Peninsula Newspaper sunk to new low

Peninsula dont have a professionalism in their office. In regards for professionalism, go to Qatar Tribune office and online. They have it them.

Its bad, feel sorry for the family. As my personal believe, suicide is the most foolish act one can do, no matter for any reason..noting is end of the world. whatever, what happened is happened & may god rest his soul in peace & give him place in paradise.

Now @ topic,, even if the newspaper was so desperate to publish the pics, they should have taken permission from parents.. Iam sure, they dint have..

~noms~

"Before God we are all equally wise ' and equally foolish" - Albert Einstein

well said.

My thoughts are my own, but I doubt my Mum would agree with some of them.

Iv,e passed the scenes of numerous accidents here where people are prepared to park their cars on the numerous waste ground sites around to get out and have a closer look, often with tiny children in tow! This is akin to pornography! Something we all know about, words can easily give us a mental picture, no need to see really, but for some people it is irresistable. God help them!

This poor boy, in mental turmoil it seems, may have made a stupid decision which he very probably regretted before he died, should he be condemned for this? Let God judge. I'm sure He would be much more forgiving than some of the posters would think.

The newspaper? It was an easy target for the press, much more difficult for them to name a large building company unwilling to pay it's workers.

BUT at least it was reported as so many things were nver done in the past.

May God have mercy on his soul as my mother would have said.

Exactly my point. It achieved nothing. It was not sympathetic, it did not then talk about safety issues, all this paper did was show gore of a man that was dying.

Even if we don't like the idea of suicide and that is another story, it is still wrong to show suffering.

My thoughts are my own, but I doubt my Mum would agree with some of them.

You can't teach experience...

Thank god I don't read them then! Do people actually want to look at tragic deaths in a newspaper? Why?!

It's not about the goriness of the photo, it's the point that it's a person lying there either dead or on the cusp of dying.

As I've said already here http://www.qatarliving.com/node/419175#comment-820001 there's no justification for the picture - publishing it achieves nothing positive. But it will undoubtedly upset those who knew him and those he saw the incident happen.

Yea it's like you not allowed to know what sex is, and no kissy kissy scenes on the telly, but a dead body of a teenage boy is allllllllllllllllllllllllll G.

It totally baffles me how they get out the marker pen of packet of stockings or bras....butttttttt it is perfectly fine to show pictures of dismembered bodies in a shopping mall next to the toy shop.....

Actually maybe people need to reconsider what is appropriate... i think values towards images need to get 'loved up' a bit.

I much prefer to see the body potrayed as something beautiful than the body shown as bloodied parts...

I dont understand.

eg. Show me beckhams gorgoeus legs not legs as a mine explosion

The picture should have not been published at all.

It may not have been 'graphic' but that is still someones loved one with his mangled body and if that were my child it would add to my anger and grief. Mind you, they are probably that distressed it may be the last thing they are concerned about.

I don't understand the press really and there insistance of right to publish and view scenes of war/violence etc.

Most people would know that somebody who has jumped 4 floors, been shot at, blown up will not be a pretty sight. Most of us do not need to see the image.

I can understand that some people go with side that if pictures of the suffering of Gaza etc are not shown we many never know.

Again, if my kid was blown up, most people would know that is truly awful and would not have to be spoon fed an image of a grieving parent.

Also, when you somebody dies (famous) the press are there photographing the grieving family as though the family is not allowed the privicy to grieve in private.

If somebody tried to film or photograph me whilst I was grieving over a loved one I would shove the camera right up their jacksy.

Nothing gratuitous is right.

My thoughts are my own, but I doubt my Mum would agree with some of them.

Tragic death of a youngster and a pair of Bristols...not quite the same, methinks...........

Tallg, cultural standards are really strange. I'm always shocked when I see topless women in the tabloids or full-frontal nudity on BBC. Like the Australians say of the US, "Sure glad YOU got the Puritans and we got the convicts."

