• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you think of the media showing video of Olympic luger's death

Is it ok to show the video of his accident?

  • Yes it's perfectly ok

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • No, it's disrespectful and exploitive

    Votes: 22 68.8%
  • other

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Total voters
    32
The family wouldn't be able to get anything out of this, nor should they be able to.

On what grounds :roll:

Lets face it, from an ethical standpoint, this was outside the level of decency. From a legal standpoint, there has been harm inflicted upon the family. IE, they deserve compensation if they so wish. Personally, I think they would just want NBC to take any and all videos of their son's death down. I don't think they would want any monetary compensation, if thats what you think I was arguing.
 
Well it is obvously a very dangerous sport.However we have to see the reality of what can happen to someone.
 
I think it's sensationalism in it's purest form. The media has relegated itself to being nothing more than entertaining(at best).
 
So if my hypothetical seven year old wants to watch a snuff film, it's a good idea to let that happen? :roll:
I don't mean to suggest that parents shouldn't supervise their children or regulate what they watch. I do mean to suggest that the parent/child relationship should not exist between the media and the viewing public.
This crash happened. This young athlete was killed. I believe the clip has value in the following ways:
1) It demonstrates the fragility of human life.
2) It shows the risk that these athletes are taking.
3) It is true and real. It happened.
If you don't want to watch it that's fine. Turn away, change the channel, watch nickelodeon instead. But don't suggest that the possibility of viewing it should be denied to those of us who are comfortable with reality even in its ugliness. In my opinion too much violence and death is censored out of the news, and it impacts our democracy negatively. After all, it's easy, for example, to support a war when you never have to see the bodies of the children slaughtered in it or the reaction of their parents. Similarly, in a roundabout way, this little piece of reality has to be considered when making an assessment of the current olympic games, the safety of the track, etc.
 
I don't mean to suggest that parents shouldn't supervise their children or regulate what they watch. I do mean to suggest that the parent/child relationship should not exist between the media and the viewing public.
This crash happened. This young athlete was killed. I believe the clip has value in the following ways:
1) It demonstrates the fragility of human life.
2) It shows the risk that these athletes are taking.
3) It is true and real. It happened.
If you don't want to watch it that's fine. Turn away, change the channel, watch nickelodeon instead. But don't suggest that the possibility of viewing it should be denied to those of us who are comfortable with reality even in its ugliness. In my opinion too much violence and death is censored out of the news, and it impacts our democracy negatively. After all, it's easy, for example, to support a war when you never have to see the bodies of the children slaughtered in it or the reaction of their parents. Similarly, in a roundabout way, this little piece of reality has to be considered when making an assessment of the current olympic games, the safety of the track, etc.

It's not a question of whether the viewer wants to watch this or not. This isn't a question of personal preference. I, personally, found the video morbidly interesting. But, I question whether it is respectful of the dead man's family, who in my eyes was really only a boy, and a mother and father's son.
 
CBS has the video footage of the luge accident that killed Nodar Kumaritashvili from the nation of Georgia. Yes, I watched the video, it was on their website. It goes on to blandly discuss the mild weather after showing video footage of his death.

Is this ok to show the video? They also have closeups of him right before the accident. Yes, it is morbidly riveting, I admit.

Olympic Athlete Dies in Training - CBS News Video
awful, just awful. i didn't watch it, won't watch it.
 
I believe that it should be legal to show the video, but that showing it is disturbing and lacks all class and decency on the part of the broadcaster.

The news aspect of the story is that the man tragically died. The sick and depraved entertainment aspect is showing the video.

Should they be allowed to show it? Sure. Freedom's a bitch.

Should they actually go ahead and show it? Not if they have any decency (which they clearly do not)
 
I believe that it should be legal to show the video, but that showing it is disturbing and lacks all class and decency on the part of the broadcaster.

The news aspect of the story is that the man tragically died. The sick and depraved entertainment aspect is showing the video.

Should they be allowed to show it? Sure. Freedom's a bitch.

Should they actually go ahead and show it? Not if they have any decency (which they clearly do not)
yes, of course it should be legal. that said, cbs sucks.
 
yes, of course it should be legal. that said, cbs sucks.
That's a given. I can't believe anyone watches them for news anymore. I bet they were motivated to show the video for ratings even more than the rest of the networks.
 
ah...i had no idea. i don't watch too much tv.....

Very sensible liblady. I don't think this a question of legality, however although several countries do enforce legislation protecting an individual's privacy. Privacy at the moment of death (even when you have consented to being televised doing something dangerous) I would suggest would be covered by such legislation. I have no idea whether such laws exist in the US, but they do elsewhere.

I think it's more a question of personal and professional ethics; those of the channel heads that have to weigh-up whether or not to broadcast. I don't know how it was handled in the US, but I became very upset at (still do, actually) at repeated showings, for no possible journalistic reason, of the planes crashing into the WTC. There is a BIG difference in showing something that has just happened for the information of viewers and showing something dramatic or traumatic for entertainment purposes. Even then, showing something for informative reasons must be tempered with a consideration of just how much the public has a right to see. I do not agree with the libertarian position that because something has happened everyone has the right to see it. There are other rights in play (the right to respect, privacy, etc) that should also be taken into account and, in this case, I believe such rights were ignored.

Shame on those broadcasters who showed it. Let's name and shame them.
I accuse Antena 3, Telecinco, La Sexta and RTVA in Spain of infringing this poor guy and his family's right to privacy and dignity. Anyone else care to extend the list?
 
