NATION

PASSWORD

Fox News Hosts Video of Jordanian Pilot Being Burned Alive

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:20 pm

Neutraligon wrote:I am...not sure I agree with the decision. I kinda feel that by showing this they are giving ISIS more of a platform. There is no need for the visuals to show how despicable they are.

One wonders how one is supposed to avoid giving them a platform whilst reporting on them, particularly in the specifics.

For example, Vice News had a multi-part series about ISIS that included interviews with ISIS members in English (or translated from Arabic/etc.). Was such objectionable?
I would say no. Fox put up the video, only didn't translate the Arabic spoken (as far as I know, I watched the video once and have no desire to see it again, maybe there is a 'Closed Captioning' option, but I didn't notice it). About the only objection I can see to this is that it's 'too violent' to show.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
L Ron Cupboard
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9054
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby L Ron Cupboard » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:24 pm

Kainesia wrote:
L Ron Cupboard wrote:I am under the impression that watching the video would be an offence in the UK. Will be interesting if people get prosecuted for looking at the Fox News website.


It's not an offence to watch material like this in the uk. Only to broadcast it. I've seen the ISIS beheadings, and... oh crap...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VRZq3J0uz4


I am just going with what the police said, as opposed to believing some random person on the internet.
A leopard in every home, you know it makes sense.

User avatar
Earl of Sandwich IV
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Nov 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Earl of Sandwich IV » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:27 pm

Farnhamia wrote:
Gauthier wrote:So did FOXNews claim it was Obama's fault, or that it was an All Muslim Barbeque Party?

Blaming Obama is the default position. It's his fault for not bombing these people back to the Stone Age when they first showed up, plus anyone else in Syria that we don't like. Doesn't matter that such an idea coming from the White House had a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the House.

Obama could have intervened in 2011, without any approval of congress, but instead he decided not to and let the situation escalate. And I'm sure he was fully informed and aware of the risks - not just for syria - but also Iraq. Yes, he shares a lot of blame for the current situation.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 30773
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:27 pm

Occupied Deutschland wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:I am...not sure I agree with the decision. I kinda feel that by showing this they are giving ISIS more of a platform. There is no need for the visuals to show how despicable they are.

One wonders how one is supposed to avoid giving them a platform whilst reporting on them, particularly in the specifics.

For example, Vice News had a multi-part series about ISIS that included interviews with ISIS members in English (or translated from Arabic/etc.). Was such objectionable?
I would say no. Fox put up the video, only didn't translate the Arabic spoken (as far as I know, I watched the video once and have no desire to see it again, maybe there is a 'Closed Captioning' option, but I didn't notice it). About the only objection I can see to this is that it's 'too violent' to show.


The fact of the matter is visuals tend to leave a larger impact. Seeing someone burned alive leaves a greater effect, creates more fear and anger, then simply hearing that it happened. I am not sure we should be giving them that affect. I think there is a difference between informing the public and showing this video.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
The Emerald Dawn
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20824
Founded: Jun 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emerald Dawn » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:28 pm

Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:
Farnhamia wrote:Blaming Obama is the default position. It's his fault for not bombing these people back to the Stone Age when they first showed up, plus anyone else in Syria that we don't like. Doesn't matter that such an idea coming from the White House had a snowball's chance in hell of getting past the House.

Obama could have intervened in 2011, without any approval of congress, but instead he decided not to and let the situation escalate. And I'm sure he was fully informed and aware of the risks - not just for syria - but also Iraq. Yes, he shares a lot of blame for the current situation.

America, why u intervene?
America, why u no intervene?

This is why we don't intervene when a random terrorist group shows up.

Either we're going to police the damn region, or we're going to let them do it their own bloody selves.

User avatar
Nanatsu no Tsuki
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 180134
Founded: Feb 10, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Nanatsu no Tsuki » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:29 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Occupied Deutschland wrote:One wonders how one is supposed to avoid giving them a platform whilst reporting on them, particularly in the specifics.

For example, Vice News had a multi-part series about ISIS that included interviews with ISIS members in English (or translated from Arabic/etc.). Was such objectionable?
I would say no. Fox put up the video, only didn't translate the Arabic spoken (as far as I know, I watched the video once and have no desire to see it again, maybe there is a 'Closed Captioning' option, but I didn't notice it). About the only objection I can see to this is that it's 'too violent' to show.


The fact of the matter is visuals tend to leave a larger impact. Seeing someone burned alive leaves a greater effect, creates more fear and anger, then simply hearing that it happened. I am not sure we should be giving them that affect. I think there is a difference between informing the public and showing this video.