Mandi

I don't know anyone who knew the man, and I personally have no sympathy for anyone who commits suicide. Yet I still find the picture in very poor taste. I guess Arab journalism has different standards from the UK.

And as Dora said, if it was a member of my family I'd be outraged to open the morning paper and find a picture like that staring back at me.

The only way the picture could have been justified would be if they were writing a piece about how City Center should do something about health and safety and erect higher barriers or suicide nets. But of course that would have involved a piece of real journalism, which they're not allowed to practice.

I think it IS a big deal. But I see air crashes and war casualties every morning over my cornflakes. I think it is a bigger deal because this is such a small country and we probably all know someone who knew this young man. It may be proximity, not poor journalism, that is concerning us.

Mandi

No, I have to say I found it quite innapropriate to say the least....no one wants to be confronted with that over their cornflakes....quite wrong......Lets put it another way.....If that was your son how would you feel about his demise being blasted over the morning papers? ( I say this to all who think its no big deal!)

I guess I'd say yes for two reasons. First, it is not known for sure that it was suicide. All it is is a shot of an accident. And secondly it really does show more of the paramedics than it does the victim. The young man was not pronounced until later so it could even be argued that at that point he was an accident victim with injury. When the story was first discussed on QL I had thought the poor young man had not had medical help. I was actually reassured that there was a team to take care of him and that he had the best chance of survival possible. I hope his family can take comfort in that.

Mandi

mandi - out of interest, would the newspapers in the US publish a photo of someone who committed suicide in a similar manner? I know they wouldn't in the UK.

Oh dear, I guess I've lived in the US too long. The photo didn't strike me as in particularly bad taste or too shocking. I think PM is right about the desensitization. What I saw in the photo were paramedics valiantly doing their jobs.

Mandi

I would actually doubt very very much that he was still alive at that point the picture was taken......common....

Yeah, I was pretty shocked to see that awful photo in the paper...poor bugger! Oh and paramedics have a slightly more important job than putting up screens around bodies..........like trying to save someone that has their head caved in maybe?????

As I see it, the photo on al-arab didn't include the body, just the pool of blood and two guys standing on the ice (I only saw the photo on their website www.alarab.com.qa - I won't link to the photo since many people here would hate to see the blood).

One thing - the boy wasn't dead until he reached the hospital. The poor boy was still alive when this photo was taken.

And I seriously doubt the newspaper asked the families permission to publish this.

The picture in Al-Arab was particularly nasty. It doesn't matter if you can see the face, it's still upsetting for family and friends to see it, because they know who it is.

The Peninsula picture is not so gruesome, but is still completely unnecessary.

i din't see the pictures.... but i assume as most of the pictures must have been taken from the upper floor there is no question of the face being recognized or hurting anyone's feelings.

Aana free, jaana free,

Pakde gaye tho khana free.

samyaUK, you are not intelligent. Inter - legere = Latin for reading between the lines. Sorry.

Yes, agreed dmigty - they should have closed CC as soon as it happened.

brit - you're right the picture doesn't cause offence to the likes of you and me. It's not particularly gory or anything. The one in Al-Arab was for more disturbing.

But the point is that it most likely will offend/upset people who knew him and who saw the incident, and I can't see any positive reason for posting the photo that outweighs the negative effects it will have on these people.

I'll add that the police are also not used to crimes in public places like the skating rink in CC.

the area but putting a tent to cover it is I think next to impossible. They could have close the whole CC after the incident would be more realistic than erecting a tent or what! It's a crime scene, so it's plain police procedure!

"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"

Their is something called SYMPATHY and good taste it would of been far more appropriate for one of his friends to write a nice memorial to his friend and be in the newspaper.

qwertyness, our newspaper post spam emails and forum posts as news, so I wouldn't be surprised by anything they publish.

Due to this thread, I browsed the online copy of The Penninsula. The picture I saw, to me, should not cause offense or umbrage to anyone. Perhaps there's a different one on the actual printed paper.

