live in warzones or places where corpes are laying on the street/getting blown up.

[Total Crica]

How is it filtered into a rainbow first?


I disagree!

by censoring out the parts you dont want to see that ACTUALLY happened

[Mifuyne]

by censoring out the parts you dont want to see that ACTUALLY happened

There are many websites for your kind to see everything uncensored.
I think most people can "imagine" how it would look and don't need visual acceptance.