|
|
Americans Object to War Images Online
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status:
Offline
|
|
Americans Object to War Images Online
NEW YORK - Half of Americans object to the online availability of graphic war images, though millions have actively sought them out, a new study finds.
In a report released Thursday, the Pew Internet and American Life Project also found a major cultural divide: Men, Democrats and younger Americans were more likely to approve of having such images on the Web.
According to the study, 24 percent of adult Internet users, or 30 million people, have seen such graphic images online, and 28 percent of those people actively sought them out. That comes out to more than 8 million active seekers.
Yet overall, Americans disapprove of the postings by a margin of 49 percent to 40 percent. Another 4 percent say approval depends on circumstances, while the rest wouldn't say or have no opinion.
A third of the Americans who saw the images � some 10 million � regret doing so.
Sree Sreenivasan, a Columbia University online media professor who is not connected with the study, said Americans aren't always prepared for what they click, even though many links carry warnings about the images' graphic nature.
"Our experiences on the Internet are built upon experiences with previous media," he said. "What's graphic in most people's minds is a slasher movie or a Sopranos episode with a beheading. Those don't prepare you for how graphic (these images) could be."
Lee Rainie, director of the Pew study, said Americans generally embrace the principle that more information is better, "but once they encounter real-life applications of that principle, in many cases, they are unhappy."
MSNBC.com cloaked the more disturbing images with a black "curtain" carrying a warning before visitors click. But the most graphic images were left off the site entirely, consistent with NBC broadcast guidelines, said Dean Wright, the site's editor in chief.
"We want our Web site to be a place where the mainstream news consumer can feel safer," he said.
He said a small number of visitors complained that the site was censoring the reality of war, just as a small group complained that even the moderate images were too much. But he said visitors were overall happy with MSNBC's judgment calls.
According to the random telephone-based survey of 2,200 adult Americans, conducted May 14 to June 17:
_Internet users approve of the images' availability by 47 percent to 44 percent, which is within the margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Only 29 percent of non-users approve having the photos, while 58 percent disapprove.
_Fifty-three percent of men approve, compared with 29 percent among women.
_Fifty-two percent of adults under 30 approve, while only 31 percent of those 50 or over do.
_Fifty-two percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents were OK with having the images, compared with 42 percent of Republicans.
Do you believe that people should given the war-related information without any restrictions, or should the media decide what is appropriate for viewing and reading?
|
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Arizona Bay
Status:
Offline
|
|
The media should NOT act as a filter. Instead there should be news agencies which advertise the fact they don't, so people who wish to recieve less "harsh" news can go to alternate sources.
(Just my opinion.)
|
<some witty quote that identifies my originality as a person except for the fact everyone else does the same thing>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by CD Hanks:
The media should NOT act as a filter. Instead there should be news agencies which advertise the fact they don't, so people who wish to recieve less "harsh" news can go to alternate sources.
(Just my opinion.)
So you're saying that the media should not act as a filter; they should filter instead?
Or are you saying that it should be as today, except that sources who supply uncensored images should clearly state so in a warning page?
-s*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Arizona Bay
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
So you're saying that the media should not act as a filter; they should filter instead?
Or are you saying that it should be as today, except that sources who supply uncensored images should clearly state so in a warning page?
-s*
Erm, the latter. (Yea, I bungled my explanation up. Sleep deprivation does strange things. Hell, I think I still haven't gotten across what my brain is telling me. Screw it.)
|
<some witty quote that identifies my originality as a person except for the fact everyone else does the same thing>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by angaq0k:
Americans Object to War Images Online
Do you believe that people should given the war-related information without any restrictions, or should the media decide what is appropriate for viewing and reading?
I think the media has already decided what is to be appropriate. That's what I've concluded.
The Washington Post ran Abu Ghraib prison photos on the front page for what three weeks, while burying the Nick Berg story after a day of coverage, and now they want our opinion of it? That's insulting.
|
Lysdexics have more fnu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by slow moe:
The Washington Post ran Abu Ghraib prison photos on the front page for what three weeks, while burying the Nick Berg story after a day of coverage, and now they want our opinion of it? That's insulting.
FWIW, the Abu Ghraib story, being committed by righteous and humanitarian liberators and, had a FAR greater news relevance than the kidnapping and subsequent killing of a man by an extremist terrorist group.
Also FWIW, Nick Berg was front-page material for a lot longer than just a day, at least here in Europe.
-s*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
FWIW, the Abu Ghraib story, being committed by righteous and humanitarian liberators and, had a FAR greater news relevance than the kidnapping and subsequent killing of a man by an extremist terrorist group.
Also FWIW, Nick Berg was front-page material for a lot longer than just a day, at least here in Europe.
-s*
Never said the images were insulting, but when you sling hot sh!t in someone's face, then ask them if it was appropriate, what do you expect?
Besides, depending on who face it is, of course you're going to have an audience for it.
|
Lysdexics have more fnu.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't understand your post.
"Slinging sh*t"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NOT America!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Don't you think the news coming to you is already more than enough filtered? any more filtering and they wouldn't have to bother with programs at all.
Why not demand 24/7 commercials and be done with it?
|
These people are Americans. Don't expect anything meaningful or... uh... normalcy...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't really care for any of those options -- I don't think the media should filter anything, regardless of the effect on military operations.
|
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|