I think, in past eras, the press had higher professional standards, and more respect for privacy. This was before all day news channels that have theme music and graphics for each tragedy that comes along, with too many news outlets competing with one another for viewership, and resorting to the lowest common denominator to do so.

I, personally, have already opted out of TV and get my news either online, or on the radio while driving. I found the above video on the CBS site, but I think most of the U.S. outlets are airing it.

Gone are the days when the president could be in a wheelchair and carrying on with a mistress throughout his presidency, and the press corps would respect his privacy like they did for FDR. Perhaps that was a little extreme, but today the major new media have become tabloid and exploitive of any seamy factoid or sensationalistic video clip they can get their dirty hands on.
 
Very sensible liblady. I don't think this a question of legality, however although several countries do enforce legislation protecting an individual's privacy. Privacy at the moment of death (even when you have consented to being televised doing something dangerous) I would suggest would be covered by such legislation. I have no idea whether such laws exist in the US, but they do elsewhere.

I think it's more a question of personal and professional ethics; those of the channel heads that have to weigh-up whether or not to broadcast. I don't know how it was handled in the US, but I became very upset at (still do, actually) at repeated showings, for no possible journalistic reason, of the planes crashing into the WTC. There is a BIG difference in showing something that has just happened for the information of viewers and showing something dramatic or traumatic for entertainment purposes. Even then, showing something for informative reasons must be tempered with a consideration of just how much the public has a right to see. I do not agree with the libertarian position that because something has happened everyone has the right to see it. There are other rights in play (the right to respect, privacy, etc) that should also be taken into account and, in this case, I believe such rights were ignored.

Shame on those broadcasters who showed it. Let's name and shame them.
I accuse Antena 3, Telecinco, La Sexta and RTVA in Spain of infringing this poor guy and his family's right to privacy and dignity. Anyone else care to extend the list?
they are probably not violating anyone's rights, as the man was a participant in a televised event. that doesn't excuse them morally, however.
 
Other.

It's See BS's choice.

It's called freedom of information.

At least CBS this information wasn't forged, something See BS has used before without qualm.

Needless to say, since I don't waste time on See BS, I haven't seen the video of the athlete's last flight. I saw a very short clip of someone I presume was the athlete going down the luge, but since Fox is a news outlet with some senstivity to the sensibilities of it's viewership, it doesn't usually air the trash the other more sensationalist less fact oriented outlets, like See BS, puts out.

Then again, Fox accounts for almost a full half of all news viewership, doesn't it?

Think maybe there's a reason for that?
 
Last edited:
I don't know what to think of that. If I was in the luger's family I'd probably be really upset about it being on television.

It is an interesting point about JFK. I remember watching a documentary last November where they showed his head exploding from the kill shot several times as if it was routine.

I guess nothing is sacred anymore.

All of JFK's immediate family are dead.
 
Other.

It's See BS's choice.

It's called freedom of information.

At least CBS this information wasn't forged, something See BS has used before without qualm.

Needless to say, since I don't waste time on See BS, I haven't seen the video of the athlete's last flight. I saw a very short clip of someone I presume was the athlete going down the luge, but since Fox is a news outlet with some senstivity to the sensibilities of it's viewership, it doesn't usually air the trash the other more sensationalist less fact oriented outlets, like See BS, puts out.

Then again, Fox accounts for almost a full half of all news viewership, doesn't it?

Think maybe there's a reason for that?

Freedom of Information is a wholly different matter. The "information" in this story was that the guy died. No one was objecting to that information being released. Watching the guy collide with the stanchion served no informative purpose whatsoever.

As far as your blurb about CBS v. Fox News, like I could give a toss. I watch Al Jazeera.
 
Then again, Fox accounts for almost a full half of all news viewership, doesn't it?

Think maybe there's a reason for that?

haha Fox is such a joke. Whenever you employ people like Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck it shows how biased you are thus the reason a lot of people mock Fox.
 
Somebody better let Caroline know. Bitch still thinks she's alive.

Well, someone correct that problem, then.

Here's the difference, then:

A president of the United States, even one as bad as JFK was, is an important historical figure. The general public is going to want to know exactly what happened, and they have a right to know.

This guy on the luge is a nameless athlete to practically everyone, his death has no impact on anyone's life, outside of his personal circle of family and friends, and the only purpose See BS served was their salacious desire to be titillated by someone else's trauma.

Professional news services should not cater to the sense of shadenfrued (sorry, can't spell German, the sense of elation at the discomfiture and bad luck of others) but rather establish a reputation for presenting the essential and relevant facts. See BS hasn't been a professional news orgnanization for decades, not since Walther Cronkite decided to interject his personal views on the Vietnam War.
 
haha Fox is such a joke. Whenever you employ people like Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck it shows how biased you are thus the reason a lot of people mock Fox.

Yeah, whatever.

Anyone who dismisses Beck either hasn't watched the show or is too ignorant to heed his lessons. He ain't perfect, but if he wasn't good, the losers on the Left wouldn't be ordered to hate him.
 
Yeah, whatever.

Anyone who dismisses Beck either hasn't watched the show or is too ignorant to heed his lessons. He ain't perfect, but if he wasn't good, the losers on the Left wouldn't be ordered to hate him.

He's like Limbaugh, he purposely makes inflammatory remarks, aimed at provoking a reaction, so he gets good ratings. Beck is easily the most radical person on FOX, and as such, he really is a lot like Limbaugh.
 
Back
Top Bottom