Should the tape showing Steve Irwin's death be shown on TV?

[patricia92243]

[GCP]

1. I don't know how they can even consider it

I wasn't a Steve Irwin fan but showing his death on TV would be like a documentary showing just the falling bodies from the WTC.
Once you see something like that, you can't unsee it.
Let the man and his family have some final privacy.

[Epiphany4z]

5. I think it is his family

that wants to release it. They say Steve always told them to keep the cameras rolling and release whatever happened . I personally don't want to see it. I really liked his show and he was one of my kids hero..my middle boy loves snakes, lizards..ect...

[Irreverend IX]

46. Why are some people so uptight about this?

The guy lived as the ringleader of a TV circus. It's only fitting that he should entertain in death as well as in life. Besides, I doubt the footage is very horrifying or explicit. If it's shot from above the water you won't see much at all, if it's shot from in the water you'll just see him get stuck by a ropy thing and grab his chest.

[GCP]

75. The same way I'm uptight about people watching "Faces of Death"

I'm disappointed that people haven't evolved beyond the days of the Roman Colliseum.
Maybe you get your jollies from watching people die. I'm an RN and I don't.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. It depends on the family's wishes...

If they're cool with it, and they believe Steve would've approved of the footage release, then I can't see any reason to oppose it.

[City Lights]

I don't think it's wise to make a decision like this while in mourning.

Too much raw emotion and not enough rational thinking.

Just MHO, of course. :-)

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. Are you referring to the family, or us here on DU?

:-)

[City Lights]

57. His family. eom

[liberal N proud]

3. Why do we need to see him die on TV?

People are sick!

[grytpype]

4. Steve would want it to be shown.

It's what his life was all about.

[MercutioATC]

7. I agree.

On a less charitable note, ones who make their living poking at wild animals occasionally get removed from the gene pool. I think graphically illustrating that is a healthy thing to do.

[HannibalBarca]

29. What a ridiculous and coldly cynical comment...

..the good he did in funding conservation programs and educating the ignorant masses of the world about all animals will sorely be missed. He diverted the majority of monies he made as a result of his fame to Australia Zoo and countless research and conservation efforts yet there are those so blinded by their pseudo intellectual arrogance they simply refer to him as the guy who "poked animals for a living".
It's a strange phenomenon that many on these boards accuse RW's as being blinded, full of hate and display a lack of analytical and cognitive processes, I would ascribe those "qualities" in equal measure to some here also.

[MercutioATC]

30. I don't deny his contributions.

He still made a very good living poking at wild animals. Hell, he even dangled his infant in front of a croc.

You've gotta figure that behavior like that will eventually catch up with you.

It's like that idiot that was eaten by grizzlies last year. I'm sure he had the best of intentions, but he kinda had it coming...

[fujiyama]

47. While I do believe

he was certainly reckless at times, I have not heard anything to suggest he harassed the stingray in any way.

Hell, my first reaction when hearing about his death (aside from finding it very unfortunate) was also that "he must have done something to piss it off", but I appear to be wrong. While serious injury and death was always a risk he took in life, from what I've heard this really was a freak accident. I don't think he saw the thing coming.

[The Gunslinger]

19. You know that for sure?

I really think he would want to have his little girl watching tv and see her daddy get killed.

[grytpype]

25. Well, he died before anyone could ask him...

... but his life was making dangerous videos like this, and this is the most dramatic moment of all.

[ReverendDeuce]

6. I understand the family wants it shown...

I read that in an article yesterday, I believe. I am all for it being made public. I, too, believe that Steve personally would have wanted it that way.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I reckon the article you read got it wrong...

I doubt anyone in that family would want either of his kids to see that. Personally I think there's something sick and ghoulish in wanting to see a replay of another human being being killed....

[L A Woman]

33. they said exactly the opposite of that. n/t

[onecent]

38. Don't believe everything you hear, and HALF of what you see. n/t

[A-Schwarzenegger]

39. Learn to read.

[fishwax]

48. in fairness to the poster

there were articles written claiming that that is what steve wanted and that the family was considering respecting those wishes. The accuracy of those articles, of course, is another matter entirely. The only article I've seen with a direct quote concerning the specific situation was of Irwin's manager, who said he would destroy the tape if it were up to him.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

53. The poster said the article said "the family wants it shown."

Not that they were considering anything.

[fishwax]

54. actually, he said that he understands they want it shown

I don't know that he made any claims as to specific quotes from the article. You responded by telling him he should learn to read. My point is it is not perhaps that the poster does not know how to read, but rather that inaccurate, misleading, and/or highly speculative things have been written about the family's desires.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

56. This is what he said:

"I understand the family wants it shown... I read that in an article yesterday, I believe."

So, actually, he said that he read in an article that he understands the family wants it shown, he believes. Which translates to: I understand and believe that I read something.

You said, on the other hand, that you read that the family was considering Steve's (alleged) wish to show it, not that they actually wanted it to be shown. So, you were not supporting what the poster wrote at all, as I pointed out.

[fishwax]

58. My point, of course, was not to offer support of what the poster said

So, actually, he said that he read in an article that he understands the family wants it shown, he believes. Which translates to: I understand and believe that I read something.

I don't follow your translation. He said "I understand the family wants it shown (stop) I read that in an article yesterday, I believe." This translates into: My understanding, based on an article I read which I believe indicated this was the case, is that the family wants it shown.

You said he should learn to read, as though nobody who is literate could possibly come to the understanding that he did from the written word.

You said, on the other hand, that you read that the family was considering Steve's (alleged) wish to show it, not that they actually wanted it to be shown.

Of course, I was not talking about the specific article that the poster read (or believes he read, or whatever), but merely pointing out that there were articles that portrayed the family as at least ambivalence and potentially in favor of showing the tape.

I heard on a news broadcast that the family wanted it shown. I didn't read any article that explicitly said that, but then I haven't read very many articles about the tape. Is there an article that says that? I don't know. I guess I'm not that concerned about it. But it seems plausible--and so perhaps it was not the case that the poster was illiterate, but rather that he might have read something and understood it correctly (but that said article could have been wrong).

So, you were not supporting what the poster wrote at all, as I pointed out.

You're right. But then, my intent was not at all to support what the poster wrote. My intent was to point out an alternate explanation to the illiteracy charge. That's all.

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

59. "I guess I'm not that concerned about it."

You certainly fooled me!

[fishwax]

60. Really, why?

:shrug:

I haven't argued that there is such an article (as you yourself showed in your clear analysis of my earlier post).

[A-Schwarzenegger]

63. Because your analysis of my analysis of your analysis

of my response to his claim about an article
that you now acknowledge may not even exist
suggests that you are concerned.

:hi:

[fishwax]

65. all that shows is that I was concerned with your analysis of my analysis

i really could give a whit about the reality of the theoretically plausible article itself :rofl:

that you now acknowledge may not even exist

I never argued that it did exist, of course, so to "now acknowledge" that it may not even exist is really hardly a significant acknowledgement :)

:hi:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

67. Depends what you mean by "is."

[fishwax]

70. okay

:):shrug::hi:

[OzarkDem]

45. No they don't

I heard an interview with his friends and read articles stating the opposite.

[blonndee]

61. Here's what Steve himself said

...

In an interview with Associated Press Radio in 2002, he discussed his passion for grappling with crocodiles: "That's what my hand and my brains are designed to do," he said with his trademark enthusiasm. "That's what I have to give to the world."

In the same interview, he noted: "If I'm going to die, at least I want it filmed ... If we blew a million dollars worth of cameras, at least we could have gone to MGM and gone, 'Hey, look at this tape."'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212321,00.html

source is Faux News,but quote also referenced at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/entertainment/4166737.html

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. "Let's broadcast him dying, it will be good for ratings."

:puke:

It is atrocious that showing the tapes is even being considered. But then again, the alternative is to report on the sucky situation we've created in the Middle East, so why not?

And in other news, OJ Simpson is being sued by Ron Goldman's father. THAT deserves 24/7 coverage, too!

[wtmusic]

11. The only reason to watch something like that is primitive, morbid

curiosity. Not an appeal to the "better angels of our nature".

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. Not my decision to make, but if they do I don't plan on watching it.

Death is a common, natural reality, those who take pleasure in watching it aren't.

Just a tad too morbid for my taste.

[Arkansas Granny]

23. I totally agree with you on this one. I don't know why anyone

would want to watch it. It seems sort of ghoulish to me.

[treestar]

10. What he would have wanted should be the deciding factor

I think it should be shown if whoever owns it wants to show it. Whoever doesn't want to see it just doesn't tune in, that's all. I know I won't.

In addition, it could make a good "scare" film for other wannabe adventurers.

[Subdivisions]

12. The film belongs to John Stainton and Animal Planet and John

said on Larry King last night that as far as he is concerned it will never be shown and should be destroyed as soon as police and the coroner are done with it.

[treestar]

15. I think the police/coroner should save/destroy it per their rules

Like they would in any other case.

If the owner doesn't want to show it, he/she/it doesn't have to.

Though it may be better than what people start to speculate about it.

[datasuspect]

13. the "mindshare" on that broadcast will sell lots of premium air time

for whatever network has that property.

[MrModerate]

14. Save it for the next edition of "Faces of Death" n/t

[Captain Hilts]

16. We have no 'right to know' he's not a public official. nt

[aikoaiko]

17. No one will be forced to watch it. Truth is sometimes unsightly. nt

[The Gunslinger]

18. How many times can i vote no

It shouldnt even be considered.

[Javaman]

20. No, but they will anyway. we now live in the roman coliseum of life. nt

[lonestarnot]

21. The owner of the tape spoke last night, and said that it will be

destroyed as soon as it is returned from the police.

