PDA

View Full Version : 4-year-old girl in heartbreaking photograph dies of cancer



Hans
11-22-2016, 05:42 PM
CNN has this photo in plain view on their home page.
In my opinion they should show some decency and refer to this page without the graphical content, like it should be.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/21/health/jessica-whelan-cancer-photograph-trnd/index.html

Anapeg
11-22-2016, 06:49 PM
They strive to make the point hit home, judging by your reaction,... it worked. You were warned yet chose to look and you are upset with them, hardly fair. Hans, the only thing worse than having a child die, is to have a child die with nothing advancing because of it. When My 2-year-old daughter died there were a couple of procedures advanced and some children lived because through Carole's struggle doctors as far away as Japan came and perfected two surgeries.
The pain of losing a child cannot be buffered but it can allow the parent to live with the knowledge their passing served some purpose, their life was not wasted. I think of her every day, then I recall the first little fellow in Edmonton we were made aware of saved with the new method learned through work with Carole.
I can see your point and I do so hope you can see my feeble poor attempt at an explanation as to why they may have done what they did.

Hans
11-22-2016, 08:37 PM
I think you missed what the point I was making.
CNN has this story on 2 different pages, with 2 different links from their main home page.

- 1 link was the one I posted above, where you are warned about the graphical nature and have the option not to proceed.
- The other link was on their main page, where they posted the picture on their main page and put it in the layout so it would show up on the page without having to scroll down. In other words, anyone visiting cnn.com would have noticed the picture, with no choice.
That is the wrong part and that is what got me angry, because that is not ethical.

They have now removed it from the main page finally.

Anapeg
11-22-2016, 10:20 PM
I think you missed what the point I was making.
CNN has this story on 2 different pages, with 2 different links from their main home page.

- 1 link was the one I posted above, where you are warned about the graphical nature and have the option not to proceed.
- The other link was on their main page, where they posted the picture on their main page and put it in the layout so it would show up on the page without having to scroll down. In other words, anyone visiting cnn.com would have noticed the picture, with no choice.
That is the wrong part and that is what got me angry, because that is not ethical.

They have now removed it from the main page finally.

Trust me to misunderstand, sorry Hans.

Official Cat of Soonet
11-23-2016, 02:22 PM
I think you missed what the point I was making.
CNN has this story on 2 different pages, with 2 different links from their main home page.

- 1 link was the one I posted above, where you are warned about the graphical nature and have the option not to proceed.
- The other link was on their main page, where they posted the picture on their main page and put it in the layout so it would show up on the page without having to scroll down. In other words, anyone visiting cnn.com would have noticed the picture, with no choice.
That is the wrong part and that is what got me angry, because that is not ethical.

They have now removed it from the main page finally.

What is not ethical about that picture?

Hans
11-23-2016, 06:05 PM
It is not ethical to display graphical content without a warning.
They did it to grab clicks and advertising money from their main page.

Anapeg
11-24-2016, 11:16 AM
So you are fine with the picture rather it is their exploitation of your feelings to gather advertising dollars that you lament.

Hans
11-24-2016, 07:09 PM
Exactly.

riggs
11-24-2016, 07:21 PM
I think you missed what the point I was making.
CNN has this story on 2 different pages, with 2 different links from their main home page.

- 1 link was the one I posted above, where you are warned about the graphical nature and have the option not to proceed.
- The other link was on their main page, where they posted the picture on their main page and put it in the layout so it would show up on the page without having to scroll down. In other words, anyone visiting cnn.com would have noticed the picture, with no choice.
That is the wrong part and that is what got me angry, because that is not ethical.

They have now removed it from the main page finally.

You expected CNN to be ethical? Even after the election?

Hans
11-24-2016, 07:30 PM
That is true, I should have known better.

Official Cat of Soonet
11-24-2016, 10:19 PM
If I see a graphic warning, I tend to want to click it more. Take note CNN.

Anapeg
11-24-2016, 11:54 PM
Exactly.

So you aren't concerned about the kid rather it is your sensibilities that are important.

Hans
11-25-2016, 07:18 AM
The kid is dead, there is no point in being concerned about the kid now.
If they would have displayed this picture right after it was taken, different story.

Anapeg
11-25-2016, 11:59 PM
The kid is dead, there is no point in being concerned about the kid now.
If they would have displayed this picture right after it was taken, different story.

Somewhat cold.

Hans
11-26-2016, 03:31 PM
But correct. Likely already buried or cremated by now.

Anapeg
11-26-2016, 06:51 PM
But correct. Likely already buried or cremated by now.

Yet it bothers you then for what reason?

Hans
11-27-2016, 07:48 PM
Because of ethical reasons. As an online news source you have certain ethical requirements.

Official Cat of Soonet
11-28-2016, 01:33 AM
Because of ethical reasons. As an online news source you have certain ethical requirements.

CNN is commentary not news. It made the leap years ago as did most of the old news sources. You're applying the old idea of journalism intregrity to this era.

Hans
11-28-2016, 07:28 AM
You are right, I should have know better about the failing CNN.