Is this hypocritical?

[Pangloss]

Eric Burns, the moderator of FNC's media-watch show "Fox News Watch" raised an interesting question on this past weekend's show, and I thought I'd pass it along here just to see what people think.

 

Is it hypocritical for a media web site to refuse to run pictures for ethical reasons, and yet include a link to a place where the reader can find those pictures?

 

I think it's an interesting question to ponder given the explosion of popularity and importance of web news outlets.

[JustStuit]

Maybe they fear legal reprecussions but just call it "ethnical reasons". I think it is hypocritical if they are unwilling to do so.

[bascule]

There's been several instances where I've seen a web site featured which our crappy local FOX affiliate refuses to name. However the images they show are high resolution enough that I can usually type whatever boilerplate is visible into Google, click I'm Feeling Lucky, and be there.

 

I don't really have a specific answer to your question, but I think if you really want to remove all qualms about leading your viewership/readership to a questionable site, you can't display anything about it.

[starbug1]

Eric Burns' date=' the moderator of FNC's media-watch show "Fox News Watch" raised an interesting question on this past weekend's show, and I thought I'd pass it along here just to see what people think.

 

Is it hypocritical for a media web site to refuse to run pictures for ethical reasons, and yet include a link to a place where the reader can find those pictures?

 

I think it's an interesting question to ponder given the explosion of popularity and importance of web news outlets.[/quote']

 

I think it all spawned from the freedom of Information act, picture included. We have to have the access to everything else someone throws a fit. You don't have to, but the choice is still there.

[ecoli]

not hypocritical at all. If you place something behind a link, and add a disclaimer, then you remove responsibility of the offensive material from yourself. It's simply a precaution due to the sue-happy people, not hypocrasy.

[Pangloss]

Figaro! Figarofigarofigarofigarofiiiiiigarooooo.....

 

Sorry, got carried away with Ecoli's sig. (grin) Anyway, I think Ecoli and Bascule framed the standard response, but I can't help but notice that it raises another interesting question.

 

What if a news site were to inline-link the picture off another site, like this (just to use something innocuous from today's Astronomy Pic of the Day)....

 

 

Now our site isn't even hosting the image, it's just... passing it through. Given how trivial the technical difference between these two things are, why is there a perceived ethical difference between passing an image and passing a link? Why is the latter considered innocuous, but the former grounds for fatwah and jihad?

 

Are we, perhaps, headed for another perception paradigm shift thanks to the Internet?

[pcs]

Maybe it's akin to an MPAA rating or a spoiler warning.

[aguy2]

spoiler warning.

 

What is a 'spoiler warning'?

 

aguy2

[YT2095]

it would be equaly unethical NOT TO present all facts as you understand them in their entirity also.

so No, what they did IMO is perfectly valid and not at all hypocritical.

 

there`s a big difference between something like that and perhaps a site that could (and most likely would) get people killed or maimed such as our Hazardous Materials policy here at SFN.

[Pangloss]

Okay, then if we've established that there are valid reasons why some web sites choose to do this, then the next logical question is, shouldn't people understand this and use it as the premise for further understanding of issues?

 

Put another way, as I asked earlier, why is the it considered innocuous to post a link to the offending images, but if you show the picture then it's grounds for fatwah and jihad? Doesn't the technology more or less suggest that that perception is a little... silly? In other words, isn't the present Muslim outrage kinda pointless, given the nature of the web?

 

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but it seems to me that there's a technological angle to the present issue that is lost on the mainstream media. They're going to give us an earful about irresponsible behavior in the blogosphere, and I'm thinking they've missed the point.

[In My Memory]

Pangloss,

Is it hypocritical for a media web site to refuse to run pictures for ethical reasons, and yet include a link to a place where the reader can find those pictures?

Maybe its a courtesy thing, a way of saying "click here at your own risk" or "not for the easily offended". Sorta like adding the words "not safe for work" next to a link.

 

Example (NSFW).

[padren]

Okay' date=' then if we've established that there are valid reasons why some web sites choose to do this, then the next logical question is, shouldn't people understand this and use it as the premise for further understanding of issues?

 

Put another way, as I asked earlier, why is the it considered innocuous to post a [i']link[/i] to the offending images, but if you show the picture then it's grounds for fatwah and jihad? Doesn't the technology more or less suggest that that perception is a little... silly? In other words, isn't the present Muslim outrage kinda pointless, given the nature of the web?

 

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, but it seems to me that there's a technological angle to the present issue that is lost on the mainstream media. They're going to give us an earful about irresponsible behavior in the blogosphere, and I'm thinking they've missed the point.

 

The owner of a local newspaper told me that their insurance states they can only print on their website info that is in their regular paper, or they can be liable/sued directly for any inaccuracies, and I would be willing to bet that for insurance reasons "on their site" would be based on what the user sees, more than how the site HTML is linked up.

 

How an image is embedded from another server on a page is pretty invisible to the viewer, so its probably the end generated page result that counts.

[john5746]

Eric Burns' date=' the moderator of FNC's media-watch show "Fox News Watch" raised an interesting question on this past weekend's show, and I thought I'd pass it along here just to see what people think.

 

Is it hypocritical for a media web site to refuse to run pictures for ethical reasons, and yet include a link to a place where the reader can find those pictures?

 

I think it's an interesting question to ponder given the explosion of popularity and importance of web news outlets.[/quote']

 

To me, it is the same as a disclaimer before showing some gruesome content on TV. A link means they condone the viewing of the material. Of course you have the problem that material from a link can be updated without their knowledge, but I assume this wasn't the case here.

 

So it is better than just showing the images, but they are still providing an easy means to view them.