- Did the Guardian publish obscene material today? And should it have?
What’s interesting today is that the Guardian website is breathlessly exclaiming “Watch the video of alleged desecration” and is hosting a video which, presumably, is the video in question. I have to say I haven’t watched it because a) I get bored enough watching myself urinate, let alone other people and b) I felt watching the video wouldn’t make me any better-informed than I was having read the description.
Ten years ago, you had to search gore out on rotten.com. Now it’s on mainstream websites. So here’s the thing: firstly, if watching videotape of people urinating on corpses isn’t obscene, what is?
Secondly, even if it is not obscene under the law, was it really a necessary editorial decision? Did Alan Rusbridger (or, I suppose, whoever edits the front page of the guardian news website) really think that its readers needed to see the video themselves in order to understand the story?
Did you watch the video? What do you think? Send us your texts. Speak your brains to 485843…Posted 6 years agoJunkyardMember
Despite the perception I dont go
I see little need to publish the video – I have seen a still on sonme website but I think we all have sufficient imagination to work out what urinating ona corspe invloves.Posted 6 years ago
Is it obscene – no idea but I assume you have to choose to watch it and i assume it does what it says on the tin. You were a tad foolish to watch it and then get offendedalpinMember
ahhh… rotten.com. those were tha days.
the underground here in munich has large video screens at some stations. i was somewhat surprised to see a pixilated video of four or five marines clearly pissing on some bloke.
but then the germans are a kinky lot; it was probably more erotic than shocking to most of the people on the platform.Posted 6 years agoTooTallMember
max damage to US reputation
and associated additional deaths brought about by ‘revenge attacks’.
I’d rather see it as a complete failure of military discipline and dealt with properly than a negative PR circus involving the desecration of bodies – that is just beyond sad, Al.Posted 6 years agoTrimixMember
Newspapers are trying to make a profit, so they will publish stuff that makes people look. Then they can sell more. It simple.
They dont always do that by publishing news sadly.
Most news papers should be renamed, sleaze/celebrity-crap-stories/stuff-we-made-up-papers. But its not catchy enough.Posted 6 years agoLiferSubscriber
I have watched it, there’s nothing there (apart from the pissing on bodies bit) that you wouldn’t see on the News, no-where near as graphic as the Gadaffi video that the networks were spunking over.
Trimix – you don’t think it’s news?
TooTall – Member
“max damage to US reputation
and associated additional deaths brought about by ‘revenge attacks’.”
I’d rather see it as a complete failure of military discipline and dealt with properly than a negative PR circus involving the desecration of bodies – that is just beyond sad, Al.
Fear of ‘revenge attacks’ is no reason not to publish stuff. It is soldiers who are responsible, not the cameraman, not the media, not the people who watch it
And the military has a bit of a poor reputation in dealing with things like this properly:Posted 6 years agocrankboyMember
They seem to have photoshopped something out of their picture of Angela Merkel too.
re the pissing incident i think the still image was necessary to validate the story the video is unnecessary (not watched it as i can imagine) They should not have pixelated the faces of the marines though if their proud enough to film it then their mums and the world should be able to identify them.Posted 6 years agokonabunnyMember
You were a tad foolish to watch it and then get offended
I haven’t watched it because a) I get bored enough watching myself urinate, let alone other people and b) I felt watching the video wouldn’t make me any better-informed than I was having read the description
someone needs to show the world just how morally corrupt they are.
Obviously I am not talking about not reporting the incident itself. I’m just wondering why it was necessary to encourage people to watch the videotape when the description was surely sufficient. Were you more outraged or better-informed after you watched the video?
no-where near as graphic as the Gadaffi video that the networks were spunking over.
I thought the Gadaffi video (and the Hussein execution video) were also unwise editorial decisions because they did not add to public understand and were also (in my subjective opinion) obscene for the same reason.Posted 6 years ago
The topic ‘Did the Guardian publish obscene material today? And should it have?’ is closed to new replies.