True crime in vivid color – Gadhafi’s death caught on video

Logging onto Facebook early this afternoon, I saw a post saying that Gadhafi had been shot and killed in Libya today. Thinking it might merely be a rumor, I checked the Drudge Report and learned from a New York Times story that it was true. My shadow side rejoiced, while the more ethical side I habitually show the world was troubled by the brutality of the murder without trial.

I was even more troubled when I clicked onto Drudge’s link for a “graphic video” on YouTube and came upon the grisly image of Gadhafi being dragged along the street by his attackers. Perhaps he was still alive at that point, because as reported by the AP, he was killed by two bullets, one to the heart and one to the head, and it took about 30 minutes for him to bleed to death.

That horrific video, brought to us in vivid color by the Al Jazeera news service, elicited a visceral reaction in a way that more matter-of-fact reporting never does. My heart pounded harder and my stomach lurched. Like all too many of us, I’ve become blasé about the incessant violence on TV and in the movies, but this was obviously the real thing.

Even more distressing than the images were the comments that poured into You Tube. There was a great deal of intense anger and venom. One viewer wrote that he wished it had been Obama being dragged dying through the streets; another thought the same fate should befall “Jews everywhere.” Few comments reached such toxic extremes, but there was plenty of profanity on all sides of the issue, and people hurled insults and epithets at each other. Others, less caught up in the issues, critiqued the amateurish quality of the camera work as if they were reviewing a movie.

I turned on CNN, and they aired a few seconds of the Al Jazeera footage. The glamorous, impeccably groomed reporter came close to apologizing, saying they were showing the video only to establish that it was indeed Gadhafi being dragged through the streets. When I got back to my computer, the Drudge Report had removed the link to that video, but it’s easy to find on YouTube.

Tonight, somewhat to my surprise, ABC and CBS aired slightly less gruesome footage of Kadhafi being roughly dragged by the rebels just prior to the shooting, followed by still shots of his dead body in the ambulance and wrapped in plastic sheeting, and close-ups of his fractured face in death. Neither network prefaced the video by warning viewers of the graphic nature of what they were about to see.

Is this form of reality TV getting more intense? When I think back to the tumultuous events of the 1960’s, black and white still photos come to mind. Many have become an iconic part of our collective memory – the Vietnamese child burned by napalm and running naked in the road, the girl kneeling with upraised arms next to the body of one of the victims at Kent State, Robert Kennedy dying on a California floor. I don’t recall seeing any movie or video footage, but in those days I considered myself too hip to own a television.

My husband tells me that the vivid filmed footage of the war in Vietnam heightened antiwar sentiment, and that after the war, the government tightened control of the images the public was allowed to see. Even the sight of coffins being airlifted back from Iraq became taboo.

I’m not advocating for that kind of censorship, however. On the contrary, in-your-face close-up coverage like today’s videos of Gadhafi’s assassination drives home the stark reality of the events playing out on the world stage. However painful the images may be, we can’t afford to look away.

What do you think? Is news coverage more graphic than it used to be? And is that good or bad? I’d love to hear from you.

Advertisements

5 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. betsy tuel
    Oct 20, 2011 @ 23:03:09

    Thankfully at times like this I do not have TV. I do not fill my brain, my soul with all the horrible stuff that gets broadcast in the name of news. Frankly I read a few lines of your blog, Julie, and skipped to the last line. I don’t even want to read this stuff or know all the gory details. And I am not going to watch the referenced video, thank you.

    It would be much healthier for you to be reading Ray Ash’s posts on facebook than this stuff. Go to my friends list on my info page on facebook and type in Ray Ash and friend him and read what he posts.

    Reply

    • julielomoe
      Oct 21, 2011 @ 13:28:15

      Hi, Betsy. I apppreciate your comments and respect your opinion. I used to feel the same way, but I question your judgment that it’s “much healthier” to avoid this stuff. For me, it’s part of being more involved with the world and coming out of my self-absorbed coccoon.

      As a mystery writer; I admit I’m drawn to things macabre and violent. My novels don’t go into gruesome detail, though, compared to many writers I admire. But the title and cover of my suspense novel ELDERCIDE did turn some readers away. One bookstore owner refused to carry it because she found the title and illustration “ghastly,” In the pastel cover drawing, I was intentionally going for a lurid, noir look evocative of 1940’s pulp fiction. I’m planning to change that when I make it an e-book, but that’s another story.

      I will look up Ray Ash – thanks for the lead.

      Reply

  2. Patricia Stoltey
    Oct 21, 2011 @ 10:55:28

    It’s way more graphic in my opinion, and my imagination is graphic enough without watching the replay of something as brutal as what happened to Gadhafi. I also don’t peruse the comments left by news and blog readers because of the hatred spewed there. I acknowledge that these things exist in today’s world, but I choose not to participate.

    Reply

    • julielomoe
      Oct 21, 2011 @ 13:31:46

      Great to hear from you, Patricia. You sound as though you’ve reached a reasonable compromise. I’d say more, but this topic pushes such intriguing buttons, I think I’ll save it for another post.

      Reply

  3. Louisa
    Oct 22, 2011 @ 14:02:52

    I agree with you, Julie. When I saw the images on the news last night, it was as though I’d been punched in the stomach. I was shocked that they’d show it on prime time television, without warnings as you say. I don’t believe in censorship, but I think at least a warning would have been appropriate — my young daughter was in the room. While I don’t want to shield her from the real world, she’s too young to know what it’s all about and to understand people’s hatred of Gadhafi.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: