Social media proved itself an an extraordinary tool today with the best coverage coming out of the Jakarta bombings provided by people on the ground with mobile phones and Twitter accounts.

When citizen journalism works. The public death of Neda Agha Soltan made the whole world take notice of Iran.

But today’s events also proved that no matter what you think of journalists and the major media outlets they work for - there’s a reason why we filter information and images.

There’s a photograph all over the internet right now you won’t find on any mainstream news site - and nor should you. It shows a victim of the bombing, believed to be from New Zealand, who is now being reported as having died from his injuries.

In the graphic and distressing picture he is still alive, and being tended to by someone who appears to be a local.

It was posted on the Twitter photographic site Twitpic, and has been forwarded and re-forwarded to potentially millions of people around the world. It’s the kind of image that makes you feel sick, the sort of thing two seconds after opening it you wish you’d never seen.

It’s the kind of thing picture editors in newsrooms see all day every day. They look carefully at these images, analysing the amount of blood and body parts visible. They use their own personal judgment about their news value compared to the level of distress they will cause readers.

They go home at night with them running on high rotation in their minds, and they do it so you won’t have too much trouble getting to sleep.

But now that filter has been effectively removed.

The person who took the photo doing the rounds on Twitter had gained nothing from the picture - other than perhaps the intangible feeling every human being gets when they know something someone else doesn’t, or have something no-one else has.

It’s that feeling that is driving the relatively new phenomenon known as citizen journalism. Unfiltered by newsrooms full of trained journalists, we’re getting coverage of big events that is more timely than ever, more diverse than ever, and evidently, more raw than anything we’ve ever seen before.

It proved its enormous power last month during the aftermath of the Iranian election, when young people in Tehran, cut off from the rest of the world by an oppressive regime, caught our attention with their Twitter posts.

Again a graphic image was at the centre of the coverage. The dying moments of Neda Agha-Soltan was captured on video and posted online, and she became the touchstone for a world-wide movement online in support of the protesters.

It could be argued the very public documentation of her death had some value.

You can’t make the same argument about today’s photographic atrocity. I highly recommend you don’t go looking for it. But those who really want to see it won’t have any trouble finding it.

This Monday The Punch is doing a special on social media. South Australian Premier Mike Rann is writing on the pitfalls of social media use for politicians, Lanai Vasek from news.com.au documents how Twitter is ruling her life, and we’ll be analysing the value of the social media phenomenon.

Most commented

52 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Daniel Lewis says:

      05:44pm | 17/07/09

      Then again, perhaps if mainstream news editors DID show these images from time to time, some people might stop saying of the Islamist murderers “what have we done to upset them”.

      Rather than having tired out conversations about Israel, or George W. Bush, the usual commentariat might start to realise that this is a global problem which requires a brutal solution, not surrender.

    • Eric says:

      05:54pm | 17/07/09

      I would rather have access to real news, than have everything I see filtered by journalists with an agenda.

      That’s why I’m on the Internet right now, not watching TV or reading a newspaper.

      If you require a blinkered world view that fits someone’s preconceived agenda, the TV is in the corner.

    • John Foster says:

      06:12pm | 17/07/09

      Your comment:I’ve seen the picture, it’s horrifying. But I have to say, I’m not sure I can say “I wish I hadn’t”.

      This is not a plane crash where every time we get on a 747 we have an unspoken contract of acceptance that there’s a chance, an ever so slight chance, that we could meet our end. In these cases we do not need to be shown the graphic reality of what has transpired to begin the healing process or to learn so we can ensure that this never happens again. Until plane travel becomes 100% safe, it is a risk that we all accept.

      This however is an act of terrorism. This is man made. I’m almost certain that the risk of meeting an untimely death sitting on a couch in a lobby is pretty much 0%. You are not supposed to be flicking through today’s edition of The Jakarta Post and have a bomb blow you and your loved ones to bits. That is just not acceptable, and should never, ever be allowed to happen. But obviously it does, and when it does we are bombarded with photos of buildings in near rubble, rescue crews running around, but we are spared seeing the real horror of how this unspeakable crime has directly affected the victims.