The other issue is cultural. Whilst in Saudi, I often saw gory details of accidents printed in local papers. Perhaps culturaly, the "East" is more accepting of these types of things than we in the "West"

well that is part of the problem- newspapers, tv news, trained journalists are competing with the internet and any yahoo with a exhibitionist streak and a blog. The world is losing it's sense of propriety, privacy, wahtever- in order to compete many feel they have to be as sensationalist as the internet, and that just doesn't work for this format.

would anyone have complained if those snaps had just surfaced online? probably not. but being published in a newspaper still lends a certain amount of credibility and justification to them. Which means newspapers need to be more accontable- something that just isn't possible if they are slowly being turned into big advertorials.

UkEngQatar, yes. Death is something we see as normal.

This Is Qatar.. If they can printing dying pictures of Gazans and display them in the Malls then this no different I guess. It is a norm that is accepted here?

-----------------

HE WHO DARES WINS

I don't think they had the tools or experience to handle this "extraordinary" event.

not meant to relive the pain.

tallg, can we leave the judgment to those who will see the publication. If it is really offending, the rightful party (the family in this case) can go to the proper authority and file a complaint! IMHO.

"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"

nowadays everyone with a mobile phone having camera is eager to take any and every picture that they feel will help them show off as trophies. Thats what the world has turned into. This is not just the case in Doha, its permeated everywhere and in every society.

There are no hard and fast guidelines. It's a matter of ethics and a call by editors. usually when things like this happen, there is some discussion- but also usually the photo isn' submitted! example: I once took some shots at a car accident; a man had driven his motorcycle into the back of a piece of farm machinery. a spike on the machine had gone through his head, which was still stuck on it when I arrived on the scene. the rest of his body and the bike were a couple of meters away on the pavement. i took the shots, but the photo they published? tight close up of his hand gripping the handle of the bike, and a regular portrait shot of him when he was alive.

WHY? because my editor deemed, after discussion with me and several others in the newsroom, that there was no news value in publishing a photo of a disembodied head.

the problem of course, and as I keep saying, is BECAUSE there are no hard rules on what you can show or say, you need quality people doing the work. and if you skimp on quality people, this is what happens. I can guarentee before the staff shakeups this wouldn't have happened, and if it did? they would have been prepared with reasons to defend it.

Very good point the paramedics could of done more to shelter the area around him, their were enough of them. You would think given the public location this would of been a good idea.

I meant cover as in erect a something around it, rather than cover it with a sheet.

tallg to cover the body the paramedics have to come and confirm he is dead nobody can cover before conforming he is dead.

Aana free, jaana free,

Pakde gaye tho khana free.

bleu - have to strongly disagree with this one, purely because of the effect it will have on family, friends and people who were traumatised by seeing the incident.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that the entire area wasn't immediately cleared and a cover put around the body? Obviously it would have still been possible for some sickos to have taken photos as soon as it happened, but it would have stopped a lot of them.

I would love any journalist to tell us if their are any laws or guidelines on age of the victim in publishing pics, be it an accident or crime? If not their should be.

Actually, I would agree with posting the photo, I see nothing wrong in it, just a photo of a dead body on ice.

Birth, life, death, sickness, health, ... those are normal phases of a person's LIFE.

I see dead people. (Sixth Sense!)

p.s. I'm not afraid of death.

to publish it. How shall we know if we have not seen the picture?

My view only, newspaper is business, so the need to earn and survive. Publicity maybe good or bad, but it remains a publicity.

Anyhow, I'll reserve my opinion if (ever) I see the publish photo!

"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"

before the newspapers got hold of it.

The future is made of the same stuff as the present - Simone Weil.

arcel agree with you.

Aana free, jaana free,

Pakde gaye tho khana free.

It's a matter of effect, i think. Showing pictures of dead iraqis and palestinians is news, and could be seen, from an ethical standpoint, of fullfiling journalisms prime role- to expose truth.

showing a picture of a kid who killed himself? what purpse does that serve other than to titilate?

stealth - as qwerty said above, it's a question of whether publishing the pictures serves a purpose for the good. This picture serves no purpose and can only cause upset.

