大象传媒

Craig,

I know it was a very grim decision to show the pictures of the moment of death.

Did the 大象传媒 staff on air, in the Bureaux in Jerusalem [Israel] consulted with the Management and editorial staff at the 大象传媒.

Fair enough showing what happened but from watching the 大象传媒 it appeared a load of Israelis brutally murdered a Palestinian. You didn't apparently see fit to show this maniac crushing half a dozen Israelis to death.

Yet again the 大象传媒 portrays Israelis as cold blooded killers when they act in reasonable self defence.

It was a brave decision. I watched the footage last night and immediately wondered if it was suitable for broadcast. Escecially as the shooter was in plain clothes, as this may in a way glorify the carrying and use of weapons by civilians (even though the shooter was not). However, it did seem a little heavy handed, particularly as they had access into the vehicles cab and the driver and could have overpowered him easily without resorting to shooting him multiple times. But my thoughts are with those who died as a result of his rampage. Well done to the reporter and well done to the 大象传媒 for deciding to show this footage, it'll spark debate and anger, but ultimately I think it will be remembered as a piece of striking and noteworthy jounalism.

Craig - I think you were correct to show the footage and to have two different edits.

So long as you give a warning I think people should be able to see what '3 people died and man was shot dead' actually means.

Just for once I dont agree with the suggestion that this had an anti-Israeli slant - I saw a Palestinian shot dead and I also saw Israelis crushed in their cars and being pulled bloody and screaming from a bus. That was the truth of it.

#3 "However, it did seem a little heavy handed, particularly as they had access into the vehicles cab and the driver and could have overpowered him easily"

Rather proves my point I think. Even though a load of Israeli civilans get squashed flat they're STILL portrayed as the bad guys, not the victims.

Perhaps CBEEBIES will start showing Farfour the martyr mouse next?

There seems to be a common theme running through these Editors blogs 鈥� 鈥渨e are accused of sensationalising news stories, but after a bit of soul searching we have decided that we aren鈥檛 sensationalising stories鈥�. So that鈥檚 all right then. One wonders why, therefore, such accusations are brought. Could it be (shock) that your viewers/ readers/ listeners think that you sensationalise things? Perhaps (even bigger shock) you actually DO sensationalise stories?

The news story was 鈥� man kills people, is killed in turn. Images of the man being killed are simply voyeuristic. Nothing more. The story was bad enough without the images and the images got in the way of a more mature debate about what happened and why.

But, sorry, I forgot - 鈥渋t is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence鈥�. Thank heavens Auntie has our best interests at heart and is not concerned about ratings.

Of course the footage should have been shown, people need to see what happens. In this case, as a Jew, I was filled with pride at watching this brave young off-duty Israeli soldier risk his life by jumping onto the bulldozer, not caring that the driver may have had a weapon, and killing the terrorist, preventing even more murder and tragedy.
How could I have known that this would be called 'Israeli violence'? Only the 大象传媒.

I think there should be more of this type of reporting.

People who complained about the image of one person being shot need to be reminded that ten times more extreme violence is faced by British Soldiers every day in Iraq etc.

More reporting like this, except this time from Iraq, may then make people actually appreciate what British Soldiers are doing and facing in the Middle East.

Presumably the Ten-O-Clock News is now available on the much publicised 大象传媒 i-player, hence making the watershed argument a bit of a nonsence as anybody with access to the internet can watch at whenever they want (including young children)

You "believe it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence."

Did you mean to say that it's important to see very occasionally JUSTICE DONE TO THE PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE?

Peter_sym: I'm utterly frustrated by comments that you made - did you not see that for a large chunk of yesterday the front page top story was not about the Palestian murder/terrorist, but about how a number of Israeli citizens were senselessly killed by a mad man? How is that bias?

It seems you are willing to ignore that and only cover the short clip that was shown - ever thought it was possible that the 大象传媒 crew didn't capture the mad man crushing the cars?

With respect to the clip itself, I think it is a sound and sensible decision. All too often (as has been discussed on here before) there's been too much sanitisation of the news. Clearly with the correct warnings, the full clip could be shown after the watershed.

Perhaps this should be compared with the showing of the summary execution of the capture Vietnamese (Vietcom?) combatant (?) by the 大象传媒 in the latter part of the Vietnamese war (1970ish)?

A bound, plain clothed prisoner is walked into the street, and a western (presumably American) soldier raises a pistol to the prisoner's head, and pulls the trigger, as which point the picture freezes. The picture is often show as a still, but the film exists. I saw this as a 5 or 6 year old on the 大象传媒, either on the early evening news or on a current affairs programme, but is iconic of the war.