      Personally, on an emotional level I see no difference between today’s photo from Jakarta with your example of Neda Agha Soltan. I look at that photo you have chosen to publish above, I look into her eyes, and it distresses me enormously. And so it should. And it’s exactly that emotional connection that grows awareness and hopefully change for the better. Today’s photo is undoubtedly bloodier and graphically more immediate, but the outcome is no different. An innocent person lost their life and it just should not have happened. But more importantly, it’s a person, and not a statistic. We don’t feel for numbers, we feel for people.

      My heart truly breaks today for the family and friends of the man in that photo who was murdered for absolutely no reason, and while I wish there was some way I could remove the distress that it has caused them and will continue to cause them for the rest of their lives, I really hope that somehow that crude window into reality provided by a photo posted on to the internet causes a great deal of distress for the multitudes who may be apathetic towards such a cowardly and horrific act because it just so happened that it didn’t happen on their doorstep, and god forbid it happened to someone of their own nationality.

    • Mike says:

      06:22pm | 17/07/09

      If only this sense of what’s ‘right’ for the news-reading public would also extend to what journalists WRITE.
      I am not advocating more laws or anything nanny-state like that.  But simply calling upon all your journos to do a less sensationalist and more accurate job of reporting.

    • Steve B says:

      06:24pm | 17/07/09

      Tory, I understand the intention of protecting the public sensiblitlies through censorship of images/videos in news broadcasts, but the seemingly insatiable appetite for violent meida images in our society has meant that most of the graphic violence that we see in western society is make believe (films, tv, games) and we have therefore become largely immune to the impact of it.

      For many people it takes something as graphic as these video’s just to hold their attention long enough for them to realise these are the real consequences of violence happening to real people.

      @Danial Lewis: I’m sure there won’t be any objection from you when the pictures of what your ‘solution’ does to those people who just happened to live in the same village as some of those Islamists hit the front page will there? Half a story is still only half a story, regardless of which half you tell.

    • TG says:

      06:46pm | 17/07/09

      I agree with Eric, above.  Too often of late, the mainstream media has utterly failed its readers &/or viewers by filtering and presenting their version of “news” so that it fits their particular agenda.

      For Americans on Twitter the catchcry is #CNNfail, for Aussies it’s #ABCfail;  but given the ideological slant on the free-to-air commercial stations in both countries as well, those hashtags are simply merging into #MSMfail.

      Get back to us when you can objectively report on a US Presidential candidate without gleefully sharing that “thrill” you get “running up your leg” just listening to him; or when you stop acting like schoolgirls cooing over the latest boy-band idol as you regurgitate Lachie’s latest press release on Rudd as “news”; or when you can report on the Middle East without falling back on continually blaming “teh Joooos!” whilst giving the Palestinians a free pass; or when you can go a full week without blaming everything bad in the world from local bank branch closures to Dutch Elm Disease on George W Bush.

      After all of the lies - fake ambulance-bombings, fake national reserve papers, fake “massacres”, fake soldiers, even that fake “plastic turkey” - that the MSM has tried to feed us but which have been handily debunked via the Internet, one can’t be surprised that intelligent adults interested in the world’s news are resorting to a DIY approach.

      It’s hardly ideal, but until/unless the MSM lifts its game, what else is there?

    • Geoff says:

      07:20pm | 17/07/09

      I think that the newsrooms of trained journalists and editors should be filtering images not based the potential to cause distress and loss of sleep, but on their value to the news. As several have mentioned above, the true impact of bombings is not hotels reduced to rubble, but humans reduced to agonised flesh.
      There is too, a difference between news outlets and internet services. News outlets stream through TV, through print. The chances of the kids coming across images of great human suffering are much higher than when these images are distributed over subscription-type services on the internet (admittedly a thin argument, given how tightly woven into the internet fabric our kids are).

      @Daniel Lewis: Adopting a mindset as bloody and brutal as the terrorists will not make the world a better place. Remember that terrorist organisations are too willing to broadcast their ugly handiwork. Just recall the rash of decapitations some years back. Intractable hatred is what they feed on. It forces polarisation, as the innocents are crushed between the opposing forces

    • Kieran says:

      08:10pm | 17/07/09

      A good article addressing the heart of the issue. since 1450, the owners of the presses have had a monopoly on the mass distribution of thought, after they seized it from the Catholic Church.

      Thought, in all it’s huge diversity has been liberated. People are free to decide what to look at, and seek out their own interpretations.

      What an amazing breakthrough.

    • D says:

      09:01pm | 17/07/09

      There’s always controversy about what pictures newspapers do and don’t show. On the other hand, since they started laying sub-editors off, we really get to see how poor ‘trained’ journalists are at using the English language or even proof-reading their own work.

    • Nick says:

      09:46pm | 17/07/09

      I would agree with you Tory ...except…when reading the mainstream journalist article on the website linked to this…half of the article refers to twitter comments and it uses them as substitute for serious journalism that you refer to.

      There is a place for both…and people should have the right to choose. But I object when journalists take the easy way out and simply download twitter comments as a significant part of “their” article.

    • Lissa says:

      09:54pm | 17/07/09

      Let me just ask, what “purpose” did showing Michael jackson near or actually dead with an oxygen mask play. personally I found that unbelievably intrusive and offensive - yet it was splashed all over News.Ltd sites. Please don’t let the hypocrisy hit you on the way out the door.

    • Why do you need this? says:

      10:14pm | 17/07/09

      I’m sorry, what planet is the author of this article coming from? We shouldn’t see the picture? Why not? Is the sight of blood and gore a bit too much for our puny intellects, or maybe our scrawny empathy shrivelled by the fact that we live in a post-modern world? Real people bleed, cry and die in these kinds of attacks. We should see the horror. We must. To deny it is to pay their memory a level of disrespect proportional to the one that is eminating from any person who thinks that the things that happen outside their borders are unassociated to their actions at home. The saying goes “all politics is local” and in fact this is. I don’t defend JI, they are a cruel and dangerous sect of crazy fanatics, but their victims surely deserve enough of our time in the day, to realise that not all aspects of Indonesian society like the modernising and “democratic” aspects its taking on. Nor are they comfortable with tourist luxiries such as the hotels bombed. Keep your nanny instincts to yourself, I want to see the horror, it might make me wake up in the morning and not support policies which lead to this kind of behaviour. It also will force me to realise that I can’t ingore Indonesian internal problems, in the face of some trivial local problem. This is globalisation, eat it.

    • rory S says:

      10:37pm | 17/07/09

      I’ve had a look for the article and can say that while it is disturbing, I hardly think you need to be a “trained journalists” to handle the experience.

      I agree with Daniel Lewis, viewing images of torn flesh brought about by islamic terrorist bombings doesn’t immediately make me think of how much further we should bend over backwards to appease them.

    • Darryl Mason says:

      10:38pm | 17/07/09

      TG said : After all of the lies - fake ambulance-bombings, fake national reserve papers, fake “massacres”, fake soldiers, even that fake “plastic turkey” - that the MSM has tried to feed us but which have been handily debunked via the Internet…”

      You forgot the fake WMDs claims, and the fake claims that London could be attacked by Iraq in 45 mins, and a few hundred other total lies about the Iraq War and the ‘War On Terror’ in general.

      But I’m guessing you probably approve of those kinds of fake claim, seeing as you didn’t list them. .

    • Julie Coker-Godson says:

      11:05pm | 17/07/09

      I do not wish to see “agonised flesh” from bombings to convince me that the people responsible for these murders are barbarians.  Some images are just too ghastly to be shown and I still recall an image which I think came from Vietnam of a man about to be shot in the head at point blank range (National Geographic I think?).  Gave me nightmares for weeks afterwards and when given a warning of graphic images I adopt the common sense approach of going on to another story.  I can use my imagination without having to see grisly detail.

    • TG says:

      11:07pm | 17/07/09

      Just a post-script on reviewing my comment above: Apologies for venting my rant at MSM journos in general on this particular thread of Tory’s.

      I still stand by what I wrote, but it was obviously directed generally at others in the profession, not _Tors in specific.