In my daughters car accident she passed away, many young teens were at the scene so they needed counseling when they see horrific accidents especially when its someone they practically grew up with! Sorry I call teens- kids.

there were photos of so many dead Iraqis and Palestinians in the newspapers where wea the concern at the time?

Did the newspaper even make an effort to warn the boy's parents that the image would appear? I think not.

It's disgusting.

comprehending your last sentence. What you mean is "daughter passed away" and who the kids are?

"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"

there is always a limit to what pictures you could post in a newspaper. in my home country, you can show the picture in such an angle that the face is not shown. if its too graphic, then no it should not be printed.

http://www.buhayqatar.com

mo lang!

There's freedom of expression, whcih is one thing,b ut then there is the responsibility of the media. it's a tricky ethical line, and there will always be debate on what is appropriate or not.

however, again, I think the bigger problem here isn't the photo but what I'm assuming was a lack of debate over the reasoning behind publishing it because of a focus on the commerical side of journalism, that has led to a decrease in quality and standards in favour of saving money.

You would have LOVED to see Diani's crushed body...

Thats not nice :(

Regardless of how it looks, its a poor young man that died no one needs to see the paramedics working on him! That picture will stay in the parents mind forever and ever, no need to hurt them like that! Not to mention the children that saw and his friends, they will need counseling. When my daughter passed an oil company brought a psychologist to help the kids its really hard on them.

It's actually not the same picture Al-Arab published. The Al-Arab one was worse. Even so, it's a picture of a dead body which serves no purpose. It is journalism at it's sickest.

The Peninsula makes a point of saying that the picture was sent in by a reader.

of the press or expressions? I have not seen the picture but does it really look offending? Just asking!

"dgoodrebel will always be the rebellious good one"

I would have loved to see the smashed body of princess Diana. Unfortunately the Western press has attitude. Maybe I should have looked in an Arabic newspaper then.

[mod note: This is not relevant to this thread. And please post in English on the main forum]

From this thread; http://www.qatarliving.com/node/419171

Doha Daily will no longer be sending out the

front page of The Peninsula each morning.

The maintainer of the Doha Daily mailing list

believes the decision by Peninsula editors to

print a graphic photograph of a schoolboy's

tragic death is unjustifiable on any grounds.

It's about selling papers. And graphic sells. But you're right TallG, the trend in the west has been towards the ethics of publishing stuff like that- there are regular debates in newsrooms about whether or not publishing something will help the story or if it's just sensationalism.

For example: after the tsunami I remember a wealth of very graphic images being published- one in particular of a dead childs hand peeking out from under a pile of rubbish. it was sickening, it was disturbing, but photos like that mobilized the world. it had a reason for being published. and it also followed some basic guidelines of effective shock tactics- you didn't see the persons eyes, for example (much like a very famous photo of a man in palestine, holding the body of his son who'd been killed in a bomb blast. the boys body was curled towards his father, so while you saw some blood on the fathers shirt, you didn't see the kids face- just the fathers. it was an example of grief, a powerful motivater, but the focus wasn't on disrespecting the dead child, but displaying how ravaged the family was).

this photo didn't do that- and that's an example of shoddy, cheap journalism. but what can you expect when it's all about the money and not the quality?

Avoiding Graphic scenes and privacy respect are among the very basic things of journalism which seems never heard of around here!

The Arabic newspaper Al-Arab published the picture first, a few days ago. Personally I don't think it's right to publish it.

It's ironic that the relatively free press in the UK would take the decision not to publish a picture like this, but the heavily censored press over here decide they will.

This is a journalistic call. most experienced journalists would have the tact nOT to publish that photo. it's integrity vs shock value. however, there is the old saying 'if it bleeds it leads'...

still, the problem with trying to get cheaper labour, particularly in the media? you get a shoddy product.