And animosity towards Muslim people is high enough as it is. By showing a video like that, you just fan the flames of hatred some people harbor.
Code name: Ratatouille Strychnine
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats֍Stop the slow loris illegal pet trade
Cat with internet access||Heartless, strawmanner, Truscum, ''transgendered non-binary kawaii Chan'', flaming faggot and a d*ck. Kiss my paw?||No TGs
SQUIG #1||RIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

User avatar
Kainesia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1231
Founded: Mar 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Kainesia » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:33 pm

L Ron Cupboard wrote:
Kainesia wrote:
It's not an offence to watch material like this in the uk. Only to broadcast it. I've seen the ISIS beheadings, and... oh crap...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VRZq3J0uz4


I am just going with what the police said, as opposed to believing some random person on the internet.


This was a suggestion by a high ranking police official that was immediately struck down by several lawyers as being against freedom of speech. A journalist even contacted Scotland yard to "confess" to watching the video. It is not against the law to watch explicit material. There is no law you can be tried under. If you published it things might be different. But watching it is fine.

"Despite the stern warning from police, several lawyers have cast doubt over the assertion that viewing the video is a crime

Adam Wagner, a human rights barrister at One Crown Office Row, told The Huffington Post UK it was "highly unlikely" that viewing a video of James Foley's beheading would lead to a prosecution: "Under terrorism law it is a crime if a person 'distributes or circulates' a terrorism publication. But they must intend to encourage terrorism directly or indirectly or be reckless as to the consequences of those actions."

Wagner added that it was a defence "if the publication neither expressed the distributor's views nor had his endorsement."

He said, therefore "it would probably be an offence to distribute the video with a very clear endorsement of ISIS, but anything short of that - including viewing the video - is unlikely to be a crime."

"I can understand completely the Metropolitan Police wanting to deter the sharing of this film, but if they are going to threaten people with possible prosecution for a very serious offence for just viewing the material, they really should quote Act and Section, as they have most media lawyers scratching their heads to think what law they are referring to," David Banks, a journalist and media law consultant told HuffPost.

His words were echoed by barrister and Head of Legal blogger Carl Gardner, who said he was "surprised by the suggestion" that watching the video was an offence under the Terrorism Act.

A reporter from The Register rang Scotland Yard to "confess" to having watched the video but was told he did not face arrest. "Having watched the video could be used to help build a case against us, we were told, but this crime alone did not give plods enough evidence to lock the viewer in Belmarsh," the reporter said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08 ... 94871.html

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/watching-james ... er-1462061
Last edited by Kainesia on Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A radical centrist. Atheist, English, enjoys roast babies with chips.

PRO: Science,capitalism,and all that stuff

ANTI:Religion, socialism and all that jazz

User avatar
Occupied Deutschland
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18796
Founded: Oct 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Occupied Deutschland » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:35 pm

Neutraligon wrote:
Occupied Deutschland wrote:One wonders how one is supposed to avoid giving them a platform whilst reporting on them, particularly in the specifics.

For example, Vice News had a multi-part series about ISIS that included interviews with ISIS members in English (or translated from Arabic/etc.). Was such objectionable?
I would say no. Fox put up the video, only didn't translate the Arabic spoken (as far as I know, I watched the video once and have no desire to see it again, maybe there is a 'Closed Captioning' option, but I didn't notice it). About the only objection I can see to this is that it's 'too violent' to show.


The fact of the matter is visuals tend to leave a larger impact. Seeing someone burned alive leaves a greater effect, creates more fear and anger, then simply hearing that it happened. I am not sure we should be giving them that affect. I think there is a difference between informing the public and showing this video.

That's the thing though, they haven't showed this video. They put it online. If one wants to see it, it takes a little bit of digging.

I mean, I'd understand this objection if they ran the execution on daytime television. I'd still disagree, but I'd understand it. As it is, it's not going to create 'fear' in people and any 'anger' it sparks is more than justified. For one thing, it makes it significantly more powerful. While appeals to emotion shouldn't be used, one should at the very least have the ability to feel that emotion in order to confront their own ideas with the much more visceral reality on the ground.

*shrug* Visuals do have a larger impact. As well they should. Whenever ISIS chops off someone's head, or burns someone alive, or whenever Boko Haram burns down a village, I see no reason such images shouldn't be seen on the news. The events happened. Willingly shutting off seeing images of them while still reading about them and using them in an academic way as examples of atrocities seems...dishonest.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:And animosity towards Muslim people is high enough as it is. By showing a video like that, you just fan the flames of hatred some people harbor.

News shouldn't be catered to making sure the lowest common denominator doesn't do stupid shit when they find out about it.
Tailoring reporting around idiots lets the idiots win and remain so. As it is, I'd imagine more idiots would take note of Jordan being a Muslim country and the pilot burned alive also being a Muslim than got out their Muslim-beating bat.
Last edited by Occupied Deutschland on Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm General Patton.
Even those who are gone are with us as we go on.

