Should Saddam-in-a-Noose have been on the front page of your local paper?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: Should Saddam-in-a-Noose have been on the front page of your local paper?

Howard Kurtz thinks not. What think you?

PS: To be clear: The image was not of Saddam dangling, neck broken, eyes glazed, dead. It was of Saddam about to have the noose put over his head.

I just want to be clear that it's this image of Saddam facing death that we're talking about.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/12/22/DI2006122200621.html

Kensington, Md.: As for the noose photo, I took one look and dumped the whole A section into the recylcing bin unread so I wouldn't have to inadvertently glance at it again as I read the paper. I'm a journalist and found the placement to be very poor news judgment.

Howard Kurtz: I see your point. I don't think newspapers should shy away from publishing such photos, but I do think the Page 1 display inflicted that disturbing image on a whole lot of people who had no desire to see it.



<My opinion: Saddam-in-a-noose is a consequence of the US decision to force regime change in Iraq. Maybe that image should be in our faces at the breakfast table.>

[madeline_con]

1. Some people love to see that sort of thing front and center.

The papers are trying to sell copy, so they're whoring out that pic.

It's hard to compete with other media these days. I'm just saying. I think we've all seen enough. Those who haven't can look it up in their leisure time.

[BurtWorm]

2. Would you say they were whoring out the image of the Twin Towers on fire?

I would rather see Saddam in a noose than images of him as a vigorous dictator, which imply that that's the person being put to death--as though no history intervened to complicate the picture.

[SteppingRazor]

4. Exactly. If a photo is newsworthy, even if it's sensational or potentially offensive...

why not run it? I'd rather offend sensibilities and print the most newsworthy item, than kill it to avoid offending delicate sensibilities.

[madeline_con]

5. Which is kinda moot, since....

we don't see a whole lot of images of Saddam as a "vigorous dictator" and haven't in some time.

[SteppingRazor]

3. I think after seeing Saddam in his underwear on a paper's front page...

seeing him outfitted with a noose is passe.


Kidding aside, I really don't see too much wrong with the picture. It's actually quite a gripping photo, and if I were a paper's editor, I'd probably run it myself.

[BurtWorm]

6. It's not even a photo of a dead Saddam.

Now we're suddenly too delicate to have even just an imminently dead Saddam in our faces? :wtf:

[SteppingRazor]

7. Exactly. I just don't see this as a big deal...

like I said upthread, it's a pretty compelling picture. In the absence of legitimate reasons against it (it's not gory or overtly sensationalistic, for example), why not run it?

[LisaM]

8. No, it should not have been there

Showing the Twin Towers on fire is different. After realizing how disturbing it was, they didn't show the pictures of people falling out of the towers. I oppose the death penalty and since probably millions of innocent people have been hanged over the years, I really don't care to see the process graphically represented. I really don't give two rips about Saddam Hussein, but I unequivocally oppose the death penalty. Moreover, the vindictiveness of it repels me.

[Patchuli]

11. I agree with the entirety of your response

and think it was really unnecessary and poor taste to publish that. We all know it happened. I for one didn't need proof that another atrocity had been committed. What really got me was the pResident's 'Prayer Team' giving 'thanks to God' for Saddam's death. They are psychotic.

[endarkenment]

9. Yes we need to confront our own brutality.

Hiding the evil we do does not make it go away, it makes it more palatable.

[Lilith Velkor]

10. Absolutely.

There's no point in even pretending we are a civilized country anymore, and the sooner it's acknowledged the sooner we can fix it.

[Beelzebud]

12. No thanks, I don't dig snuff films.

[maxsolomon]

13. it SHOULD be saddam dangling, neck broken

every taxpayer should have to watch the entire execution.

we paid for it. don't you want to see what * bought with your money?

death is hidden away in this country - out of sight & mind. it needs to be made visceral & real - if you cannot stomach the barbarism committed in your name, perhaps you shouldn't support that barbarism.

and i aim this at * zombies, not my fellow rational DUers.

[dave_p]

14. No

It's a violation of the most basic right to personal dignity. I don't think it's defensible whether it was him, Bush or any other US serial killer.

How many Democrats wanted shots of Clinton's distinctive appendage splashed over the media to underscore the depravity of the GOP's campaign of persecution?

Ising someone's last moments to score a debatable point at the cost of destroying their dignity as a human being and titilating tens of millions of perverted sickos isn't good enough.

There have to be better to win the argument if we're that much in the right.

[BurtWorm]

16. From all accounts, there was nothing dignified about that moment.

Except for the front Saddam put up.

What I object to more is the idea that American sensibilities are too delicate to contemplate what the image of Saddam in a noose means.

What it means to me: It matters who is in the White House. It matters what principles are driving the country and the world.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Yes.

Although in a different context.

[Maraya1969]

17. Executions in this country are viewed only by a select few and that is a good thing

What about the kids who get to see a video of a man being hung? I think it is barbaric and macabre and it would make a lasting BAD impression on young ones.

The same goes with the photo of him. I guess I grew up in a different time when we just weren't subject to such things, Thank God.