June 6, 2002
10:51 AM Subscribe
the boston phoenix -- best described as the hub's answer to the village voice -- has decided to post the daniel pearl snuff video on their website because "people need to know this". personally i am torn about this (and repulsed that they printed some gruesome screen shots in their print edition) though their intentions are probably more aboveboard than ogrish's in running said same. what do you think?
This post was deleted for the following reason:
*shit* The screen shots are *not* just in the print edition.
Following the Boston Phoenix link above brings you to not just the editorial justification, but to a still from the video that I really wish I had never seen. Be warned.
posted by maudlin at 11:10 AM on June 6, 2002
Following the Boston Phoenix link above brings you to not just the editorial justification, but to a still from the video that I really wish I had never seen. Be warned.
posted by maudlin at 11:10 AM on June 6, 2002
1. i was unable to load graphics on the page due to bandwidth problems on their end, and thus did not see the screen shots. my apologies to maudlin and others.
2. when i googled mefi with the search terms "daniel pearl boston phoenix" i could not find any citations for the video finally finding a legitimate home, which is why i posted it. if matt wishes to kill this thread, i understand, but it's not from not doing my legwork. :)
posted by pxe2000 at 11:15 AM on June 6, 2002
2. when i googled mefi with the search terms "daniel pearl boston phoenix" i could not find any citations for the video finally finding a legitimate home, which is why i posted it. if matt wishes to kill this thread, i understand, but it's not from not doing my legwork. :)
posted by pxe2000 at 11:15 AM on June 6, 2002
*this looks like the real thing, folks*
It's not pretty. The cowards that made this film are likely still out there. Daniel Pearl appears under severe stress and is murdered. Almost makes you a war-monger.
posted by boardman at 11:18 AM on June 6, 2002
It's not pretty. The cowards that made this film are likely still out there. Daniel Pearl appears under severe stress and is murdered. Almost makes you a war-monger.
posted by boardman at 11:18 AM on June 6, 2002
Well, if you read the Boston Phoenix "editorial explanation" they're not hosting it. They're just linking to it. Which was the point of the last thread.
Search on "daniel pearl site:metafilter.com" and you'll find the thread in question. And a few others for good measure.
posted by bshort at 11:18 AM on June 6, 2002
Search on "daniel pearl site:metafilter.com" and you'll find the thread in question. And a few others for good measure.
posted by bshort at 11:18 AM on June 6, 2002
The Boston Phoenix (and for that matter, the Providence Phoenix) has gone to hell ever since Stephen Mindich took over the company.
For those of you outside New England, the Phoenix owns 3 news papers, and 4 radio stations from Providence to Maine. Until Mindich took over, the papers and the radio stations were known for their integrity, and their unwillingness to sell out to a more corporate entity.
When Mindich took over, he immediately killed every good thing about the Phoenix, and WFNX (the radio network). Where previously the company's focus was the on quality of the programming and reporting, it's now all about advertising and ratings.
I hardly think they posted a link to that video for any ethical or moral purpose. I think they posted it to boost their traffic, sell some ads, and boost ratings for the radio stations they own.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:00 PM on June 6, 2002
For those of you outside New England, the Phoenix owns 3 news papers, and 4 radio stations from Providence to Maine. Until Mindich took over, the papers and the radio stations were known for their integrity, and their unwillingness to sell out to a more corporate entity.
When Mindich took over, he immediately killed every good thing about the Phoenix, and WFNX (the radio network). Where previously the company's focus was the on quality of the programming and reporting, it's now all about advertising and ratings.
