Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
I think you're completely out to lunch - news organizations will offend anyone and everyone if the controversy results in higher viewership, and the vast majority of their viewership wanted to see what it was that provoked a mass murder. Do you really think that the first reaction of the average viewer was anything other than, "what the hell did they print"? Even knowing full well that it doesn't even matter what they printed, I wanted to see it too.
|
The news stations described what was printed which is all they were obligated to do. It's like when a sex video comes out, just because it will prompt some people to want to see it, it doesn't mean that the news station needs to show it just to please those people.
To a large number of people, the images were considered obscene. Mainstream media outlets and television networks try to report while offending the least number of people as possible. Their MO isn't the same as Charlie Hebdo. To me, this is no different than conservatives complaining that the Daily Show doesn't give equal time to their cause. The CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, Charlie Hebdo, The National Post... basically any media satirical or otherwise, all have principles on what they will and will not show. Just because some crazies go out and shoot people, it doesn't mean they should change their principles one way or another. (That goes for Charlie Hebdo as well).