It wasn't until years later that I found on that the film clip goes onto show the body fall and the street fill with blood, truly showing how nasty the world - or rather people's actions - can be. It is up to us as viewers to draw our own conclusions.

Forty years on, and the same editorial decision are having to be made, and to me it seems the same results are reached. Ok, the screening of aftermath can be traded for the proximity of the cameraman, but I think the 大象传媒 broadly "gets it right" - it shows what is going on in the world.

The key claim is 'it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence'. However, no argument in favour of this statement is offered.

Presumably 'important' is supposed to be exchangeable with 'beneficial', in this context. But clearly there are some respects in which it is not beneficial, for either a given individual or society at large. For one thing, exposures to violence may serve to unnecessarily distress. (I am mindful that a warning was issued beforehand, but surely some people must have seen the footage without hearing that warning. They may just have entered the room, or been watching with the sound off, etc.)

If I were to hazard a guess, I would presume that exposure is meant to be 'beneficial' in so far as it reminds us of the horror of violence. But what is the argument that such (audio-visual) exposure is _necessary_ to appreciate said horror? Plausibly, the spoken word can convey it perfectly well, as numerous novels and poems adequately illustrate. Think of Wilfred Owen's 'Dulce et Decorum Est', for instance.

In closing, it falls to me to point out that the use of 'illuminating' is especially curious in this context, given its root.

I honestly believe it was the right thing to do. Yes it is harrowing but in the same light that Drink Driving adverts and speeding adverts make a point of being graphic to shock the viewer. With this in mind why should tame down what is happening in real life. Having these harrowing events portrayed in a more raw manner might make us take more notice. A brave decision by the 大象传媒 and one I think they should not be scared to stand behind.

#11. The text said Israelis were killed. The newsreal showed several Israelis apparently executing a Palestinian sitting in a bulldozer.

The crew may not have captured the rampage, but perhaps footage of what was being scrapped out of the flattened cars would have put it in context? We either sanitise the news or we show it in its full horror.

A picture is worth a 1000 words and having seen what the 大象传媒 showed people are only going to remember 1 dead Arab and not his victims. If you watched the news with the sound off it looked like an unprovoked murder of a construction worker, not a lone cop trying to stop a guy who might have been wired up with explosives or carrying a pistol.

The same mentality applies in Gaza. When did you ever see footage of an Israeli house flattened by a Hamas rocket? The film crews are too busy in Palestinian territory waiting for Israel to fire back.

Nothing is sacred, not a comment on society, a fact. Which is worse - a close up of a single murder or watching the twin towers collapse upon nearly 3000 people? Neither. Is is worse to show people being killed or to show a mass grave? Neither. Of course, there is a time and a place, and warnings should precede the segment.

It's a pity nobody decided to slow the VT down and notice a man bending down in front of the digger just as it shoots forward. He gets crushed by the front left wheel, people scream, the driver gets shot to prevent further loss of life. It was missed because everyone (editors, journos, viewers) is concentrating on the digger cab.

More to the point, considering this atrocity had just happened why an earth did the camera man not put down his equipment and help the seriously injured people? I get fed up of watching reports of people injured and dying yet there is a perfectly able bodied person behind the camera who chooses not to help them....I would hope the 大象传媒 are an organisation that would encourage their journalists/camera men to help first and then worry about the slice of cake once they have done all they can in the act of humanity.......

12. At 3:41pm on 03 Jul 2008, martin_wheatman wrote:
Perhaps this should be compared with the showing of the summary execution of the capture Vietnamese (Vietcom?) combatant (?) by the 大象传媒 in the latter part of the Vietnamese war (1970ish)?


A very good comparision- the guy shot, Nguyen Van Lem, a captain in a vietcong murder squad who had killed several S.Vietnamese policemen and their families.

You'd never learn that from the photo which looks like cold blooded murder of a civillian, not an enemy combatant disguised in civillian clothes.

@12 - it was a South Viet intelligence officer pulling the trigger

@12 - it was a vietcong fighter

I believe that it is in the interest of the 大象传媒 to show such scenes occasionally, as it exposes the truth damage of such episodes and enriches the station.

I think as long as there is a warning beforehand, there shouldn't be a problem.

It should have been shown yes, because it happened. Show it after the watershed and who can possibly complain? *cough* religious nuts *cough*

And anyway movie deaths are far more graphic even though they're not real. Surely anyone who can sit through Saw isn't going to find this shaky video particularly shocking.

# 7

Calm down, and get your facts right!

The 大象传媒 did not call this "Israeli violence".

And it appears from today's news that this was not a terrorist act but a simple "I can't take it anymore" from an individual with a perceived grievance.