    • Lee says:

      11:36pm | 17/07/09

      I am a layout sub-editor who has had to view and choose from many, many extremely graphic and personally sickening images during my 20+ year career. I choose based on news value, and almost always am not the only person who gets a say on what gets a run. I will speak up if I feel an image would just be gratuitous. I have chosen to run some very confronting images over the years, but won’t always do so.
      I don’t believe it’s censorship, particularly now when we all have access to so much archived, blogged and tweeted content. If someone wants to go looking for the really hard-core stuff for whatever reason, they can probably find it.
      Steve B: In my free time, I often play some of those violent games to which you refer. It has not “made me immune” to the reality of real life in any way. I know the difference between the real world and a game world.

    • verity says:

      08:49am | 18/07/09

      where is the evidence that displaying images of that poor woman shot and killed changed the situation in Iran one iota? We know whats happening there. I think most of the viewers are probably people with little or no properly developed empathy, who get some thrill from peeping at death. If they are from western/developed countries it is possibly because they live lives detached from such pain and suffering and want to feel the visceral thrill of schadenfreude. If they come from war zones, or live under repressive and cruel poltical tyrannies they may view such footage with detachment than comes from over exposure to such horrific violence.

      What does it change???? nothing thats what, it all just becomes a days fodder for a chattering, mostly impotent population of bloggers and twatters who fantasize that they make a difference by colouring their profile pictures green or joining FB groups that support ‘freedom and democracy’.

    • Julie P says:

      10:29am | 18/07/09

      I remember the day of 9/11, standing in the corridor of Holt Sreet News Ltd looking at the photos Bruce Louden didnt want published…they were horrific but no more horrific than the TV news footage on that nights 6pm news.

    • Betty says:

      10:47am | 18/07/09

      I agree with Lee. As someone who has also worked in this area having to look at the amount of graphic images the newsroom receives each day, I can tell you that you would not want to see that every day in the news. Like Lee says if you really want to find those kind of images on the internet it is not hard.
      This is however an interesting debate. We cannot really know what effect seeing these images everyday would have on the general public. Would it make them more sympathetic? Would they become hardened to other peoples suffering? Would it lead to more violence? Who knows?

    • Arthur says:

      11:30am | 18/07/09

      Tory, I agree with your point. Sometimes I wish journalists applied the same criteria to their articles, for instance, it is not unusual to come across unnecessary details in relation to intimate affairs.  I see sensationalist journalism as the precursor of this type of citizen journalism.

    • Chris says:

      11:41am | 18/07/09

      Nothing wrong with a bit of reality every now and then.

    • David says:

      12:03pm | 18/07/09

      There is a very big difference between the death of this man and the death of Neda Agha Soltan. Everyone knows JI is a terrorist organisation; it is obvious these bombings are a terrible thing, we know people died gruesomely. We don’t need gruesome pictures to convince us of this. But with Iran, there was restricted media; it wasn’t totally clear what was happening. It would have swayed the opinion of supporters of the Iranian government and people/governments sitting on the fence.

      “We shouldn’t see the picture? Why not?”

      Do you think the family of this man want to see him dying with his blood and guts spilled over the ground?

    • TG says:

      02:14pm | 18/07/09

      verity says:
      What does it change???? nothing thats what, it all just becomes a days fodder for a chattering, mostly impotent population of bloggers and twatters who fantasize that they make a difference by colouring their profile pictures green
      ___________

      Just FYI Verity, I know I’m not the only one, but the start of #IranRevolution spurred me to turn my spare server here into a TOR proxy for Iranians wanting “outside lines” free of Iranian Gov’t interference.  It is still getting plenty of traffic thru it as well.  Where did I learn how to do this?  A fellow Twitter user.

      Just because YOU haven’t bothered to do whatever is within your power to do; please don’t assume everyone has followed suit.

      Cheers.

    • Trik says:

      02:17pm | 18/07/09

      The heads of previous terrorist bombers have been put on display in the past. A public humiliation is a good deterrent, and takes away any sense of pride from these murdering idiots. No matter how gory this may look, sometimes it is necessary to get the message across. Otherwise the government wouldn’t be using the same tactic to combat drug use.

    • Welcome ot the real world says:

      02:59pm | 18/07/09

      Lets face it,

      Its refreshing to have real news, perhaps it is about time we stop censoring things and we can have a real look at the dangers that world faces. The threat of terrorism is vrey real and perhaps we need to stop questioning our governments when they decide they want to declatre war on terror and start supporting them. Enough of the sugar coating.

    • W.C. says:

      03:10pm | 18/07/09

      Tory, you need to have a good hard think about maybe curbing that arrogant streak.  When you make statements that amount to “we (the news media) can handle what you (the public we pander to) can not”, how can anyone take anything you say as a journalist seriously?  How can we ever know that you (and your ilk) haven’t censored your own work “for our protection”? 
      Ask yourself if encouraging people to keep their heads buried in the sand is responsible journalism, as that’s what you’re doing every time you make the ugly truth more palatable for mass consumption.

    • Kevin Rennie says:

      04:20pm | 18/07/09

      “we’re getting coverage of big events that is more timely than ever”

      Citizen journalism also enables up-to-date coverage of local and ‘small events’. YouDecide2007 was a ground-breaker at the last Federal elections. Anyone could report on what was happening in their electorate without submitting to sub-editors filters.

      The blogosphere also enables celebrations such as those during NAIDOC (National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee) week to be documented and shared e.g. Tjilatjirrin: What’s in a name? Ultimately these are filtered by their potential audiences.

    • Jon says:

      09:02pm | 18/07/09

      Mainstream media ? What a joke. Give me twitter anytime over the news.com.au’s of the world.

    • Andrew says:

      09:07am | 19/07/09

      Thank you, thank you, thank you for protecting my delicate sensibilities, Tory!!! I don’t know what I’d do if you weren’t there to shield me; vanish in a puff of smoke, probably.

    • Lee says:

      11:09am | 19/07/09

      Kevin Rennie:  “Anyone could report on what was happening in their electorate without submitting to sub-editors filters.”

      It is good to have info come in from the scene. But those sub filters are there for a reason. We need to do legal and fact checks and ensure that all angles are covered.

      When I was a reporter, I once covered a conference where the main speaker had some extreme views. Outside, there were many protesters. I simply wrote what each party said.
      The following day, both sides congratulated me for “showing what bastards they are”. You have to remember to take your own bias into account when reading news stories. Citizen journos often forget that part.

    • formersnag says:

      01:13pm | 19/07/09

      This is the same slippery slope that causes political journalists to think they know more about it than we do. That sees them supporting their own prejudices and side of the left/right political debate, instead of attacking both of them with equal ferocity, or reporting openly on all of their failures.

    • Kevin Rennie says:

      01:23pm | 19/07/09

      Lee

      YouDecide2007 had processes and protocols to promote accuracy and balance on the site . News, opinion and media releases were separated and anyone had access to the site to correct errors or put their viewpoint. More than you can say about some publications.

      “You have to remember to take your own bias into account when reading news stories.” And when you’re writing media pieces. The old cliche still applies to the mainstream media: Freedom of the press is owning one. If only sub-editors were the guardians of objectivity and balance.

    • Anne says:

      02:07pm | 19/07/09

      Perhaps some of you need to have full-colour, no-detail-too-gruesome pictures accompanying news articles for you to be able to take it all in, but personally I have an imagination. I don’t need to see that stuff in order to feel horror at the event, compassion for the victims and disgust for the perpetrators. And all of you sniping at Tory and criticising her for “censoring” what you get to see, I take it you aren’t journalists - or that you don’t know any personally. Two of my sisters are though, and they get to see it all. And hear it all. They can’t understand why anyone would want to see all the gory details if they don’t have to. I can’t help but think those of you saying that we should have free access to thse sorts of images are perhaps a little voyeuristic and trying to justify it in the name of freedom of information. Sounds a little sick to me.

    • JSL says:

      02:32pm | 19/07/09

      Only reason the writer wrote this.. is because they are scared of losing their jobs.. no one wants a filter not from someone who writes what they want…  If people don’t want to read it then don’t click the link.. 

      We don’t need anyone to filter anything..

    • Jordan H Jones says:

      04:22pm | 19/07/09

      Journalists have it both ways. They publish the images then feign mock horror when they are published. Then they will write an article like this expressing their disgust. You can see the glee in some journalists face when a tragedy occurs. It is their time to shine with an exclusive. Journalism is the only industry that actively pursues these horrific stories, and they don’t care who they trample on to get it. Then they will sit back and attack the police and intelligence services as to why they didn’t see this coming. Well, the truth is, they did see it coming, and they put things in place to stop it, but due to international tourists whinging and carrying on with security checks, it is only human nature that some people dropped their guard. You can almost see the journalists willing on another Bali. The thing is, if the journalists are so brilliant and see these things that other don’t, why don’t they pass the information on. It is now stock standard a few hours after a terrorist incident for some journalist or front man/woman on a show to make the comment ‘the investigation is bogged down or stalled’.

    • Jason says:

      06:37pm | 19/07/09

      The Australian media shields us (via censorship) from the true happenings, gore and plight of war and its effect on our fellow human beings.  If we were subjected to the full horror of what some people endure we would not be so ready to support the United States in its offensive (pre-emptive strike) foreign policy agenda.  Our government always has, and is wrapping us in cotton wool.

    • Lee says:

      07:09pm | 19/07/09

      Jordan H Jones is not a journalist. If he was,he would know how wrong he is.

    • At Work (or not) says:

      10:09pm | 19/07/09

      Oh, Punch.

      You chose to not run my comment. Obviously a large amount of bias here. Why would you publish this story if you edit the comments so heavily?

    • JoeFive says:

      01:09am | 20/07/09

      To state the obvious: “unfiltered” media has its benefits and drawbacks. To its advantage, you find out more about the reality of situations. On the downside, you find out more about the reality of situations.

      You can’t have your cake and eat it too, just because it’s made from inspiring and frosted with anti-dictatorship.

    • Ryan says:

      06:10am | 20/07/09

      I think its very situational, as to how appropriate this kind of thing is.  I don’t believe the ‘media’ should own journalism, especially in this day of blogs and camera phones, but still common sense and propriety must be observed.  I know I didn’t think it was in any way appropriate people showing photo’s splattered and disemboweled bodies of people who had jumped out of the Twin Towers in the 9/11 attack.  All these years on and just the slight remembrance of those photos and they come back far too vividly.

    • robbo says:

      08:50am | 20/07/09

      I agree with Tory - I don’t need to see graphic images of dead and dying people to truly grasp the gravity of an incident. The people taking the images are the equivalent of the ghouls who crowd around an accident ‘for a look’ without offering assistance. Instead of making themselves useful they are trying for there 15 seconds of fame, and probably hampering genuine rescuers in their attempt to get a graphic shot.  The people who forward these images are no better.

    • kingnik says:

      09:12am | 20/07/09

      If you don’t like the images, don’t look. Simple, i prefer to decide for myself.  Even if social media and ‘citizen journalism’ is innacurate, it generally isn’t self serving and manufactured. It’s hard to organise scattered idiots blogging, so at least they are honest…theres unlikely to be an agenda, and arguing FOR what is, well, censorship is. Yes i don’t want to see the image, which is why i haven’t actively searched for it.  But what if it was an image that i DID want to see, but that was deemed too potentially damaging for any network or newsmedia outlet and as such was hidden away from the prying eyes of the docile public

    • brett says:

      10:52am | 20/07/09

      Wow - another person telling me what i should and shouldnt see. We defintely need more of that.

    • haley says:

      11:33am | 20/07/09

      I agree with Robbo and Ryan. People taking photos of the deceased/dying are not citizen journalists, they are ghouls who get off on tragedy and disaster. Yes, we are all in some sense saddists, we want to know the news, as horrendous as it may be, but splashing graphic photos of deceased/dying on the world wide web is not ethical, in my opinion anyway.

      I have worked in newsrooms for many years and will never forget the look on a photographer’s face one Monday morning when he came in to talk about a fatal car accident involving a teenage girl that had occurred in a small country town that weekend.

      Doing the right thing, he had gone out to photograph the incident - carefully avoiding any images that would show the teenager’s deceased body, of course. However being on a main road to the small country town, many locals who knew the girl and her family stopped by the roadside as emergency crews worked at the scene.

      The photographer tried to do his job, to take photos of the scene of the accident, of the crushed car wrapped around the tree, but eventually it became a challenging task as the sadness of those mourning the young victim became too much for him to bear.