Been busy lately--not around much.

User avatar
Lordieth
Post Czar
 
Posts: 31603
Founded: Jun 18, 2010
New York Times Democracy

Postby Lordieth » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:35 pm

Perhaps I'd see this as a decision about freedom of the press, if it weren't for the fact that Fox news regularly lies and downright makes up information about Muslims to further tensions and an anti-islamic narrative.

"No go zones" indeed.
There was a signature here. It's gone now.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 30773
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:37 pm

Occupied Deutschland wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
The fact of the matter is visuals tend to leave a larger impact. Seeing someone burned alive leaves a greater effect, creates more fear and anger, then simply hearing that it happened. I am not sure we should be giving them that affect. I think there is a difference between informing the public and showing this video.

That's the thing though, they haven't showed this video. They put it online. If one wants to see it, it takes a little bit of digging.

I mean, I'd understand this objection if they ran the execution on daytime television. I'd still disagree, but I'd understand it. As it is, it's not going to create 'fear' in people and any 'anger' it sparks is more than justified. For one thing, it makes it significantly more powerful. While appeals to emotion shouldn't be used, one should at the very least have the ability to feel that emotion in order to confront their own ideas with the much more visceral reality on the ground.

*shrug* Visuals do have a larger impact. As well they should. Whenever ISIS chops off someone's head, or burns someone alive, or whenever Boko Haram burns down a village, I see no reason such images shouldn't be seen on the news. The events happened. Willingly shutting off seeing images of them while still reading about them and using them in an academic way as examples of atrocities seems...dishonest.


Them not putting on TV makes this better, but not good. And I don't see it as dishonest, it is reporting without inflaming the public or making them fearful.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Kainesia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1231
Founded: Mar 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Kainesia » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:37 pm

Lordieth wrote:Perhaps I'd see this as a decision about freedom of the press, if it weren't for the fact that Fox news regularly lies and downright makes up information about Muslims to further tensions and an anti-islamic narrative.

"No go zones" indeed.


I couldn't get into Shrewsbury the other day. The Jehova's witnesses have a no go zone there, and I didn't have my passport. I saw them about to attack this man, but he cut himself and threw some blood at them before making a break for it.
A radical centrist. Atheist, English, enjoys roast babies with chips.

PRO: Science,capitalism,and all that stuff

ANTI:Religion, socialism and all that jazz

User avatar
Earl of Sandwich IV
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Nov 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Earl of Sandwich IV » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:38 pm

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:Obama could have intervened in 2011, without any approval of congress, but instead he decided not to and let the situation escalate. And I'm sure he was fully informed and aware of the risks - not just for syria - but also Iraq. Yes, he shares a lot of blame for the current situation.

America, why u intervene?
America, why u no intervene?

This is why we don't intervene when a random terrorist group shows up.

Either we're going to police the damn region, or we're going to let them do it their own bloody selves.

The 'non-intervention crowd' has always been catastrophically wrong. Maybe it's time ignore them? The reality is, while american presence might not stop terrorism or terrorists completely, it certainly weakens them and strengthens moderate forces.
Last edited by Earl of Sandwich IV on Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Earl of Sandwich IV
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Nov 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Earl of Sandwich IV » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:39 pm

doublepost
Last edited by Earl of Sandwich IV on Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Emerald Dawn
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20824
Founded: Jun 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emerald Dawn » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:40 pm

Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:America, why u intervene?
America, why u no intervene?

This is why we don't intervene when a random terrorist group shows up.

Either we're going to police the damn region, or we're going to let them do it their own bloody selves.

The 'non-intervention crowd' has always been catastrophically wrong. Maybe it's time ignore them? The reality is, while american presence might not stop terrorism or terrorists completely, it certainly weakens them and strengthens moderate forces.

Gulf War 2 says Hullo.

User avatar
Earl of Sandwich IV
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Nov 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Earl of Sandwich IV » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:41 pm

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:The 'non-intervention crowd' has always been catastrophically wrong. Maybe it's time ignore them? The reality is, while american presence might not stop terrorism or terrorists completely, it certainly weakens them and strengthens moderate forces.

Gulf War 2 says Hullo.

No, it doesn't.

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54789
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby Imperializt Russia » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:42 pm

Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Gulf War 2 says Hullo.

No, it doesn't.

Gulf War 2 gave us the group that became IS.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Kainesia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1231
Founded: Mar 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Kainesia » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:44 pm

Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:America, why u intervene?
America, why u no intervene?

This is why we don't intervene when a random terrorist group shows up.

