In Canadian media, CTV reports a similar situation from a 2007 by saying:
"Three years ago, German police found digital photographic images of a man allegedly having sex with Asian boys.”
In Thailand, the Phuket Gazette uses language far more graphic and there is a photo of the person in question.
“Last night, Kathu Police Superintendent Grissak Songmoonnark showed the media a dossier of evidence containing graphic images of a Caucasian man alleged to be Mr Young performing anal sex on a boy whose age was estimated at no older than twelve.
Other incriminating images included pictures of the suspect having oral sex performed on him by young boys.”
It would provoke an interesting and heated debate to question which type of journalism is more ethical. Do you think there is a difference? Do you think one is better than the other?
3 comments:
I don't see a difference personally. They're both equally appalling.
Although, one makes me want to hit the guy with a little more oomph.
Are you questioning whether it's ethical to publish specific details of these things that are done to kids?
I think it's entirely reasonable and perhaps useful to publish it, so long as the kid's identity isn't revealed.
They at times show images of young kids found on pedophile's computers in the news here. Their faces are censored and nothing hardcore is shown, but just seeing a little prepubescent kid in their underwear in a suggestive manner is enough to evoke lots of sympathy from the public.
We should be protecting the kids, first and foremost, and taking semi-drastic measures to let the public know that this is happening and is unacceptable is fine with me, within reason.
I see value in publishing some details.
I see the difference in the detail. Anal/ oral sex puts a lot more imagery into your head then just sex. I guess it shows how long I have been out of the country, as I have never seen the sort of news broadcasts that you are talking about. Perhaps it is the media/ public relationship of needing to have more and more graphic depictions in order to get a reaction or sympathy, as you refer to it. Something that happens in all factions of the news.
I don' think there is a problem with issuing details, once the person has been charged. I wasn't saying that one way of journalism was better than the other, only stating there is a difference but as you mentioned, maybe I am wrong in my assumption that they "tell more" in Thailand. I don't have a tv and only read about these events online or in papers. To me it was shocking to see the details and I thought it comment worthy.
That being said, I know in Thai language newspapers they are very graphic, showing photos of car accident victims etc. I think if I were to read the exact same thing in an UK/ Canadian paper, I would think it was for shock value or higher ratings, for sensationalism and for the fact that the news is now supposed to be as entertaining as it is informative.
Crimes are sensationalised here. Not sure if there's any benefit to it since crime rates remain appallingly high. Same as road accidents. Thai newspapers splash horrific photos of accident aftermaths on their front pages but it does not seem to have any effect on the public's awareness of safety. This case is very disturbing since it has emerged that a 17-year-old German boy has also been arrested as an accomplice to the crimes. I suspect he is as much as a victim as the younger boys lured into the trap. Not sure if all the detail was necessary. "Rape" would have sufficed, I think...
Post a Comment