      The photographer felt sick at what he was doing (hiding in the trees to seem inconspicuous as he took photos) and it was hard for him to deal with, as he replayed those images and what he had done to take photographs ‘in the name of the job’ that night.

      I have taken photos at fatal accidents and it’s all well and good when you don’t know the victim and there’s no grieving family or friends nearby, just the emergency service crews. Some people, like me, can put up a shield and deal with it. But add one or both of those two elements i just spoke of (family, grief), and it’s a sickening task. I’d have thought you’d find it pretty hard to live with yourself, to snake around and take photos like that.

      Citizen journalists don’t always have a conscience, aren’t trained in the ethics of journalism. They do not always have regard for the family who don’t need to see very graphic photos of their son, daughter, wife, friend or whoever splashed all over the internet for the world to see. The day I die, i definitely don’t want some random person’s camera shoved in my face! I’d come back from the dead and kick their ass!!

      The advent of citizen journalism and social media opens doors we’ve never before had access to, and for the most part it is exciting and gives the public a pretty well rounded view of news and current affairs - pick and choose what you will and won’t believe.

      I take a camera everywhere I go. If disaster strikes, there’s absolutely no doubt I’ll be pulling it out and snapping away. But it definitely won’t be of people dying. That’s just sick.

    • Country Realist says:

      11:36am | 20/07/09

      Are journalists worried about becoming redundant?  Why should they have the power to show us what we “need” to see?  I for one dont like seeing these images but thats my choice to make not the journalists!

    • Kelly says:

      02:16pm | 20/07/09

      Are people actually posting comments about twitter (and other random internet sources) as informational tools? Good grief! Sure, traditional media outlets can get it wrong (hello Richard Wilkins and his infamous Jeff Goldblum’s death blunder) but to actually suggest you can trust random internet postings from God knows who is laughable!
      The real issue is people believing everything they read, see, hear without any intellectual process behind it. For example, if you sit in front of A Current Affair every night and believe the tripe you see, of course you’re going to be poorly informed. But that’s hardly Channel 9s fault, it is just laziness.
      As for the posters going on about bias - they just sound cranky that their own biases don’t come out in the media. From the sound of them, I suspect Fox News (and I use the term loosely) will cover the type of “unbiased opinion” they’re interested in.

    • Nicholas says:

      02:31pm | 20/07/09

      I do NOT need reality spoon fed to me! I’m more than happy to deal with the real world rather than some contrived invention of a masthead newspaper!

    • Nemesis12 says:

      09:08pm | 20/07/09

      I’d say that if you want to recapture your credibilty…you’re a day late and a dollar short

      You’re all liars and I dont look at the MSM for the truth…because you wouldnt know what the truth was.

    • Nick says:

      09:37pm | 20/07/09

      What a posturing load of pap from the ‘gatekeepers’ of information who are perfectly happy to feed kids violent gangsta rap and soft porn all day long in the form of ‘celebrity’ cleavage and Lady Gaga videos but somehow draw the line at honestly reporting a war in progress. Yes, we DO need to see these images so people can get a grip on the reality of what we’re up against with fanatical terrorists. By the way, if you’d prefer people not to see the photo of the poor man who was dying, why did news.com.au LINK TO IT??? Hypocrites.

    • Joe says:

      09:50pm | 20/07/09

      Yes, please don’t distract the sheep from their two most important functions in life: working and consuming. Reality will only confuse and upset them. How will they know what to think without having their opinions dictated to them by agenda driven journalists?

    • Maree says:

      10:42pm | 20/07/09

      Has it occurred to any of you people knocking the mainsteam press that the bloggers and tweeters also choose what to present?
      Nobody publishes every photo they have. That would not be practical in the print media.
      Everyone who publishes—whether in a newspaper, on TV or on the internet—edits.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

@anderson_lainie He he. And congrats to Max!

ToryShepherd

@VictoriaPurman Then you should have included sex toys and yoga ;-)

Malcolm Farr

@Chritana01 No. NSW state

Daniel Piotrowski

@FreeDannyJovica Hi guys, I sent you a Facebook message. What's the latest on Danny Jovica?

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter