Cuando ocurrieron los ominosos hechos de Marzo, los medios de comunicación nos deleitaron con imágenes morbosas de los hechos. Recientemente, ciertos medios de comunicación encontraron imágenes nuevas en internet y decidieron emitirlas por TV. La reacción de los familiares de las víctimas fue inmediata. Se cerró la página web (situada en Estados Unidos) y se ha detenido a los autores de las imágenes. Aún se duda qué cargos se les imputarán.
Si se les imputa un delito contra el honor de las víctimas, ¿no delinquieron también los periódicos y cadenas de televisión que UTILIZARON IMÁGENES SIMILARES para ganar audiencia? Si hay algo que odio en este mundo es que los periodistas se crean con el monopolio de la información. Si un paparazzi es detenido se arma un escándalo, pero si se trata de un aficionado, ¡a la cárcel con él!
After the bombs of March, 11th in Madrid, media delectated us with insane images of gore and death. Some of these media recently discovered an intenernet site offering exclusive images took by amateur photographers. They broadcasted that images on TV, and the families of the victims objected to that broadcasting. Police found that images came from a USA site, closed it, imprisioned the authors. No charges are imputed to them already. They can be liable from "revealing judicial secrets" (but many newspapers have revealed many of them with impunity) of from "actions against the honour of victims". If they use this one, can't the SAME CHARGE be used against newspapers, news agencies and TVs that USED SIMILAR IMAGES to obtain share? Journalists think they have information monopoly. If a paparazzo is arrested, the crowd of journalists cries against laws. But when it is an amateur photographer, they say "go to jail!"
Let me add to the hypocrisy...
ResponderEliminarIf the amateur photos are later found to be of significance, then the major (American) journalists will scream "Freedom of the Press!", and will lobby for the PHOTOS to be released, and the photographers to be released for philosophic reasons (and the warm fuzzy feelings that will be created in the public view).
But of the amateur photos are later found to be of no significance, then the photos and the photographer will be quickly forgotten as both are of no profitable value to the American journalistic juggernaut.
And GOD forbid! Should an amateur photo be taken by an off-duty professional photographer... Ahh... double standards, the joy of a industry with richly-paid lawyers
--Etanisla