CNN - Should it Be Rated "R"?

I normally do not “plug” my own stuff, but I recently wrote a web article and I am interested to see how you all feel about CNN’s new “format” of showing horribly graphic images to us along with the news – rhetoric or necessary?

Anyhow, discuss here if you like!

Here is the article:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1873677/cnn_should_it_be_rated_r.html?cat=2

I didn't read the whole piece, but I think you're wrong. I think America and the world needs to see these images. I think a lot of the reason why these sort of things are allowed to continue are because they aren't made real enough by our media and government. In the case of our government it seems at time that the effort is in fact being made to make certain it's not made real.

And as far as your, or anyone else, being offended by the images try being one of the people being tortured, raped, and killed because you were born the wrong color or gender or don't follow the right religion and having your story told in such a fashion that the details are cleaned up so as not to make American housewives feel uncomfortable or sad and see how offended you feel.

I believe that CNN (and others) needs to make their case. Sorry, but simply saying something is so is NOT acceptable (and truthfully never has been). The evidence needs to be presented. In the old days there was time to be reviewed and 'edited for broadcast.' This allowed for the evidence to be presented and sensibilities to be maintained, but also for bias to set in. Now the evidence is reviewed within public scrutiny, and I believe that this stresses honesty (and the need for the audience to stay watching, as later viewings will be edited).

Let me also say that YOU not wanting to see something does not reduce the desire for others that YOU do see it. I teach school, and often find value in things that my students do not. Their unwillingness to see only reflects in their ignorance, and not in the value of what is being shown.

Remember, the value in freedom is secured by an INFORMED public. Thus, the information should be presented. With the information, you can make verdicts of worth. The next step is to inform your representatives of your conclusions (along with what you want done about it - if anything). Blogging on the internet is optional, but not a part of the process.

Interesting and well-communicated points! I completely understand where you are coming from, but then where do we draw the line? Should we start showing porn to kids when teaching them about sex because “telling them is simply not enough”?

I can understand showing footage like that in a gun safety class or to police, because they’ll need to understand it. But as an average person just living an average life somewhere in the states, I cannot see why those images are an integral part of receiving the news.

Maybe it's not to you an integral part of receiving the news, but as we know with learning, and TerishD as a teacher I'm sure will back me up on this point, that some people learn better by reading the material, some learn better by listening to a lesson, and some learn best with the aid of various visuals. With that in mind, it's no surprise we have various different methods of receiving the news; radio news, newspapers, and television news (such as CNN). So, perhaps you don't need these images in order to fully get the point, but that doesn't mean others don't and it certainly doesn't mean that they shouldn't be shown.

And the problem with comparing the news showing footage of the events they are reporting on to porn being shown in sex ed is that the purpose of sex ed is not to teach teens how to have or enjoy sex but rather the biology of sexual reproduction and how to prevent STDs and birth control. Porn, or at least the porn I watch, doesn't convey any of this. It's all about the pleasure or joy of sex and you rarely even see condoms in use.