Tell me I was seeing things, Tell me the BBC did not show a Soldier dying
 

In Afghanistan and his face on the news tonight..:mad:

They were doing an article on the poor soldier that died in Afghanistan today after stepping on a device whilst clearing a road, and as they filmed his comrades trying to get to him you saw the face of a semi seated position soldier in the background slump back as the announcer says he died... :sad: Whatever posessed them to show it, you clearly see his face and his family could have seen that....... Please tell me I have got it wrong :(

I've looked at the video a couple of times and can't see anyone that looks injured, all I can see is the medics/jocks around him.

Edit: Do you mean the lad whose head falls back?

I can see where the concern for the family is important but I also think the public need to see the horrors of this conflict so that they can not only understand and appreciate what our forces are enduring but also form their own opinion of the decisions of the politicians to continue our involvement.

Yes the one slumping back at about 1.45 on

BBC News - IED expert dies in explosion in Afghanistan

I realise what you are saying about the public should realise what is going on, but no ones family should watch their child, husband, father die on the news.............. No ones :sad:

Do you think is is him, because if it is I intend to complain.

At first I thought that it was a medic perhaps falling back because we was upset, but after watching it I think you're right. The only thing I would add is that the guy on the left doesn't seem to react at all when the soldier slumps back.

I'm really not sure.

I think you may have seen someone just lying back, as one may do in such a situation. The person on the immediate left is looking the other way. Surely someone just injured would not be sat upright but lying down. I hope I'm right....

A little earier in the clip you can see two soldiers a little further to the left, they look to be focussing on something in front of them, I assume they are dealing with the casualty, and the chap who reclines is simply doing so in response to the news of the death?

I have to agree with V99, just seen it again on TV, previous is all attention toward the left of screen, the person on the right just reclines, as if to say... :sad:

:{

I am yet to see the problem here :confused:

It's not the casualty you see, others are correct in saying he falls back because it's over for his mate.

Soddim, please don't get politics into this. It's the families call if they want to show loved ones faces on national tv.

Admin please delete this thread I can't see this going any further, thanks.

FbS

FbS

With respect, why have you suddenly become the all encompassing Mod? If the thread is not going to go anywhere then simply don't read it.

Soddim
The horrors of war can be shown without showing families the demise of loved ones on TV.

Gentleman Jim

When I saw this, I did also think that the engineer may have been shown dying, but was not sure.

I also saw something else, and something maybe the news crew were also trying to point out! (Sorry for the thread drift I am about to make).

The article also showed that to have a SAFER way to detect IED's then American kit had to be there, along with American crews. Once the U.S. kit was disabled, then it was down to British methods, with the results of our approach being shown!

If the reporters had made direct comment to our lack of kit, they would have been breaking BBC rules, this was perhaps another way to get the point across. I am sure the way we deal with IED's is much more relevant to a BBC reporter on the ground, that those who are happy to listen to our politico's spouting on how well equipped we are, but stood somewhere safe in Westminster.

Get well soon to the U.S soldier with the injured arm, and thank you for your support in the mission.
RIP, and sincere thoughts to the Family of the British engineer who paid the ultimate price.

I don't see the problem here - anything that gets the reality of what is going on over to the public is good. We are lucky to live in a democracy, but for it to work effectively, then the voters have to be informed.

It is obvious to me that the falling soldier was not dying - any mortally injured soldier would be already prone. But even if I am wrong, I still think the BBC would have been correct to show the shot. The feelings of family, whilst an important consideration, should not dicate the terms that the press should operate under.

Cirrus

I disagree entirely.

Easy to say when it is not your family.

And just where does it stop?

My next door neighbour in BKK found out his son was dead because on the local news it showed his son lying on the road in a pool of blood with his throat cut and face beaten in. His shirt was open with multiple cuts and stabs to the chest and stomach. By all accounts the blood was still warm when the press arrived. Nice! I doubt he (my neighbour) will ever stop having the nightmares.

The real issue?
 

My wife and I also saw this on the BBC news last night. To us the real issue was:

1) USMC engineers lead the way clearing the route with protected engineer vehicle.

2) Vehicle hit by IED blast and one marine slightly injured.

3) British soldier takes over on foot with hand-held mine detector.

4) Apparently second IED explodes (off camera) and kills British soldier.

The point being why are the British doing this on foot when specialist vehicles can be used? Surely we don't think we are still in Northern Ireland and are looking to disarm these devices in order to obtain the evidence necessary to arrest the bomb maker and take him to court? Or is it still as I suspect a lack of kit?

And so how is that any different from if the parents had been first to arrive on the scene themselves? The press coverage didn't cause or worsen the violence.

Showing the death of a serviceman is no more or less traumatic than showing the death of a teenager in a car crash. Showing it BEFORE NOK have been informed is another matter.

Well do I remember the pretty horrific news reports after Sir Galahad which must have been just as bad for families but if it educates people and politicians of the consequences of sending blokes off to war, then it serves its purpose.

Sorry I have to cast a lot of doubt on this story. The pictures you describe are far too graphic to be shown on British television news. The chances of getting TV pictures back from Afghanistan and on local tv news before kniform also very unlikely. I cannot speak for other organisations, but BBC VERY mindful about releasing names and details before MOD gives the nod.

Vox

Gentleman Jim did say BKK!!

Sorry, but there are some extremely sensitive people on this website and many really need to take a reality pill.

Our troops are getting killed and maimed because our politicians decided to send them to fight in Afghanistan. What little you see of this conflict on TV can only serve to better inform you of the reality of that conflict.

It is the potential viewers of those images who will soon elect the next government and they need to know what they are doing.

As for 'It's the families call', don't be stupid. How on earth are you going to go about getting that sorted if you are reporting a hot news story?

The coverage in question here was completely in order - nobody is shown getting killed or maimed and there was no graphic detail as is evidenced by those trying to work out if they saw the casualty or not.

I would hope that nobody in our military would be so soft as to suggest that the media do not show the realities of war because the public need to know and our politicians need to learn not to enter into it lightly.