[RebelOne]

22. It doesn't matter because eventually it will end up on YouTube.

[ecstatic]

24. ratings bonanza-people fear death, yet have a morbid desire to witness it

eom

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

26. Absolutely!

I do not view it as particularly morbid to air the tape. He spent his life in the jaws of death - what more fitting tribute to the man than to give us one last show?

It was a fine and noble death. Only Homer could do it justice. I am only sorry that there is no way for Steve to provide the voice-over for the tape.

[greguganus]

28. Story on video here.

http://forum.ogrish.com/showthread.php?t=118484&highlight=irwin

John Stainton, Irwin's manager who was among the crew on the reef, said the fatal blow was caught on videotape, and described viewing the footage as having the "terrible" experience of watching a friend die.

"It shows that Steve came over the top of the ray and the tail came up, and spiked him here (in the chest), and he pulled it out and the next minute he's gone," Stainton told reporters in Cairns, where Irwin's body was taken for an autopsy.

[valerief]

31. Steve Irwin is the most important thing in the world on the Today Show.

Poor John Mark Karr and JonBenet.

[Beelzebud]

32. What kind of a GHOUL would watch something like this?

Do these ghouls also sit around and refresh rotten.com a few times a day?

[MercutioATC]

35. Me.

Call it ghoulish, but I believe that graphically witnessing consequences is healthy for society.

However charitable he may have been, this was a guy that made his living screwing with dangerous wild animals. There are consequences to that kind of behavior, and I think illustrating that is a good thing.

[puffthemagicdragon]

36. Me too - he wanted it that way

On the news this morning they said a couple years ago he said he would want his death to be on film. I really dont think steve would care, he was doing what he loved and showing it would only show that nature is a violent yet beautiful space that we should all respect. simple as that. If you dont want to see it then dont watch it.

[MercutioATC]

37. Exactly.

He chose a world much different than most of us have chosen. I think he'd want people to see it.

[Beelzebud]

74. To whoever responded to me, I have you ignored, don't waste your time.

This same Ignored has been in every Irwin thread acting like a god damned ghoul, I can tell from the replies it gets, so you can just take your hate filled comments and shove them up your ass...

[Horse with no Name]

34. I don't think so

However, it is up to his family who are trying to respect his wishes.
He specifically addressed this scenario to his family.

[mitchum]

40. What? Like it would debase the noble medium of television?

[WI_DEM]

41. This is what we will see: his final moments up to just before the

stingray attacks--we'll probably see it up to that point and then they will cut it at that point.

[Kazak]

42. Voted yes...

because I think he'd want it to be seen.

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

43. Other. It's up to the Family.

None of my beeswax, not that I'd watch it anyhow.

RIP Irwin.

[WinkyDink]

44. It can serve no purpose. I doubt if anyone needs to be warned off

sting-rays at this point.

[MrSlayer]

49. I'd like to see it.

So I voted yes.

[SmokingJacket]

50. Geez, it would be like "Faces of Death."

Death should not be a teevee show.

[Truthiness Inspector]

51. No

Some here are saying "the family" is ok with this footage being shown (I don't know if that is true or not), but his children are far too young to consent to something like that.

There is no reason for this footage to be released, except for looky-loos.

[Sonnabend]

52. It wont be in Australia

None of the stations will touch it...for obvious reasons. There have been discussions, yes...there always are...but no station CEO will allow it.

What CNN etc does is up to them.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. You know who's death I'd like to see on TV? Jane Goodall's.

I just spent 30 seconds on google reading about Jane Goodall and that uppity bitch spent her whole shameful career exploiting and molesting those monkeys for fun and profit. I'm pretty sure she had a string of failed marriages.

Fuck Jane Goodall, and her kids.

[Crunchy Frog]

64. 17% of DUers are into snuff?

Sick, sick, sick.:puke:

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

72. Finally snuffed it yourself, eh troll?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

73. Heh.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ikojo]

69. KMOV Channel 4 in St Louis did a poll yesterday

asking the same question and 60% of the respondents said yes, they would watch the video of Mr Irwin's death.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

71. I will not watch it and I will not tell my four year old grandson that,

as he calls him, "my friend, the crocodile man" has died.

Oddly enough, not one of the kids in his very large preschool class knew that he had died, although they had all seen numerous "Steve" films over the Labor Day weekend. Good for the parents for keeping their innocence intact yet allowing them to watch the product of this good man's life.

[Scout]

76. not the actual stinging and his suffering and death

if Terri decides to go on with Bindi's show, and they want to use the footage he shot before the incident, then I would think that would be ok. I don't think Steve would want his actual death shown. But at this point it is entirely up to his wife, children and other family.

[Buzz Clik]

77. Chip Bok on Steve:

[Hugin]

79. I'm wondering when the T.S.A. is going to ban Sting Rays from carry-on...

Soon, I hope... Those things could destroy AMERICA!

[Marie26]

78. Of course not. nt