Either we're going to police the damn region, or we're going to let them do it their own bloody selves.

The 'non-intervention crowd' has always been catastrophically wrong. Maybe it's time ignore them? The reality is, while american presence might not stop terrorism or terrorists completely, it certainly weakens them and strengthens the moderate forces opposed to terrorism.


Would ISIS be where they are if America had just left Saddam to his business instead of replacing a tyrannical yet strong government with a sectarian weak government?

When you try and play world police you just create anarchy, and it allows nutters like this to take control.

Everybody cheered on the Libyan rebels, now Benghazi is a jihadist hub and the government is struggling to run the country.

It didn't work in Iraq, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Libya, and now it's not gonna work in Iraq again. Just leave them the fuck alone to emerge from the dark ages. Just because America has a gargantuan military does not mean it has to be constantly aimed at something.
A radical centrist. Atheist, English, enjoys roast babies with chips.

PRO: Science,capitalism,and all that stuff

ANTI:Religion, socialism and all that jazz

User avatar
Solaray
Senator
 
Posts: 3878
Founded: Jun 05, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Solaray » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:44 pm

Isn't airing these videos exactly what ISIS wants?
Sig closed for construction.

Est. completion date: Summer 2054

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

User avatar
The Emerald Dawn
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20824
Founded: Jun 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby The Emerald Dawn » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:44 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:No, it doesn't.

Gulf War 2 gave us the group that became IS.

Not only them, but it also gave us four more fractured nations than we started with.

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54789
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby Imperializt Russia » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:45 pm

The Emerald Dawn wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:Gulf War 2 gave us the group that became IS.

Not only them, but it also gave us four more fractured nations than we started with.

He clearly doesn't care about that.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Kainesia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1231
Founded: Mar 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Kainesia » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:46 pm

Solaray wrote:Isn't airing these videos exactly what ISIS wants?


ISIS doesn't care about the videos. They want people to know they beheaded [insert journalist here]

They don't care who sees the things. The message Is heard.
A radical centrist. Atheist, English, enjoys roast babies with chips.

PRO: Science,capitalism,and all that stuff

ANTI:Religion, socialism and all that jazz

User avatar
Herskerstad
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10259
Founded: Dec 14, 2009
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Herskerstad » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:46 pm

Good.
Although the stars do not speak, even in being silent they cry out. - John Calvin

User avatar
Earl of Sandwich IV
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Nov 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Earl of Sandwich IV » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:53 pm

Imperializt Russia wrote:
The Emerald Dawn wrote:Not only them, but it also gave us four more fractured nations than we started with.

He clearly doesn't care about that.

I don't care about it, because it's nonsense.

User avatar
Earl of Sandwich IV
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 449
Founded: Nov 07, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Earl of Sandwich IV » Thu Feb 05, 2015 12:58 pm

Kainesia wrote:
Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:The 'non-intervention crowd' has always been catastrophically wrong. Maybe it's time ignore them? The reality is, while american presence might not stop terrorism or terrorists completely, it certainly weakens them and strengthens the moderate forces opposed to terrorism.


Would ISIS be where they are if America had just left Saddam to his business instead of replacing a tyrannical yet strong government with a sectarian weak government?

When you try and play world police you just create anarchy, and it allows nutters like this to take control.

Everybody cheered on the Libyan rebels, now Benghazi is a jihadist hub and the government is struggling to run the country.

It didn't work in Iraq, it didn't work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Libya, and now it's not gonna work in Iraq again. Just leave them the fuck alone to emerge from the dark ages. Just because America has a gargantuan military does not mean it has to be constantly aimed at something.

Saddam was hardly better than ISIS. Letting nutters like saddam take control is not a solution either. He is was force for radicalization, not moderation. "Strong government" only means "government that commits massive human rights violations". That's what you're really trying to say. The new government is "weak" because it doesn't use the same methods saddam used. It did work in Iraq and it did work in Afghanistan, it didn't work in Libya because we actually weren't and aren't there.
Last edited by Earl of Sandwich IV on Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54789
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby Imperializt Russia » Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:10 pm

Earl of Sandwich IV wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:He clearly doesn't care about that.

I don't care about it, because it's nonsense.

Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya, bastions of civil order since American intervention at the turn of the millennium.
Last edited by Imperializt Russia on Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Angleter, Bingellia, Blargoblarg, DesAnges, El-Amin Caliphate, Grinning Dragon, Hediacrana, Jolthig, Kawagishi, Major-Tom, Moahu, Mushet, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Ngelmish, Old Hope, Ostroeuropa, Saiwania, Samudera Darussalam, Shrillland, The Greater Ohio Valley, Tlaceceyaya, Valentir, Vassenor, Woodfiredpizzas

Advertisement

Remove ads