|chumbucket - 2015-08-27 |
I get Hewitt's point here though. As soon as the story broke just about every news report went right to explaining how a video of the event was filmed and posted online. "How DARE the public have access to it!!"
I didn't have to watch this video to get the gist of it. But I did watch the original YT when it was in the hopper, still confused about what was going on. And it's an interesting debate: some 12 year old somewhere is probably watching it to be entertained, while the majority of us would like to see what actually happened. After Columbine I remember the security cam video being shown on regular news with a disclaimer, and as utterly tragic as this was, I don't see much of a difference.
The video the murderer took is horrifying but does not show any visible gore. He walks up to the victims and raises his gun at them, then lowers it because he realises the TV camera is not pointed at the reporter. It shows he specifically intended his murders to be aired on live TV. The three victims, focused on their jobs, are oblivious that someone just pointed a gun at them from 3 feet away.
I am not pro censorship, but when someone kills specifically to get the footage shown to a mass audience I think there is room for discussion. Liveleak themselves stopped hosting the ISIS beheading videos that were carefully produced specifically for propaganda purposes, so even they see an arbitrary limit, although a lone wolf killer is different to an entire military force.
Kamlem that's a good point. I haven't had much time to read too much about it, but I didn't really think about why he hesitated; in fact I thought maybe he was having last-minute second thoughts. That's incredibly sick.
Another thing I didn't consider is how the video was initially shared: seeing it on live TV from the cameraman's perspective must've been a lot like those who watched Budd Dwyer take his own life on live TV, or even us kids who watched the Challenger explode.
But the video in question, from Flanagan's perspective, was immediately uploaded not to his personal facebook but rather his fan page, which had thousands of likes and fans. And the way Facebook works now is that it autoplays the video that you're scrolling over. If you were a fan of his (or a friend of yours' was a fan and it was a recommended page for you to like) then you saw the video whether you liked it or not because it just played the same as a cat video would if your friend likes Buzzfeed.
It was all taken down within 10 minutes, but that's not before plenty of people saved the video and reuploaded it. That's kind of fucked up: it's like witnessing any crime up close, and unlike police cases where bodycam footage would've been nice, that particular video doesn't change the outcome. It is pretty much people wanting to see people getting shot in real life instead of in a video game or a movie.
|SolRo - 2015-08-27 |
Is this a non-America program?
because I saw at least one American broadcast news website with the camera mans footage shown in their video report about it.
Also the interviewer is such a fucking hypocrite.
|Oscar Wildcat - 2015-08-27 |
Hayden comes off as an idiot, but stick around for the last 30 seconds or so: it suddenly blasts off into the interview scene from Cronenberg's "Videodrome". Stars for that.
Come on, even if you're taking sides here, the host gets in a good double-dis at the end.
The two guests get ticked off with each other and have a mess of trouble making their points understandably. If you side with one, you're pretty much filling in the blanks for him.
Solid punch line.
|jangbones - 2015-08-27 |
the American gun discussion is completely useless at this point
casting light on things helps more than it hurts
too bad if the reality of the situation makes people uncomfortable
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2015-08-27 |
Anyone know the story of how Ogrish transitioned to Liveleak and was this guy a part of it?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|