Just as worrying as the original crime is the intemperate reaction of Haim Ramon calling for collective punishment of the neigbours of the perpetrator, by cutting off their neigbourhood and taking away their ID cards. How will that help?

Israeli violence? No it was protection. Anyone who claims it shows the Israelis as violent bad-guys hadnt paid attention to the story being told and quite frankly, shouldnt pass comment on something they havent taken the time to study...

All credit to the off-duty soldier for taking action and protecting people from danger.

Isnt that what the army is all about?

Well done, hope he gets recognised for his bravery.

I think you'd see far worse scenes in TV dramas and films without the kind of warning that was given by the reporter. Why should the news report be edited or frozen because it's real life?

If the fact that the report is available on iPlayer is an issue, maybe the 10 o'clock news should have a guidance warning and be subject to the parental controls that other post-watershed output is.

Craig,

The only question that needs answering is the one in your mind.

Did you run out and take pictures and comment because you thought it would make a difference for the better, because your journalistic instincts tell you the truth will set us all free?

...or did you run out and take pictures and comment because you know that's what your editors wanted, it makes a good story, and the line 'if it bleeds - it leads'..

Only you know the answer to that - the rest of us can only guess.

As for the time of day it was shown - well I think that's something that should have been thought about a bit harder.

However - is it right we keep up the pretence to our children that the world is a nice place - or do we let them into the secret as early as possible so that they might survive?

"we don't want to sanitise the news for what is a mature and thoughtful audience"

How can you say that your entire audience is made up of this demographic after 10:00pm? I believe that most people know what death is. I think that they also know what a death by shooting may look like, with plenty of fictional footage to draw from. In my opinion most people watched it because they were too lazy to switch off, too slow to get to the remote, or because they had a morbid curiosity.

If we allow morbid curiosity as the norm, should police officers invite interested motorists to pull over and take a look (but only from a discrete distance). I don't think so.

Not necessary.

Craig,

A very good broadcast, well done. I don't know what all the fuss is about - lets all go around in blinkers...is that what some people want?
It is pretty obvious to any sensible person who was in the wrong here so why all the critism as to why not more footage of the carnage? Is this more of the usual Paranoia from this region.
Your point at the end where you gave the number of recent deaths was interesting. I can't remember the exact figures, can anybody help me?

# 29

Not sure that it helps, but the numbers on the 大象传媒 report are:

"Since the start of 2008, across Israel and the occupied territories, 29 Israelis have been killed in violence linked to the conflict as have more than 400 Palestinians."

But I don't think crude numbers games help anyone. From my standpoint, pointless taking of life other than in extreme and immediate self-defence is immoral, however many are involved and whatever their nationality / ethnicity.

Peter Sym,

"If you watched the news with the sound off it looked like an unprovoked murder of a construction worker, not a lone cop trying to stop a guy who might have been wired up with explosives or carrying a pistol."

Peter, if you watch the news with the sound off then are often going to get the wrong idea about what is being shown. I've found that if you watch Inspector Morse with the sound off it can get confusing too. So here's a tip - try watching it with the sound on - it certainly aided my comprehension of Inspector Morse.

People like you Peter are going to see bias in everything the 大象传媒 does. You start with an agenda and fit the facts around it.

They showed what they had on film. They pointed out that Israelis were horribly wounded and killed. Would you have supported them if they'd shown those horribly maimed Israeli victims, dead or dying? Is that what you'd rather see? I suspect you'd be equally outraged if they'd shown that too.

I'm glad the 大象传媒 ignores cranks like Peter Sym and keeps trying to report the news in as unbiased way as it can.

Why should you (Craig) feel showing someone being shot dead adds authenticity to the news piece? Saying 鈥淗e was shot.鈥� is neither taming the news, nor covering it up. It is providing the basic news we want - fact.
Why should a phrase 鈥渟hot in the head鈥� need to even be considered? Does it matter where he鈥檚 shot if he died?

It doesn鈥檛 really matter if one can see more violent and graphic scenes on TV after the watershed, because we know it鈥檚 fictional. This *was* a man dying.
No matter what he had done, you can鈥檛 trivialise his death for TV.

I鈥檓 one of those offended by your poor choices, I hope you鈥檙e glad at making 大象传媒24 become a tabloid news channel.

i wanna see more news like this, better than some hollywood movies, if people keep coming down hard on terrorists like this deranged scum then its only right that you should broadcast it for the entertainment of the viewing public, nothing wrong with a bit of blood and guts on the 10 oclock news

Its not a bulldozer but a front loader tractor. Bulldozers have tracks and are used regularly by the Israeli army to run over palestinian houses and cars. They use these instead of front loaders as the damage acheived is significantly greater.

