Fox News Hosts Video of Jordanian Pilot Being Burned Alive

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

[L Ron Cupboard]

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.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

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.

[Neutraligon]

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.

[The Emerald Dawn]

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.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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.

[Kainesia]

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

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

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.

[Lordieth]

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.

[Neutraligon]

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.

[Kainesia]

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.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

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.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

doublepost

[The Emerald Dawn]

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.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

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.

[Imperializt Russia]

Gulf War 2 says Hullo.

No, it doesn't.

Gulf War 2 gave us the group that became IS.

[Kainesia]

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.

[Solaray]

Isn't airing these videos exactly what ISIS wants?

[The Emerald Dawn]

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.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

[Kainesia]

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.

[Herskerstad]

Good.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

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.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

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.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.