Osama Bin Laden Killed

Badger I don't think it will be on the front cover of any of the nationals. I think the media outlets will publish it on their websites pixalated or with a warning of disturbing content until you click to view. Well at least I hope that's what they will do. Censor the stuff on homepages unless the reader wishes to view the content.

The video footage will definitely be more graphic than any photos (if) released.

If what I've heard about the content of the images is correct, I don't doubt for a moment that even the Sun would decide not to put it on their front cover, as the backlash from parents who's kids accidentally saw it would be immense. From what I've heard, they're not images to just put in the public domain and let everyone look at, they need to be put behind a warning to stop people accidentally coming across them.

Personally, I don't need to see them to believe he has been shot, and I think the damage of releasing them could be far higher than any supposed benefit. The photos prove nothing other than someone's been shot in the face.

Pictures of Saddam's sons were published during the Iraq War after they'd been killed - of course under the previous administration who may have taken a different view.

The Saddam hanging was slightly different as it wasn't meant to come out, someone filmed it themselves on their phone, I remember there being a bit of a controversy about it at the time

The Guardian has done just that with photos of OBL's son and courier.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-compound



Saddam's sons didn't have a quarter of their heads blown off, an eye missing, brains visible and the other eye wide open, which apparently is what the OBL photo shows. No one needs to see that. I don't think even Bush would have agreed to release it.

Yes, they are pics that Reuters obtained. For those interested there is a good write up of how they were obtained and the methods used to determine their authenticity: http://www.reuters.com/subjects/bin-laden-compound

If the photos are ever released, they're out there in the public domain. Ideas to restrict their use in the media are very naïve in these days of the internet.

However the traditional media outlets - TV, papers and their websites can be trusted to take the editorial decision to be careful and not 'splash' graphic pictures all over their output. Not only would they exercise good judgement they will be aware of the consequences should they get it wrong - reputations and therefore profits and jobs are at stake. It's not without precedent, such decisions are made regularly, especially in times of conflict or natural disaster... of which we've had plenty just over the last 6 months.

I think you're giving credit where it isn't deserved.

And to the matter of British tabloids showing it - there's no question in my mind they would splash it on the front pages; if for no other reason than to say, "we've been wronged, this is our vengeance - and if the Muslims object, let them".

Although that would be condensed to a pithy headline such as, "Bin Bagged".

It would be nice to think pictures would be buried (no pun intended) on page 14, but lets be honest - the papers have no real concerns about stimulating a backlash. Shock sells copy, backlash sells even more - and in these times of diminishing sales, they would leap upon it.

The Sun (unless I'm mistaken) today ran with, "Killed While He Was Unarmed - Just Like His Victims on 9/11" or words to that effect.

Its lowest common denominator for the red-tops. Why would anyone expect this to be different.

And from an objective viewpoint, as best I can - we all witnessed some pretty harrowing stuff on 9/11, and much of it was repeatedly shown in the papers and television media thereafter. And we've ALL watched it. Again and again and again.

Seems peculiar to read comments now about these images being "unnecessarily graphic" now.

That's just my take on it. Disagree with me by all means.

I did watch the 9/11 events as they unfolded Gav. Just the once mind and I found it very disturbing. I never ever want to watch it ever again.
I do hope that the british media won't lower themselves to the gutter and publish them in my daily national papers ( real paper.. god bless the forests). I personally have no desire to see that over my morning cuppa. I will speak to my local newsagent tomorrow and if/when there is a snapshot I will ask him to cancel my papers for that day.
I do have a feeling that i will be disappointed. Goddamn i don't want to miss my fave cartoons in the mirror and sun tomorrow.

If you are indeed correct regarding the thought process of British tabloids, then it would be a matter of weighing up formenting resentment among the Muslim community with potnetially scarring your loyal readership for life, the overwhelming majority of whom do not want to see a dead man staring up at them with a chunk of his head missing while they're trying to eat their cornflakes, even if it is the infamous Osama Bin Laden. Also, I can't envisage the tabloids putting the image on page 14. I mean how would you safeguard against your readers accidentally coming across it while flicking through the paper - put a huge warning on the preceding page, which they may or may not immediately dismiss as an full-page advert and turn over anyway. It's just not going to happen.

Gavin, I'm surprised you thought 9/11 was "harrowing". The event itself was pretty shocking at the time, but all we saw was the kind of massive explosion we've all seen in Hollywood movies a thousand times before and since. Also there's the fact that 9/11 was pretty much unavoidable, whereas in the case of OBL the White House had a choice, and I believe the administration made the right decision. Stuff like this brutalises people. We don't need to see it.

If the photos are as bad as they're rumoured to be, do you really think a paper would do that? As I said above such decisions aren't just a case of thinking 'should we?' it's 'dare we?'. There are real practical risks to an editor who decides to do such a thing, believe me they won't take the decision lightly.

I'm sure that some would take less care than others.... the Desmond papers are editorially very weak and slapdash for example. Something like The Sun which has a big readership will be a lot more careful


We've seen most of it again and again, but the broadcasters have held off showing some footage except when absolutely necessary - the plane crashes for example are deemed too violent for casual use. The footage of people jumping quite understandably is also rarely shown (even on the day I don't think it made it to air)

I'm quite sure some editors take these decisions seriously, but, editors come under proprietors.

I'd be a lot more inclined to take your view if the Mail hadn't already published the hoax picture online. A penny to a pound says if it hadn't been rubbished that day it would have appeared in print.

I'm really surprised - and may I say, disappointed - to hear you say that.