The World's First Public Snuff Broadcast
 

From Studio Briefing:
----------------------
U.K. Regulator To Probe Saddam Tape Broadcast

OFCOM, the British communications regulator, said that it will investigate the BBC's decision to air the cell-phone video showing the execution of Saddam Hussein. OFCOM disclosed that it had received 30 complaints. The regulator said that it will examine whether the broadcast complies with provisions of the code regarding taste, decency, fairness and privacy. The London Financial Times quoted one unnamed broadcaster as saying, "These are all available over the Internet. If you stopped showing items are you accused of censoring?" But one writer posted a message on the BBC's website calling the footage, "the world's first public snuff video."
----------------------

Does this usher in that dystopic world often described by writers? I can remember the movie THX 1138, where THX is watching a man being beaten over and over again. Not as journalism, but as entertainment.

Or is it allowing TV Broadcasters to compete with the internet? Free unfettered speech, where the view can choose whether or not to watch, but the option is there.

Thoughts?

Ridiculous statement. There have been plenty of televised deaths and executions before now, none of which could be classified as a "Snuff" film.

Agreed. That's dumb hyperbole. I'm of the (probably minority) opinion that the footage itself doesn't belong on the evening news, although I think it's legitimate in the later hours. Not that I have (or will) watch it. Of course, with cable channels broadcasting to multiple timezones, it makes for added complications.

It's hard for any network to resist showing such things these days, isn't it? TV news went the way of entertainment long ago, most people seem bored silly by anything that *isn't* sensationalistic. And of course, Sadaam's death is big news, footage or not.

Videodrome 2007: The Future is Now :D

Yeah. Wait, was The Running Man fiction or non-fiction?

Government sanctioned executions televised ... when?

November 22, 1963!

I'm not sure how this qualifies as a "snuff" film. I've always assumed that there had to be a pornographic aspect to be a snuff film. But it looks like Wikipedia disagrees with me.

Not to attack my own thread, but the title was misleading and hyperbole ... heck it wasn't even the real quote. I started the thread to get an ethics discussion going, not to prove a point about it being a "snuff" film.

The real question to me is should the government allow TV stations to compete with the internet for viewers by allowing controversial imagery with appropriate warning.

Second, where does it end? ... could something as grotesque as an execution become a form of entertainment. Schadenfreude for mass consumption.

Charlie ... that was freakin funny.

I don't think that was actually televised on Nov. 22. (of course it happened 20 years before I was born so I could be wrong) Though Oswald dying was televised on the 24th.

Of course I'm sure I am looking too much into this considering that your post was most likely just a quick joke. :D

I'm really shocked that this video is on YouTube. I would have figured that it was the kind of thing that they would have had taken down. But where would that line be drawn? I mean, they don't have videos of U.S. soldiers getting their heads cut off, do they? It is a pretty gray area we're dealing with. Obviously many people are interested in seeing it, but I completely understand the opposite reaction as well, feeling appalled by it and not wanting it to be so widely available.

Yeah, a "snuff film" has nothing to do with nudity or sex, just the act of killing.

Years ago the rumors were that some films used unknown / firsttime actors but when they got to the scene where the person was shot, they really shot them, to make it realistic plus then they didn't have to pay the actor. This was said to happen in cheap Mexican films.

As for the writer who said that the Hussein film was the first snuff film, the guy is nuts.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pornographic

Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Pronunciation: -fE
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from pornE prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE, CARVE
1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

He is saying Public Snuff Video. I take that to mean: generally accessible by the public. Whether it be Youtube or BBC ... etc. Up to this point "snuff" films were an underground urban legend. He is also referring to "snuff" as a form of execution.

I personally think this is huge and the indifference many are taking towards this is nearly as shocking. It's a UK government supported public execution being broadcast on TV.

Not a snuff film. The specific purpose of the killing in a snuff film is entertainment and profit from distribution. A killing that happened to be caught on film doesn't qualify, regardless of entertainment value or subsequent profit.

You're comparing US Soldiers to Saddam Hussein? Are you saying since they show an evil person getting hung why don't they show US Soldiers dying? I think the answer to that is glaringly obvious.

"Are you saying since they show an evil person getting hung why don't they show US Soldiers dying? I think the answer to that is glaringly obvious."

Then it ceases to be news and becomes propaganda for a military agenda. Which is one of the huge problems with public televised executions, that they become a propaganda tool of an administration. Either public executions are permissable or not, The News loses journalistic credibility when it chooses which executions to air, based upon a subject value such as "evil". But it does. The news should never be based upon political agenda. But it is.

Which brings us back to the question. Is it news, spectacle, Schadenfreude or simple entertainment?

Entertainment Tonight brings you the Red Carpet arrivals to the 2026 Public Execution Awards. Stay tune following our broadcast for a special edition of "Euthanasia Live !!!! " with your hosts Regis and Kelly.

I would hope we can agree that airing an execution of a convicted murderer is somewhat different than airing homemade footage of a US soldier being murdered.

I'm not saying either should be aired; I have no interest in seeing any videos of that sort, despite their availability.

Again, this is hardly the first video footage of somebody getting killed or executed that was made widely available. For instance, there's the famous footage of the Vietcong guy getting shot in the head during the Vietnam War.

What does it matter what country he/she comes from. One governments execution is another's murder. Journalism is supposed to document the facts. Either they all are televised or its becomes a government propaganda tool to proliferate nationalism. Someones life is being used as a tool for propaganda. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant.

I am not aware of any execution ever being televised in the US.

There is a ethical difference between airing an execution and war killing.

(Personally, I don't think that any execution should be aired)

What about the example I just gave?

Can't believe somebody hasn't commented on the video itself. I watched it on youtube, and trust me, you can't see ANYTHING. First off the video quality is horrendous, but when he drops down the guy runs up the stairs. The only thing you see is literally one second of his face maybe 4 seconds after he got dropped and he obviously had a broken neck so it was an instant death. No choking, no piss, no squirming etc.. It's just a dark video of people yelling then literally 1 second of his face later, which they showed him in the body bag on all the cable shows anyways, so there is no difference what so ever.

The only thing is it's pretty eerie when a few seconds after the news footage cut out everybody starts yelling (religious stuff?) then you hear the loud snap and more yelling. I think they had a proper tape of it, but that won't get released to the public.

Sorry, I am not familar with the footage you site.

==========
From Reuters:

U.S. networks face quandary over Saddam execution

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29272060.htm

CBS appeared to be the most reluctant of the networks to take the unprecedented step of broadcasting video footage of an execution on television in the United States, a country where 53 people were put to death in 2006 alone.
==========

Regardless, It still represents a huge turning point in Western TV journalism.

I think a couple of others have already reinforced the intent of my original statement (and probably better than I could).

I agree that it's somewhat different, but a human life is a human life. What makes it OK to show a guy you don't like being killed and not OK to show a guy you have sympathy for getting killed? It's a double standard.

And having the Saddam tape widely available feels awfully similar to terrorists airing their killings, both sides showing off their hunting trophy. I have tremendous sympathy for all those American soldiers who were killed, and I don't think those videos should be aired or widely available. But even though I'm not a Saddam fan, I don't think it's right to have video of his death widely available.

There have been plenty of deaths shown on TV and the news, "Bowling for Columbine" has a montage of them. Budd Dwyer's suicide really kicked off the trend back in 87.