I hardly think they posted a link to that video for any ethical or moral purpose. I think they posted it to boost their traffic, sell some ads, and boost ratings for the radio stations they own.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:00 PM on June 6, 2002
Well, I won't be adding to their traffic. I've no need to view a murder.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:04 PM on June 6, 2002
posted by five fresh fish at 12:04 PM on June 6, 2002
pxe
I've never insulted anybody online in my fucking life but this is too much -- your excuse is pathetic, you can't just post a link to an image of a beheaded man and simply say 'excuse me guys'
If you were unable to see the graphics you should have fucking waited
My idea is, if anybody want to watch that horror, go ahead. But YOU just have to fucking check out the pages you link to, ESPECIALLY in this case. It's not a spoiler for a fucking movie. I have a hard time believing you're in good faith on this sorry
LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN: IF YOU FOLLOW THE LINK YOU'LL SEE POOR DANIEL PEARL'S HEAD CUT OFF OF HIS BODY
posted by matteo at 12:05 PM on June 6, 2002
I've never insulted anybody online in my fucking life but this is too much -- your excuse is pathetic, you can't just post a link to an image of a beheaded man and simply say 'excuse me guys'
If you were unable to see the graphics you should have fucking waited
My idea is, if anybody want to watch that horror, go ahead. But YOU just have to fucking check out the pages you link to, ESPECIALLY in this case. It's not a spoiler for a fucking movie. I have a hard time believing you're in good faith on this sorry
LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR AGAIN: IF YOU FOLLOW THE LINK YOU'LL SEE POOR DANIEL PEARL'S HEAD CUT OFF OF HIS BODY
posted by matteo at 12:05 PM on June 6, 2002
but it's not from not doing my legwork. :)
and what's the fucking smile about?
posted by matteo at 12:06 PM on June 6, 2002
and what's the fucking smile about?
posted by matteo at 12:06 PM on June 6, 2002
Matteo - Grow the fuck up. Pxe made an honest mistake, and you shit all over him. Yeah, it was pretty gruesome, but he doesn't deserve what you just tossed at him. You have no way of knowing that he did it in bad faith.
On a different note, one of the reasons the Phoenix may be doing this, is because apparently Daniel Perl used to work there for a number of years.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2002
On a different note, one of the reasons the Phoenix may be doing this, is because apparently Daniel Perl used to work there for a number of years.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:12 PM on June 6, 2002
sweetjesus
it's not that I called him a fuckin' prick or something, read my post
fact is, if you're supposed to put a warning for spoilers in movie FPP, well, maybe beheadings should deserve the same treatment
it's not fun to have a snuff photo rammed down one's throat, maybe it's a good idea to wanr other users don't you think?
and by the way you call it "pretty gruesome" for you??
what's "gruesome gruesome" for you then?
please explain it to poor me until I grow the fuck up
posted by matteo at 12:19 PM on June 6, 2002
it's not that I called him a fuckin' prick or something, read my post
fact is, if you're supposed to put a warning for spoilers in movie FPP, well, maybe beheadings should deserve the same treatment
it's not fun to have a snuff photo rammed down one's throat, maybe it's a good idea to wanr other users don't you think?
and by the way you call it "pretty gruesome" for you??
what's "gruesome gruesome" for you then?
please explain it to poor me until I grow the fuck up
posted by matteo at 12:19 PM on June 6, 2002
Matteo - I did read your post, and you shitted all over him. You called his probable, and acceptable excuse "pathetic". You basically chewed him out after he apologized for an honest mistake. That's pretty childish.
fact is, if you're supposed to put a warning for spoilers in movie FPP, well, maybe beheadings should deserve the same treatment
The fact is, is that pxe saw his error, made a post regarding the error, and apologized before you made your post. I seriously doubt he posted this just to force people to watch this kind of footage. And I hardly think he rammed anything down your throat.
maybe it's a good idea to wanr other users don't you think?
Isn't that exactly what he did, when he posted a follow up apology and warning?
and by the way you call it "pretty gruesome" for you??
what's "gruesome gruesome" for you then?
please explain it to poor me until I grow the fuck up
I guess I just don't have your way with words, Matteo.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:31 PM on June 6, 2002
fact is, if you're supposed to put a warning for spoilers in movie FPP, well, maybe beheadings should deserve the same treatment
The fact is, is that pxe saw his error, made a post regarding the error, and apologized before you made your post. I seriously doubt he posted this just to force people to watch this kind of footage. And I hardly think he rammed anything down your throat.
maybe it's a good idea to wanr other users don't you think?
Isn't that exactly what he did, when he posted a follow up apology and warning?
and by the way you call it "pretty gruesome" for you??
what's "gruesome gruesome" for you then?
please explain it to poor me until I grow the fuck up
I guess I just don't have your way with words, Matteo.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:31 PM on June 6, 2002
And I hardly think he rammed anything down your throat.
I didn't want to see the snuff pics of a man whose death really touched me, I didnt look for it online, no sane media outlet in the world did publish it. it's my idea of ramming something down one's throat
thanks to this FPP, now I have seen Pearl's head
I just meant to avoid the same VERY unpleasant experience for some other user here
posted by matteo at 12:40 PM on June 6, 2002
I didn't want to see the snuff pics of a man whose death really touched me, I didnt look for it online, no sane media outlet in the world did publish it. it's my idea of ramming something down one's throat
thanks to this FPP, now I have seen Pearl's head
I just meant to avoid the same VERY unpleasant experience for some other user here
posted by matteo at 12:40 PM on June 6, 2002
Maybe you need to find a better ways of telling someone they made a mistake? I think the way you went about it was a little hot-headed, and accusatory.
Can you see my point?
posted by SweetJesus at 12:46 PM on June 6, 2002
Can you see my point?
posted by SweetJesus at 12:46 PM on June 6, 2002
It's not an honest mistake, SweetJesus, it's a stupid mistake. Anybody who knows of and is "repulsed by" the gruesome pictures in the print edition had damn well better make sure the online edition doesn't have the same crap before linking it. That's just moronic and pointless, especially considering we've already had this discussion.
pxe's "homework" completely sucks and since it resulted in people viewing some pretty horrible shit, you might expect some pretty angry reactions.
posted by stefanie at 12:51 PM on June 6, 2002
pxe's "homework" completely sucks and since it resulted in people viewing some pretty horrible shit, you might expect some pretty angry reactions.
posted by stefanie at 12:51 PM on June 6, 2002
THIS IS WORK UNSAFE.
THIS IS PROBABLY LIFE UNSAFE.
there was a bandwidth problem when i went to the page and i DID NOT see the image. i did not so much as see a box with a red x in it, pointing out that there was no image there. because this DID NOT SHOW UP in my browser (and because this was an editorial ABOUT the film, not the film ITSELF and not so much as a transcript) i ASSUMED this was not a post where i needed to post "NOT SAFE FOR WORK".
i was offended by the phoenix's rationale for posting that, and wanted to talk about it among people who -- i assumed -- were intelligent, and when i came back here and realised that there WAS A PROBLEM with the page based on another's comment, i posted that when i went there i saw no graphic nor indication of the graphic.
i am DEEPLY sorry that i posted a link that included that picture, especially since i opened the paper and saw fucking SCREEN GRABS from the video, above the fold on page four.
matteo, i am also sorry that unforgiving assholes like you roam the earth as well. i hope the next time you make an honest mistake someone rakes you over the coals publicly for it as you did to me, with no forgiveness whatsoever.
incidentially -- sweet jesus, thank you for standing up for me with your eloquent words. however, i am a girl, not a boy.
posted by pxe2000 at 12:51 PM on June 6, 2002
THIS IS PROBABLY LIFE UNSAFE.
there was a bandwidth problem when i went to the page and i DID NOT see the image. i did not so much as see a box with a red x in it, pointing out that there was no image there. because this DID NOT SHOW UP in my browser (and because this was an editorial ABOUT the film, not the film ITSELF and not so much as a transcript) i ASSUMED this was not a post where i needed to post "NOT SAFE FOR WORK".
i was offended by the phoenix's rationale for posting that, and wanted to talk about it among people who -- i assumed -- were intelligent, and when i came back here and realised that there WAS A PROBLEM with the page based on another's comment, i posted that when i went there i saw no graphic nor indication of the graphic.
i am DEEPLY sorry that i posted a link that included that picture, especially since i opened the paper and saw fucking SCREEN GRABS from the video, above the fold on page four.
matteo, i am also sorry that unforgiving assholes like you roam the earth as well. i hope the next time you make an honest mistake someone rakes you over the coals publicly for it as you did to me, with no forgiveness whatsoever.
incidentially -- sweet jesus, thank you for standing up for me with your eloquent words. however, i am a girl, not a boy.
posted by pxe2000 at 12:51 PM on June 6, 2002
i am also sorry that unforgiving assholes like you roam the earth as well
again, I didn't call you names, check my comment
however, i am a girl, not a boy
OK. So, even if I'd call you a fuckin' prick
(which I didn't, by the way, I'm probably too polite) that would have been a gender mistake
Maybe next time before you call other people "assholes", check out your FPP links for snuff pics, thank you, I'm sure you'll do that
Thanks for the link
posted by matteo at 1:00 PM on June 6, 2002
again, I didn't call you names, check my comment
however, i am a girl, not a boy
OK. So, even if I'd call you a fuckin' prick
(which I didn't, by the way, I'm probably too polite) that would have been a gender mistake
Maybe next time before you call other people "assholes", check out your FPP links for snuff pics, thank you, I'm sure you'll do that
Thanks for the link
posted by matteo at 1:00 PM on June 6, 2002
Can't you people see that matteo is really upset? And that he has good reason to be? pxe made an honest mistake, but even honest mistakes sometimes require grovelling apologies to make right.
posted by Faze at 1:04 PM on June 6, 2002
posted by Faze at 1:04 PM on June 6, 2002
Maybe next time before you call other people "assholes", check out your FPP links for snuff pics, thank you, I'm sure you'll do that
matteo, he just said that he did check the link, and that the pictures weren't displayed in his browser because of bandwidth problems. you need to chill the fuck out.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:04 PM on June 6, 2002
matteo, he just said that he did check the link, and that the pictures weren't displayed in his browser because of bandwidth problems. you need to chill the fuck out.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:04 PM on June 6, 2002
Not to join the parade, but in pxe's post she states that she is "repulsed that they printed some screen shots in their print edition". If they were willing to print them in the magazine, why would she think they wouldn't print them online?? And to say look here's a site that has the video of a murder, but darnit guys I wasn't able to load the images is kind of a lame excuse for not warning people that Daniel Pearl's severed head was going to greet those of use who *were* able to view the images. That's my problem with it. And pxe if you are asking us to be understanding, why don't you try it? The Boston Phoenix didn't give you the warning when they put the screen grabs in the paper and you didn't give us warning when you brought it here. Why would you expect our outrage to be any less than yours?
posted by nramsey at 1:05 PM on June 6, 2002
posted by nramsey at 1:05 PM on June 6, 2002
Of course, if this thread were deleted, the whole argument would be moot.
posted by bshort at 1:08 PM on June 6, 2002
posted by bshort at 1:08 PM on June 6, 2002
what do you people suggest she should have done? checked the source code? she looked at the page and there were no horrible images. should she have second-guessed what she saw on her screen? seriously. i want to know how any of you wouldn't have also made this mistake.
(and pxe, sorry about the gender switch in my first comment)
posted by pikachulolita at 1:10 PM on June 6, 2002
(and pxe, sorry about the gender switch in my first comment)
posted by pikachulolita at 1:10 PM on June 6, 2002
Can't you people see that matteo is really upset? And that he has good reason to be? pxe made an honest mistake, but even honest mistakes sometimes require groveling apologies to make right.
I can see that Matteo is acting like a total asshole about it, and derailing an otherwise good discussion into a flame-war about pxe's mistake.
Yeah, I understand that Matteo's upset, but she didn't post the link for any malicious reason. She just happened to make a mistake, and once she realized she made one, she apologized right away. It should have ended there.
If the Daniel Perl video is such an especially touchy subject for Matteo, then maybe he should just not click on ANY of the links regarding the topic, just incase.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:12 PM on June 6, 2002
I can see that Matteo is acting like a total asshole about it, and derailing an otherwise good discussion into a flame-war about pxe's mistake.
Yeah, I understand that Matteo's upset, but she didn't post the link for any malicious reason. She just happened to make a mistake, and once she realized she made one, she apologized right away. It should have ended there.
If the Daniel Perl video is such an especially touchy subject for Matteo, then maybe he should just not click on ANY of the links regarding the topic, just incase.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:12 PM on June 6, 2002
what do you people suggest she should have done? checked the source code? she looked at the page and there were no horrible images. should she have second-guessed what she saw on her screen? seriously. i want to know how any of you wouldn't have also made this mistake.
derailing an otherwise good discussion into a flame-war about pxe's mistake.
A discussion that we already had.
I can accept that it is an honest mistake, however, when I post something to Metafilter, I do my homework and make sure that it is "fit" for posting. If an image came up as she said, especially considering the subject matter, I would have tried to see the pic before posting the link, even if that meant refreshing a few times, or even coming back later.
I also may have done a little wider of a search for the topic. No, the particular article was not discussed, but the topic was, to the point that any more discussion on it would be repeating the same stances over and over again. I can accept that it was an honest mistake, but a little more care could have been put into the posting of this. Write it off as a learning experience and move on.
posted by adampsyche at 1:14 PM on June 6, 2002
derailing an otherwise good discussion into a flame-war about pxe's mistake.
A discussion that we already had.
I can accept that it is an honest mistake, however, when I post something to Metafilter, I do my homework and make sure that it is "fit" for posting. If an image came up as she said, especially considering the subject matter, I would have tried to see the pic before posting the link, even if that meant refreshing a few times, or even coming back later.
I also may have done a little wider of a search for the topic. No, the particular article was not discussed, but the topic was, to the point that any more discussion on it would be repeating the same stances over and over again. I can accept that it was an honest mistake, but a little more care could have been put into the posting of this. Write it off as a learning experience and move on.
posted by adampsyche at 1:14 PM on June 6, 2002
adampsyche: i did not so much as see a box with a red x in it, pointing out that there was no image there.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:15 PM on June 6, 2002
posted by pikachulolita at 1:15 PM on June 6, 2002
Ah. Didn't see the word "not" in there. My bad. Well, the search was a little skimpy, anyway.
posted by adampsyche at 1:17 PM on June 6, 2002
posted by adampsyche at 1:17 PM on June 6, 2002
the boston phoenix ... has decided to post the daniel pearl snuff video on their website
says it right there in the FPP. i read that, moused over the link, saw that it didn't go the website's front page, and decided that it probably wasn't something that was work safe. i made the decision for myself. i don't need anyone to protect me from what may offend me. Matteo wants to blame pxe for Matteo's apparently-without-thinking decision to go there. excercise some discretion and think before you follow a link that may have something you find offensive.
posted by tolkhan at 1:20 PM on June 6, 2002
says it right there in the FPP. i read that, moused over the link, saw that it didn't go the website's front page, and decided that it probably wasn't something that was work safe. i made the decision for myself. i don't need anyone to protect me from what may offend me. Matteo wants to blame pxe for Matteo's apparently-without-thinking decision to go there. excercise some discretion and think before you follow a link that may have something you find offensive.
posted by tolkhan at 1:20 PM on June 6, 2002
i just emailed mathowie and posted something to MeTa re: deletion of this thread. i am incredibly embarrassed that i posted something with these photos, especially since there was no indication that the page included the screen grabs.
this was a VERY serious mistake on my end. i asked for forgiveness and it would be nice if some of you made this a wee bit easier for me and not rubbed my face in it.
thank you.
this is not here.
posted by pxe2000 at 1:22 PM on June 6, 2002
this was a VERY serious mistake on my end. i asked for forgiveness and it would be nice if some of you made this a wee bit easier for me and not rubbed my face in it.
thank you.
this is not here.
posted by pxe2000 at 1:22 PM on June 6, 2002
And to say look here's a site that has the video of a murder, but darnit guys I wasn't able to load the images is kind of a lame excuse for not warning people that Daniel Pearl's severed head was going to greet those of use who *were* able to view the images.
that site didn't have the video, it just had a link to a site that did. And it's not like where the picture was (missing) they had a header saying what was in the photo. It seemed to be an honest mistake to me.
posted by stifford at 1:22 PM on June 6, 2002
that site didn't have the video, it just had a link to a site that did. And it's not like where the picture was (missing) they had a header saying what was in the photo. It seemed to be an honest mistake to me.
posted by stifford at 1:22 PM on June 6, 2002
A discussion that we already had.
Ahhhh, a discussion you've already had. I try to read MiFi when I can, but sometimes that's not very often. I rarely have time to discuss things in length. Today's a slow day, and I've got some time.
Being originally from Boston, and now living in Rhode Island for college, this particular angle of the story interested me. I've read the Phoenix for the better part of 6 or 7 years, and during that time I've watched the quality slowly nose-dive.
This could have been a good thread, with interesting discussions such as "media sensationalism disguised as the first amendment". Now it's another fucking bullshit thread, derailed to hell.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:24 PM on June 6, 2002
Ahhhh, a discussion you've already had. I try to read MiFi when I can, but sometimes that's not very often. I rarely have time to discuss things in length. Today's a slow day, and I've got some time.
Being originally from Boston, and now living in Rhode Island for college, this particular angle of the story interested me. I've read the Phoenix for the better part of 6 or 7 years, and during that time I've watched the quality slowly nose-dive.
This could have been a good thread, with interesting discussions such as "media sensationalism disguised as the first amendment". Now it's another fucking bullshit thread, derailed to hell.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:24 PM on June 6, 2002
why is this turning into a debate on whether pxe was right or wrong for posting the pictures? i understand the images may be unsettling for some people but to be quite honest this page loaded right up in my browser complete with graphic and i had no idea it was his chopped off head until all you guys started posting complaining about it. i think it was an honest mistake and maybe we can lay off the Metafilter PC Policing and focus on the real problem here.
Why is the government trying to hush this video? I don't see the difference between showing the video footage of the planes crashing into the WTC over and over again (which all major media did) and showing footage from this video. People need to be more aware of what is going on. Closing our eyes to this is not going to make it go away. If people were more aware of what we are up against they might spend more time trying to help make a change.
Instead of, say, bitching someone out incessantly after they have already apologized more than once for an honest mistake.
posted by monique at 1:25 PM on June 6, 2002
Why is the government trying to hush this video? I don't see the difference between showing the video footage of the planes crashing into the WTC over and over again (which all major media did) and showing footage from this video. People need to be more aware of what is going on. Closing our eyes to this is not going to make it go away. If people were more aware of what we are up against they might spend more time trying to help make a change.
Instead of, say, bitching someone out incessantly after they have already apologized more than once for an honest mistake.
posted by monique at 1:25 PM on June 6, 2002
Wait, the images didn't appear, but did the page stop loading? Or did pxe not wait t o see the whole page because of her bandwidth problems?
pxe, you did lead people to view some horrible things they would not have chosen to. It isn't appropriate now for you to be calling Matteo an "unforgiving asshole". No one owes you instant forgiveness.
I've checked out the front page of the Phoenix, and there is no warning there about the link you posted. Perhaps an email to them is in order.
posted by Catch at 1:26 PM on June 6, 2002
pxe, you did lead people to view some horrible things they would not have chosen to. It isn't appropriate now for you to be calling Matteo an "unforgiving asshole". No one owes you instant forgiveness.
I've checked out the front page of the Phoenix, and there is no warning there about the link you posted. Perhaps an email to them is in order.
posted by Catch at 1:26 PM on June 6, 2002
The first time I went to the page, I read the editorial and left the page without realizing that there was a screen shot there. Not to be crass, but on a quick glance that image looks like an ad.
posted by gluechunk at 1:29 PM on June 6, 2002
posted by gluechunk at 1:29 PM on June 6, 2002
Ahhhh, a discussion you've already had. I try to read MiFi when I can, but sometimes that's not very often. I rarely have time to discuss things in length. Today's a slow day, and I've got some time.
Well, you too could have participated in the very same discussion in the archives. The thread is not closed, and the little comment box is open at the bottom. Stumbling across a different article on the same topic that has been discussed as little as a week or so ago is a lame way of excusing a double post.
posted by adampsyche at 1:31 PM on June 6, 2002
Well, you too could have participated in the very same discussion in the archives. The thread is not closed, and the little comment box is open at the bottom. Stumbling across a different article on the same topic that has been discussed as little as a week or so ago is a lame way of excusing a double post.
posted by adampsyche at 1:31 PM on June 6, 2002
The first time I went to the page, I read the editorial and left the page without realizing that there was a screen shot there. Not to be crass, but on a quick glance that image looks like an ad
That's what i thought too. The picture is so small you really have to stare at it to tell that it is a disembodied head.
Again people, lighten up. You can't beat this horse anymore.
Someone mentioned something about "media sensationalism disguised as the first amendment"?
posted by monique at 1:35 PM on June 6, 2002
That's what i thought too. The picture is so small you really have to stare at it to tell that it is a disembodied head.
Again people, lighten up. You can't beat this horse anymore.
Someone mentioned something about "media sensationalism disguised as the first amendment"?
posted by monique at 1:35 PM on June 6, 2002
Well, I for one didn't even realize that pearl's head was disconnected when I saw the screen shot, it was blurry and there was no blood. Without context, you really can't tell.