The Guardian's media section reported today that the 大象传媒 received 61 complaints. I think the 10 o'clock news gets something like 5 million viewers a night. Why are the complaints of the usual tiny minority always taken so seriously? Clearly roughly 4,999,959 viewers were mature enough to handle this clip which was a lot less disturbing than what many countries would think perfectly normal to show at any time of day.

to 24 badgercourage.
They do call this Israeli violence:
> "We should however remind people that this is not the only violence, and set it in the context of other deaths - both Palestinian and Israeli - which we did last night."
Sure, they're talking about both sides, but killing a terrorist to protect civilians' lives should not in any terms be called violence. The guy is a hero.

I'm afraid that the choice to show a moment of death had more to do with what the 大象传媒 thought it could get away with than any real desire to show the 'truth' or the 'reality' many contributers are praising above. If that were the case we would be regularly shown many more terrible scenes of execution, murders and starvation to appeal to the awful fascination of seeing death that has inhabited people from medieval crowds at a beheading to the present day.
Just tell me how showing the moment of death enhanced the facts of this story any more or less than, say showing a starving african child pass away would enhance another news story?

Of course you should have shown it and those viewers who complain are probably the type who are so misinformed or complacent about the the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians that they can't bare it when actual pictures illustrate the reality!

# 36

Your own quote shows you are wrong.

The passage cited refers to violence generally, and Israeli and Palestinian deaths. The words "Israeli violence" did not appear in the report, so far as I can see. Read the words, not your assumptions. The situation is bad enough without misrepresenting it.

And as I pointed out in my earlier post, some people (including you and an Israeli government spokesman, I regret to say) were too quick to assume the criminal was a "terrorist" without waiting for evidence.

It now appears likely that he was an individual with a perceived grudge, no-one is really sure what about, rather than a terrorist - who is surely someone acting deliberately to kill or injure civilians for political ends. See the link in my earlier post.

Jerusalem Police Commissioner Dudi Cohen, said it was likely that it was "a spontaneous attack", not a terrorist act.

If you really think anyone who murders an Israeli is a terrorist, regardless of the circumstances, we really have no hope.

You editors at the 大象传媒 have no excuse for showing any of those traumatic videos, period!

I'm a journalism major in college. You did the right thing.

This is very grim. I don鈥檛 think you need to show the pictures. I also wonder if you are deliberately trying to wind up the Israelis with more blatant bias.

If you do not release the Balen report to us who paid for it, if you do not come clean, my fear is that pressure from abroad/foreign office will end up with more controls being put onto the 大象传媒.

We will then lose the free media that any democracy relies upon.

Get your house in order before someone else does it for you.

I personally would like to congratulate the 大象传媒 for an informative report on a tragic event.

I believe we need to see the reality of things like this, not the sanitised version most would like you to show.

Keep up the good work.

ps some of the comments here are very funny. It's amazing how some people will let their own prejudices blind them to reality...

#34. "Its not a bulldozer but a front loader tractor. Bulldozers have tracks and are used regularly by the Israeli army to run over palestinian houses and cars. They use these instead of front loaders as the damage acheived is significantly greater."

Actually they use tracked vehicles because their bulldozers are quite heavily armoured (because of the suprising amount of rocket propelled grenades Palestinian 'civilans' seem to own). That much armour on a wheeled vehicle would cause it to bog down.

#39 "If you really think anyone who murders an Israeli is a terrorist, regardless of the circumstances, we really have no hope."

What IS the definition of a terrorist? Surely its someone who kills randomly in order to cause terror and is motivated by political, religious or racial means. The bulldozer driver qualifies on all criteria of my definition.

Just so I'M not acused of bias I'll point out that the handful of rogue Israeli cops and soldiers who have also started randomly shooting arabs should be classed as terrorists. It could be argued that the Israelis invented the concept with the Stern gang (who incidentally nearly stopped me coming into being by burning my granddad in the King David hotel)

I have no love of Israel, but I'm sick of people portraying the Palestinians as innocent victims.

39, maybe I am biased to assume that a Palestinian purposefully murdering Jews/Israelis is a terrorist. But any person who does that can be considered a terrorist, regardless of his motives. He deserved to die, the soldier did the right thing.
Also, they DO call it Israeli violence! They say "this is not the only violence", therefore it is some violence. And whilst I thought how great the guy was for killing the murderer, and undoubtedly preventing more deaths; whether or not it's intentional, and in light of claims that the murderer was not a terrorist, just crazy or whatever, he is portrayed as very unnecessarily aggressive, when all he did was save more lives.

#44, 45

We really do have no hope.

It was the correct decison to show the moment of death. I was surprised the see the actual point at which the driver was shot, however the inclusal of this scene gave the news story the full impact it required.

Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of showing this footageand what it adds to the story, is anyone at the 大象传媒 really naive enough to believe that children parents still switch off the TV or pack their kids off to bed at the 9pm 'watershed'?

Due to the UK's curious love of irresponsible parenting, most of those 'tweenagers' will have a TV in their room over which the parents have no control.

And if they don't, they probably have a laptop computer, which they can use to watch whatever they like via iPlayer. Or an iPhone that gives them access to any TV show they want, 24 hours a day.

Even with parents who did monitor what I watched I still recall being upset as a teen by graphic images of the Siege of Sarajevo, the Rwandan genocides and the first Chechen wars in the early 1990s - and as we were very much a '大象传媒 family', I certainly didn't it see on News at Ten.

Like age ratings on games and DVDs, the watershed is today an almost universally ignored anachronism. It's a sad sign of the times but realistically, the only way to protect children from obscenity and disturbing images is not to broadcast them in the first place.

I can understand why you found it a difficult decision to show the images. I can understand why people find the images upsetting; they are upsetting.

However they are real, all the atrocious deaths in every conflict are real.

But perhaps it鈥檚 time we stop NOT showing them. Perhaps it鈥檚 time people in our streets should see the graphic violence that is occurring. Perhaps if people see what is actually happening in the world they might do something about it? Perhaps something more valuable than complaining about the people who deliver valid news to us?

I support wholeheartedly your decision to show these important images.

People should come to terms with grim reality. The decision to show the shooting,however horrific and gruesome. would undoubtedly be a wake-up call for all decent human-beings to realise the gravity of the situation. The 大象传媒 should be commended for this.The cycle of violence has gone too far. When will sanity replace hatred,violence and despair?

Pancha Chandra, Brussels

I have become extremely skeptical of the mainstream media and in particular the 大象传媒.

So whatever happened. I'm sure we are never given the true circumstances surrounding this incident and that the editor's cut, tells a story that the 大象传媒 want us to believe.

46, you left-ys are all the same. maybe you have no hope but I'm still hoping Israel will manage to stamp out the Palestinian terrorism, starting will the bulldozer driver

I just read that the 大象传媒 complaints site is saying the 10pm broadcast of the moment of death was wrong.

I still disagree.

It sounds to me like the 大象传媒 is taking too much notice of the vocal minority again. A handful of people complained.

I would be interested to see what public opinion is on this if the 大象传媒 asked the opinion of a wider/representative range of people.

"we don't want to sanitise the news for what is a mature and thoughtful audience" - I totally agree; it was the right decision. Well done.

The problem with the plain clothes shooter is that it gives the conspiracy writers a way in. They could easily have arressted the guy in the truck.
Maybe he was shot because he was paid to attack the bus by Israeli Intelligence?

I know that is absurd. But if you shoot the guy then don't be too disappointed by the questions that are raised.

I thought it was OK to broadcast it.

Too many people think these battles, wars are just a computer game. The media should show the reality more.

"but I believe it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence."

Why?

This blog doesn't really explain anything.

There appears to be a distinct lack in editorial guidance about what you are covering. This asks bigger questions about news coverage in general - I'd really like to see a shift towards coverage of more positive events in the British media - why all the doom and gloom - life is so much more than that!

So... the 大象传媒 editors are concerned about showing the exact moment an Israeli police officer shot and killed the driver of a bulldozer who was running amuck with his machine in downtown Jerusalem. Children might be watching you say.

Excuse me for laughing but children see violence and murder on the tell-lie-vision everyday. And would it not have been more pertinant to inquire about WHY the Palestinian bulldozer driver had gone amuck? What were his motives?

Oops! I am probably not supposed to ask those questions. They could lead to a can of worms suggesting apartheid and collective punishment for the $ake of arrogant tribe-all-eeego.

Following up on this - why are you now so concerned that you showed the shooting?

Ultimately its not the 大象传媒's decision to broadcast such content, its OFCOM thats make the decision based on what the publics decides is acceptable. As far as i'm aware the broadcasting code forbids televising the moment of death.....lets see what OFCOM says. Big mistake 大象传媒.

No it was not the right things to do, not least of all because you did not show all of what happened.

Why was it even reported apart from the fact it happened in a sensitive area? Did the shootings in Hungerford get coverage in their country?

Was it even reality? A man goes amok. That does not represent daily life even if daily life there is grim and frequently violent.

A better heading : 'Bored 大象传媒 reporters seeking anything that might be news'.