I'm all for no censorship but there are things that just shouldn't be shown. There were people on one of those flights that I knew and it's disturbing that the whole thing was out there for the world to gawk at. Part of free speech is knowing what is just best left unsaid or when an image isn't suited for national television....

I say news should only report two things; happy things, funny things and business crisis-es-es... okay thats three things.

But the only reason i say that is this - anything like 9/11 (no offence) people killing people on camera, or even binladel making his little propaganda videos, they all have one thing in common, and thats is "look at me, look at what i am saying, look at what i can do, am i getting to you yet?" When anything like that is aired, all its doing is shining a nice light on what THEY WANT everyone to see. That aspect to me is not news, news to me is something that shouldnt be affected by anyone.

I agree though that certain aspects of extremely tragic things could be reported on, but going back to the 9/11 thing - i watched it on sky news (because it was a horrible event and it was shocking to believe) and they looped that footage over and over again, as if there was no other news to report. They kept going back to the point where they fell, kinda like how they do an instant replay in sports. And that was it... nothing else. I myself would have said "fine, show it maybe *once* an hour, to show what sick thing has happened, but after that you must show the firefighters trying to help, the public doing things to help to get that balance of hope back into the news." instead of the random shots of people walking away from the wreckage all dusty, bloodied and scared that they did show.

personally.
i think the media hides so much from people.
so when they show stuff like that to the people, it helps you remember how sick most people are. >____>;

It goes without saying that this is a difficult question. I was living about thirty minutes away from the World Trade Center until a few years ago. My family, thankfully, was not in New York City that day, and we were safe, but what about all the other places in the country and in the world that were NOT near the area? People have a right to know what happens in the world. There ARE probably horrific crimes that aren't reported. And I think it is a crime, in and of itself, not to report what one can. The media is a dangerous tool (again, something that goes without saying). There can be a fine line between reporting the facts that people should know and sensationalizing and glamorizing a horrific crime. We can't necessarily blame a crime on an outside influence, like a poorly reported crime. For example, in the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, the two instigators were seen wearing shirts supporting the band Rammstein. Does this mean Rammstein is to blame for their actions? So we can't necessarily blame the media if someone else commits a crime similar to one that was broadcast. People make their own, sometimes horrible, decisions. We could start pointing fingers at just about anything-- maybe it was a product of their home life, maybe it had to do with reading murder mysteries as a child, maybe their Lucky Charms was manufactured improperly and pissed them off. Of course if certain things were a prominent factor we have to investigate, but we are not responsible for everyone's actions. I think that the media should be more careful in how they present the material (i.e., take extra care not to sensationalize crimes), but should continue to present it. It's our right to know.

Other because I think they should show it but (like you said) they should explain what will be showen and any story "behind" it.

This is a bit of a toughie.

I'd go for censorship being used on certain occasions. I dislike it when the truth is hidden from us, no matter how un-pleasant, although I think certain things should be hidden from us eg. so people can be warned and have the choice to turn away and for the benefit of young children, who would be shown things they probably shouldn't. I'm not agreeing with getting rid of the more gruesome, unpleasant news completely, but a lot of the more graphic stuff ought to be watered down at certain times of day, or with a warning, etc.

They should just show it but make it cencored etcs =/ and try and put an age limit on it etcs otherwise you'd probally end up with a bunch of chavs around 11 or so stabbing people =/ O wait, Two late for that sadly =/

I think they should be able to.
If we watch said videos,yes it will most likely keep the trend going,but it will really show us what happens in the real world! I find that news very disturbing to me,but i would want to know who this person is and see what state of mind they were in when they did that!
The other reason,they should warn viewers of what they will see,and what they will hear.
Also we gotta remember we cannot shelter everyone from these kind of thing,'cause of children who are so intuned and constantly watching TV now. I know most children have probably seen stuff like that on a regular basis,since most parents do not supervise what they watch now. So what can we do? Nothing,everyone nowadays has the internet and are able to obtain that footage anyway....so why not show it.

It's a real thing, it should be shown. Now, granted, i do think age restrictions should be made. Otherwise, I'm fine. -is really just a sicko-