Some of you need to lighten up.
posted by delmoi at 1:37 PM on June 6, 2002
Some of you need to lighten up.
posted by delmoi at 1:37 PM on June 6, 2002
Well, you too could have participated in the very same discussion in the archives. The thread is not closed, and the little comment box is open at the bottom. Stumbling across a different article on the same topic that has been discussed as little as a week or so ago is a lame way of excusing a double post.
How is this a double post? The link that was referenced was about the FBI requesting the video be taken down. This link was about a large paper (5 states in the NE area) publicly linking to the site under the guise of the first amendment.
These are two completely different topics.
I'll never understand users on this site who go out of their way to de-rail discussions. If you think the post is a double post, and you don't plan on entering into the new discussion, then don't post.
I'm not going to post to the archives because you happen to be bored with the topic at hand. If you don't like the topic, leave, and be done with it. Don't come in here and tell me what I should or shouldn't discuss because it's old news to you.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:42 PM on June 6, 2002
How is this a double post? The link that was referenced was about the FBI requesting the video be taken down. This link was about a large paper (5 states in the NE area) publicly linking to the site under the guise of the first amendment.
These are two completely different topics.
I'll never understand users on this site who go out of their way to de-rail discussions. If you think the post is a double post, and you don't plan on entering into the new discussion, then don't post.
I'm not going to post to the archives because you happen to be bored with the topic at hand. If you don't like the topic, leave, and be done with it. Don't come in here and tell me what I should or shouldn't discuss because it's old news to you.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:42 PM on June 6, 2002
I think the real issue is "Why are we, as a society, so utterly disconnected with death that we completely freak out when it pops up?"
Seriously, it's banned as a topic in school. A dead person soon becomes a non-person. And heaven help you if you "abuse" (?) the dead.
How precious is this illusion of immortality? How far from reality to we have to pretend to be to accommodate people who, apparently, are so mentally or emotionally fragile that they will have a nervous breakdown if faced by it?
posted by kablam at 1:51 PM on June 6, 2002
Seriously, it's banned as a topic in school. A dead person soon becomes a non-person. And heaven help you if you "abuse" (?) the dead.
How precious is this illusion of immortality? How far from reality to we have to pretend to be to accommodate people who, apparently, are so mentally or emotionally fragile that they will have a nervous breakdown if faced by it?
posted by kablam at 1:51 PM on June 6, 2002
I clicked the link & wish I didn't.
The image and the video is very disrespectful to the Pearl family. Now I believe that news should be free and open, but you do have to draw a line. So what's next? Pulling images from rotten to use in a story about traffic accidents? I think they just wanted to up their hits....
posted by mkelley at 1:52 PM on June 6, 2002
The image and the video is very disrespectful to the Pearl family. Now I believe that news should be free and open, but you do have to draw a line. So what's next? Pulling images from rotten to use in a story about traffic accidents? I think they just wanted to up their hits....
posted by mkelley at 1:52 PM on June 6, 2002
i guess some people prefer that type of news that tells them the latest dirt that their favorite celebrity has gotten into as opposed to being informed about something that could possibly have an effect on the freedoms that we so obviously take for granted in this country.
wake up people, this is news. winona ryder getting busted stealing at Saks? Not so much. (that's not news, it's gossip)
Why are we so afraid to face the harsh reality of the world we live in? People can make movies about submarine attacks and girls rigged with explosives and ballbearings blowing up in the middle of the street and make millions but let a news outlet report something real and oh my god they have committed a crime (how's that for a run-on?).
I don't think showing this video is anymore disrespectful to the memory of Daniel Pearl than the repeated showing of the Sept 11 attacks was to the families of all those unnamed victims.
posted by monique at 2:06 PM on June 6, 2002
wake up people, this is news. winona ryder getting busted stealing at Saks? Not so much. (that's not news, it's gossip)
Why are we so afraid to face the harsh reality of the world we live in? People can make movies about submarine attacks and girls rigged with explosives and ballbearings blowing up in the middle of the street and make millions but let a news outlet report something real and oh my god they have committed a crime (how's that for a run-on?).
I don't think showing this video is anymore disrespectful to the memory of Daniel Pearl than the repeated showing of the Sept 11 attacks was to the families of all those unnamed victims.
posted by monique at 2:06 PM on June 6, 2002
« Older | Gourd Speakers. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by bshort at 11:06 AM on June 6, 2002