BBC BLOGS - The Editors
« Previous | Main | Next »

Grim decisions

Craig Oliver Craig Oliver | 13:13 UK time, Thursday, 3 July 2008

Yesterday a man drove a bulldozer through a street in Jerusalem with the aim of killing a number of Israeli Jews.

The incident happened near the BBC's bureau and our correspondent immediately ran to the scene. He caught on camera the man being shot dead.

The scene on Jaffa Road after the bulldozer knocked down a busThere have been a number of complaints from viewers about us showing on television the moment of death. I fully understand the concerns, but this is why I took the decision to show it.

After some discussion with colleagues I decided that on the Six O'Clock News we should freeze the images just before the man was shot - letting only the sound of the incident run on. I took the view that the images were too disturbing to show to an early evening audience because, pre-watershed, children would be watching.

I took a different view at Ten - deciding to run the pictures in full with a clear warning that the audience was about to see images of a man being shot dead. This was not an easy decision - we never want to shock for the sake of it, or to sensationalise the news.

However, equally we don't want to sanitise the news for what is a mature and thoughtful audience. It's also important to think about what the audience actually saw - the shot was not close-up, the action was slightly obscured because it was happening behind the bulldozer's windscreen, the men's faces were not visible, and no blood was seen.

The scene was disturbing, and it was a fine call, but I believe it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence.

The story also raised another difficult question: would it have gained quite so much coverage if it had not been caught on camera?

The answer is probably not - but we should not necessarily ignore the opportunity to show people what goes on when we are provided with it. We should however remind people that this is not the only violence, and set it in the context of other deaths - both Palestinian and Israeli - which we did last night.


  • Comment number 1.


    I know it was a very grim decision to show the pictures of the moment of death.

    Did the BBC staff on air, in the Bureaux in Jerusalem [Israel] consulted with the Management and editorial staff at the BBC.

  • Comment number 2.

    Fair enough showing what happened but from watching the BBC it appeared a load of Israelis brutally murdered a Palestinian. You didn't apparently see fit to show this maniac crushing half a dozen Israelis to death.

    Yet again the BBC portrays Israelis as cold blooded killers when they act in reasonable self defence.

  • Comment number 3.

    It was a brave decision. I watched the footage last night and immediately wondered if it was suitable for broadcast. Escecially as the shooter was in plain clothes, as this may in a way glorify the carrying and use of weapons by civilians (even though the shooter was not). However, it did seem a little heavy handed, particularly as they had access into the vehicles cab and the driver and could have overpowered him easily without resorting to shooting him multiple times. But my thoughts are with those who died as a result of his rampage. Well done to the reporter and well done to the BBC for deciding to show this footage, it'll spark debate and anger, but ultimately I think it will be remembered as a piece of striking and noteworthy jounalism.

  • Comment number 4.

    Craig - I think you were correct to show the footage and to have two different edits.

    So long as you give a warning I think people should be able to see what '3 people died and man was shot dead' actually means.

    Just for once I dont agree with the suggestion that this had an anti-Israeli slant - I saw a Palestinian shot dead and I also saw Israelis crushed in their cars and being pulled bloody and screaming from a bus. That was the truth of it.

  • Comment number 5.

    #3 "However, it did seem a little heavy handed, particularly as they had access into the vehicles cab and the driver and could have overpowered him easily"

    Rather proves my point I think. Even though a load of Israeli civilans get squashed flat they're STILL portrayed as the bad guys, not the victims.

    Perhaps CBEEBIES will start showing Farfour the martyr mouse next?

  • Comment number 6.

    There seems to be a common theme running through these Editors blogs – “we are accused of sensationalising news stories, but after a bit of soul searching we have decided that we aren’t sensationalising stories”. So that’s all right then. One wonders why, therefore, such accusations are brought. Could it be (shock) that your viewers/ readers/ listeners think that you sensationalise things? Perhaps (even bigger shock) you actually DO sensationalise stories?

    The news story was – man kills people, is killed in turn. Images of the man being killed are simply voyeuristic. Nothing more. The story was bad enough without the images and the images got in the way of a more mature debate about what happened and why.

    But, sorry, I forgot - “it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence”. Thank heavens Auntie has our best interests at heart and is not concerned about ratings.

  • Comment number 7.

    Of course the footage should have been shown, people need to see what happens. In this case, as a Jew, I was filled with pride at watching this brave young off-duty Israeli soldier risk his life by jumping onto the bulldozer, not caring that the driver may have had a weapon, and killing the terrorist, preventing even more murder and tragedy.
    How could I have known that this would be called 'Israeli violence'? Only the BBC.

  • Comment number 8.

    I think there should be more of this type of reporting.

    People who complained about the image of one person being shot need to be reminded that ten times more extreme violence is faced by British Soldiers every day in Iraq etc.

    More reporting like this, except this time from Iraq, may then make people actually appreciate what British Soldiers are doing and facing in the Middle East.

  • Comment number 9.

    Presumably the Ten-O-Clock News is now available on the much publicised BBC i-player, hence making the watershed argument a bit of a nonsence as anybody with access to the internet can watch at whenever they want (including young children)

  • Comment number 10.

    You "believe it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence."

    Did you mean to say that it's important to see very occasionally JUSTICE DONE TO THE PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE?

  • Comment number 11.

    Peter_sym: I'm utterly frustrated by comments that you made - did you not see that for a large chunk of yesterday the front page top story was not about the Palestian murder/terrorist, but about how a number of Israeli citizens were senselessly killed by a mad man? How is that bias?

    It seems you are willing to ignore that and only cover the short clip that was shown - ever thought it was possible that the BBC crew didn't capture the mad man crushing the cars?

    With respect to the clip itself, I think it is a sound and sensible decision. All too often (as has been discussed on here before) there's been too much sanitisation of the news. Clearly with the correct warnings, the full clip could be shown after the watershed.

  • Comment number 12.

    Perhaps this should be compared with the showing of the summary execution of the capture Vietnamese (Vietcom?) combatant (?) by the BBC in the latter part of the Vietnamese war (1970ish)?

    A bound, plain clothed prisoner is walked into the street, and a western (presumably American) soldier raises a pistol to the prisoner's head, and pulls the trigger, as which point the picture freezes. The picture is often show as a still, but the film exists. I saw this as a 5 or 6 year old on the BBC, either on the early evening news or on a current affairs programme, but is iconic of the war.

    It wasn't until years later that I found on that the film clip goes onto show the body fall and the street fill with blood, truly showing how nasty the world - or rather people's actions - can be. It is up to us as viewers to draw our own conclusions.

    Forty years on, and the same editorial decision are having to be made, and to me it seems the same results are reached. Ok, the screening of aftermath can be traded for the proximity of the cameraman, but I think the BBC broadly "gets it right" - it shows what is going on in the world.

  • Comment number 13.

    The key claim is 'it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence'. However, no argument in favour of this statement is offered.

    Presumably 'important' is supposed to be exchangeable with 'beneficial', in this context. But clearly there are some respects in which it is not beneficial, for either a given individual or society at large. For one thing, exposures to violence may serve to unnecessarily distress. (I am mindful that a warning was issued beforehand, but surely some people must have seen the footage without hearing that warning. They may just have entered the room, or been watching with the sound off, etc.)

    If I were to hazard a guess, I would presume that exposure is meant to be 'beneficial' in so far as it reminds us of the horror of violence. But what is the argument that such (audio-visual) exposure is _necessary_ to appreciate said horror? Plausibly, the spoken word can convey it perfectly well, as numerous novels and poems adequately illustrate. Think of Wilfred Owen's 'Dulce et Decorum Est', for instance.

    In closing, it falls to me to point out that the use of 'illuminating' is especially curious in this context, given its root.

  • Comment number 14.

    I honestly believe it was the right thing to do. Yes it is harrowing but in the same light that Drink Driving adverts and speeding adverts make a point of being graphic to shock the viewer. With this in mind why should tame down what is happening in real life. Having these harrowing events portrayed in a more raw manner might make us take more notice. A brave decision by the BBC and one I think they should not be scared to stand behind.

  • Comment number 15.

    #11. The text said Israelis were killed. The newsreal showed several Israelis apparently executing a Palestinian sitting in a bulldozer.

    The crew may not have captured the rampage, but perhaps footage of what was being scrapped out of the flattened cars would have put it in context? We either sanitise the news or we show it in its full horror.

    A picture is worth a 1000 words and having seen what the BBC showed people are only going to remember 1 dead Arab and not his victims. If you watched the news with the sound off it looked like an unprovoked murder of a construction worker, not a lone cop trying to stop a guy who might have been wired up with explosives or carrying a pistol.

    The same mentality applies in Gaza. When did you ever see footage of an Israeli house flattened by a Hamas rocket? The film crews are too busy in Palestinian territory waiting for Israel to fire back.

  • Comment number 16.

    Nothing is sacred, not a comment on society, a fact. Which is worse - a close up of a single murder or watching the twin towers collapse upon nearly 3000 people? Neither. Is is worse to show people being killed or to show a mass grave? Neither. Of course, there is a time and a place, and warnings should precede the segment.

  • Comment number 17.

    It's a pity nobody decided to slow the VT down and notice a man bending down in front of the digger just as it shoots forward. He gets crushed by the front left wheel, people scream, the driver gets shot to prevent further loss of life. It was missed because everyone (editors, journos, viewers) is concentrating on the digger cab.

  • Comment number 18.

    More to the point, considering this atrocity had just happened why an earth did the camera man not put down his equipment and help the seriously injured people? I get fed up of watching reports of people injured and dying yet there is a perfectly able bodied person behind the camera who chooses not to help them....I would hope the BBC are an organisation that would encourage their journalists/camera men to help first and then worry about the slice of cake once they have done all they can in the act of humanity.......

  • Comment number 19.

    12. At 3:41pm on 03 Jul 2008, martin_wheatman wrote:
    Perhaps this should be compared with the showing of the summary execution of the capture Vietnamese (Vietcom?) combatant (?) by the BBC in the latter part of the Vietnamese war (1970ish)?

    A very good comparision- the guy shot, Nguyen Van Lem, a captain in a vietcong murder squad who had killed several S.Vietnamese policemen and their families.

    You'd never learn that from the photo which looks like cold blooded murder of a civillian, not an enemy combatant disguised in civillian clothes.

  • Comment number 20.

    @12 - it was a South Viet intelligence officer pulling the trigger

  • Comment number 21.

    @12 - it was a vietcong fighter

  • Comment number 22.

    I believe that it is in the interest of the BBC to show such scenes occasionally, as it exposes the truth damage of such episodes and enriches the station.

    I think as long as there is a warning beforehand, there shouldn't be a problem.

  • Comment number 23.

    It should have been shown yes, because it happened. Show it after the watershed and who can possibly complain? *cough* religious nuts *cough*

    And anyway movie deaths are far more graphic even though they're not real. Surely anyone who can sit through Saw isn't going to find this shaky video particularly shocking.

  • Comment number 24.

    # 7

    Calm down, and get your facts right!

    The BBC did not call this "Israeli violence".

    And it appears from today's news that this was not a terrorist act but a simple "I can't take it anymore" from an individual with a perceived grievance.

    Just as worrying as the original crime is the intemperate reaction of Haim Ramon calling for collective punishment of the neigbours of the perpetrator, by cutting off their neigbourhood and taking away their ID cards. How will that help?

  • Comment number 25.

    Israeli violence? No it was protection. Anyone who claims it shows the Israelis as violent bad-guys hadnt paid attention to the story being told and quite frankly, shouldnt pass comment on something they havent taken the time to study...

    All credit to the off-duty soldier for taking action and protecting people from danger.

    Isnt that what the army is all about?

    Well done, hope he gets recognised for his bravery.

  • Comment number 26.

    I think you'd see far worse scenes in TV dramas and films without the kind of warning that was given by the reporter. Why should the news report be edited or frozen because it's real life?

    If the fact that the report is available on iPlayer is an issue, maybe the 10 o'clock news should have a guidance warning and be subject to the parental controls that other post-watershed output is.

  • Comment number 27.


    The only question that needs answering is the one in your mind.

    Did you run out and take pictures and comment because you thought it would make a difference for the better, because your journalistic instincts tell you the truth will set us all free?

    ...or did you run out and take pictures and comment because you know that's what your editors wanted, it makes a good story, and the line 'if it bleeds - it leads'..

    Only you know the answer to that - the rest of us can only guess.

    As for the time of day it was shown - well I think that's something that should have been thought about a bit harder.

    However - is it right we keep up the pretence to our children that the world is a nice place - or do we let them into the secret as early as possible so that they might survive?

  • Comment number 28.

    "we don't want to sanitise the news for what is a mature and thoughtful audience"

    How can you say that your entire audience is made up of this demographic after 10:00pm? I believe that most people know what death is. I think that they also know what a death by shooting may look like, with plenty of fictional footage to draw from. In my opinion most people watched it because they were too lazy to switch off, too slow to get to the remote, or because they had a morbid curiosity.

    If we allow morbid curiosity as the norm, should police officers invite interested motorists to pull over and take a look (but only from a discrete distance). I don't think so.

    Not necessary.

  • Comment number 29.


    A very good broadcast, well done. I don't know what all the fuss is about - lets all go around in that what some people want?
    It is pretty obvious to any sensible person who was in the wrong here so why all the critism as to why not more footage of the carnage? Is this more of the usual Paranoia from this region.
    Your point at the end where you gave the number of recent deaths was interesting. I can't remember the exact figures, can anybody help me?

  • Comment number 30.

    # 29

    Not sure that it helps, but the numbers on the BBC report are:

    "Since the start of 2008, across Israel and the occupied territories, 29 Israelis have been killed in violence linked to the conflict as have more than 400 Palestinians."

    But I don't think crude numbers games help anyone. From my standpoint, pointless taking of life other than in extreme and immediate self-defence is immoral, however many are involved and whatever their nationality / ethnicity.

  • Comment number 31.

    Peter Sym,

    "If you watched the news with the sound off it looked like an unprovoked murder of a construction worker, not a lone cop trying to stop a guy who might have been wired up with explosives or carrying a pistol."

    Peter, if you watch the news with the sound off then are often going to get the wrong idea about what is being shown. I've found that if you watch Inspector Morse with the sound off it can get confusing too. So here's a tip - try watching it with the sound on - it certainly aided my comprehension of Inspector Morse.

    People like you Peter are going to see bias in everything the BBC does. You start with an agenda and fit the facts around it.

    They showed what they had on film. They pointed out that Israelis were horribly wounded and killed. Would you have supported them if they'd shown those horribly maimed Israeli victims, dead or dying? Is that what you'd rather see? I suspect you'd be equally outraged if they'd shown that too.

    I'm glad the BBC ignores cranks like Peter Sym and keeps trying to report the news in as unbiased way as it can.

  • Comment number 32.

    Why should you (Craig) feel showing someone being shot dead adds authenticity to the news piece? Saying “He was shot.” is neither taming the news, nor covering it up. It is providing the basic news we want - fact.
    Why should a phrase “shot in the head” need to even be considered? Does it matter where he’s shot if he died?

    It doesn’t really matter if one can see more violent and graphic scenes on TV after the watershed, because we know it’s fictional. This *was* a man dying.
    No matter what he had done, you can’t trivialise his death for TV.

    I’m one of those offended by your poor choices, I hope you’re glad at making BBC24 become a tabloid news channel.

  • Comment number 33.

    i wanna see more news like this, better than some hollywood movies, if people keep coming down hard on terrorists like this deranged scum then its only right that you should broadcast it for the entertainment of the viewing public, nothing wrong with a bit of blood and guts on the 10 oclock news

  • Comment number 34.

    Its not a bulldozer but a front loader tractor. Bulldozers have tracks and are used regularly by the Israeli army to run over palestinian houses and cars. They use these instead of front loaders as the damage acheived is significantly greater.

  • Comment number 35.

    The Guardian's media section reported today that the BBC received 61 complaints. I think the 10 o'clock news gets something like 5 million viewers a night. Why are the complaints of the usual tiny minority always taken so seriously? Clearly roughly 4,999,959 viewers were mature enough to handle this clip which was a lot less disturbing than what many countries would think perfectly normal to show at any time of day.

  • Comment number 36.

    to 24 badgercourage.
    They do call this Israeli violence:
    > "We should however remind people that this is not the only violence, and set it in the context of other deaths - both Palestinian and Israeli - which we did last night."
    Sure, they're talking about both sides, but killing a terrorist to protect civilians' lives should not in any terms be called violence. The guy is a hero.

  • Comment number 37.

    I'm afraid that the choice to show a moment of death had more to do with what the BBC thought it could get away with than any real desire to show the 'truth' or the 'reality' many contributers are praising above. If that were the case we would be regularly shown many more terrible scenes of execution, murders and starvation to appeal to the awful fascination of seeing death that has inhabited people from medieval crowds at a beheading to the present day.
    Just tell me how showing the moment of death enhanced the facts of this story any more or less than, say showing a starving african child pass away would enhance another news story?

  • Comment number 38.

    Of course you should have shown it and those viewers who complain are probably the type who are so misinformed or complacent about the the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians that they can't bare it when actual pictures illustrate the reality!

  • Comment number 39.

    # 36

    Your own quote shows you are wrong.

    The passage cited refers to violence generally, and Israeli and Palestinian deaths. The words "Israeli violence" did not appear in the report, so far as I can see. Read the words, not your assumptions. The situation is bad enough without misrepresenting it.

    And as I pointed out in my earlier post, some people (including you and an Israeli government spokesman, I regret to say) were too quick to assume the criminal was a "terrorist" without waiting for evidence.

    It now appears likely that he was an individual with a perceived grudge, no-one is really sure what about, rather than a terrorist - who is surely someone acting deliberately to kill or injure civilians for political ends. See the link in my earlier post.

    Jerusalem Police Commissioner Dudi Cohen, said it was likely that it was "a spontaneous attack", not a terrorist act.

    If you really think anyone who murders an Israeli is a terrorist, regardless of the circumstances, we really have no hope.

  • Comment number 40.

    You editors at the BBC have no excuse for showing any of those traumatic videos, period!

  • Comment number 41.

    I'm a journalism major in college. You did the right thing.

  • Comment number 42.

    This is very grim. I don’t think you need to show the pictures. I also wonder if you are deliberately trying to wind up the Israelis with more blatant bias.

    If you do not release the Balen report to us who paid for it, if you do not come clean, my fear is that pressure from abroad/foreign office will end up with more controls being put onto the BBC.

    We will then lose the free media that any democracy relies upon.

    Get your house in order before someone else does it for you.

  • Comment number 43.

    I personally would like to congratulate the BBC for an informative report on a tragic event.

    I believe we need to see the reality of things like this, not the sanitised version most would like you to show.

    Keep up the good work.

    ps some of the comments here are very funny. It's amazing how some people will let their own prejudices blind them to reality...

  • Comment number 44.

    #34. "Its not a bulldozer but a front loader tractor. Bulldozers have tracks and are used regularly by the Israeli army to run over palestinian houses and cars. They use these instead of front loaders as the damage acheived is significantly greater."

    Actually they use tracked vehicles because their bulldozers are quite heavily armoured (because of the suprising amount of rocket propelled grenades Palestinian 'civilans' seem to own). That much armour on a wheeled vehicle would cause it to bog down.

    #39 "If you really think anyone who murders an Israeli is a terrorist, regardless of the circumstances, we really have no hope."

    What IS the definition of a terrorist? Surely its someone who kills randomly in order to cause terror and is motivated by political, religious or racial means. The bulldozer driver qualifies on all criteria of my definition.

    Just so I'M not acused of bias I'll point out that the handful of rogue Israeli cops and soldiers who have also started randomly shooting arabs should be classed as terrorists. It could be argued that the Israelis invented the concept with the Stern gang (who incidentally nearly stopped me coming into being by burning my granddad in the King David hotel)

    I have no love of Israel, but I'm sick of people portraying the Palestinians as innocent victims.

  • Comment number 45.

    39, maybe I am biased to assume that a Palestinian purposefully murdering Jews/Israelis is a terrorist. But any person who does that can be considered a terrorist, regardless of his motives. He deserved to die, the soldier did the right thing.
    Also, they DO call it Israeli violence! They say "this is not the only violence", therefore it is some violence. And whilst I thought how great the guy was for killing the murderer, and undoubtedly preventing more deaths; whether or not it's intentional, and in light of claims that the murderer was not a terrorist, just crazy or whatever, he is portrayed as very unnecessarily aggressive, when all he did was save more lives.

  • Comment number 46.

    #44, 45

    We really do have no hope.

  • Comment number 47.

    It was the correct decison to show the moment of death. I was surprised the see the actual point at which the driver was shot, however the inclusal of this scene gave the news story the full impact it required.

  • Comment number 48.

    Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of showing this footageand what it adds to the story, is anyone at the BBC really naive enough to believe that children parents still switch off the TV or pack their kids off to bed at the 9pm 'watershed'?

    Due to the UK's curious love of irresponsible parenting, most of those 'tweenagers' will have a TV in their room over which the parents have no control.

    And if they don't, they probably have a laptop computer, which they can use to watch whatever they like via iPlayer. Or an iPhone that gives them access to any TV show they want, 24 hours a day.

    Even with parents who did monitor what I watched I still recall being upset as a teen by graphic images of the Siege of Sarajevo, the Rwandan genocides and the first Chechen wars in the early 1990s - and as we were very much a 'BBC family', I certainly didn't it see on News at Ten.

    Like age ratings on games and DVDs, the watershed is today an almost universally ignored anachronism. It's a sad sign of the times but realistically, the only way to protect children from obscenity and disturbing images is not to broadcast them in the first place.

  • Comment number 49.

    I can understand why you found it a difficult decision to show the images. I can understand why people find the images upsetting; they are upsetting.

    However they are real, all the atrocious deaths in every conflict are real.

    But perhaps it’s time we stop NOT showing them. Perhaps it’s time people in our streets should see the graphic violence that is occurring. Perhaps if people see what is actually happening in the world they might do something about it? Perhaps something more valuable than complaining about the people who deliver valid news to us?

    I support wholeheartedly your decision to show these important images.

  • Comment number 50.

    People should come to terms with grim reality. The decision to show the shooting,however horrific and gruesome. would undoubtedly be a wake-up call for all decent human-beings to realise the gravity of the situation. The BBC should be commended for this.The cycle of violence has gone too far. When will sanity replace hatred,violence and despair?

    Pancha Chandra, Brussels

  • Comment number 51.

    I have become extremely skeptical of the mainstream media and in particular the BBC.

    So whatever happened. I'm sure we are never given the true circumstances surrounding this incident and that the editor's cut, tells a story that the BBC want us to believe.

  • Comment number 52.

    46, you left-ys are all the same. maybe you have no hope but I'm still hoping Israel will manage to stamp out the Palestinian terrorism, starting will the bulldozer driver

  • Comment number 53.

    I just read that the BBC complaints site is saying the 10pm broadcast of the moment of death was wrong.

    I still disagree.

    It sounds to me like the BBC is taking too much notice of the vocal minority again. A handful of people complained.

    I would be interested to see what public opinion is on this if the BBC asked the opinion of a wider/representative range of people.

  • Comment number 54.

    "we don't want to sanitise the news for what is a mature and thoughtful audience" - I totally agree; it was the right decision. Well done.

  • Comment number 55.

    The problem with the plain clothes shooter is that it gives the conspiracy writers a way in. They could easily have arressted the guy in the truck.
    Maybe he was shot because he was paid to attack the bus by Israeli Intelligence?

    I know that is absurd. But if you shoot the guy then don't be too disappointed by the questions that are raised.

    I thought it was OK to broadcast it.

    Too many people think these battles, wars are just a computer game. The media should show the reality more.

  • Comment number 56.

    "but I believe it is important and illuminating very occasionally to see the reality of violence."


    This blog doesn't really explain anything.

    There appears to be a distinct lack in editorial guidance about what you are covering. This asks bigger questions about news coverage in general - I'd really like to see a shift towards coverage of more positive events in the British media - why all the doom and gloom - life is so much more than that!

  • Comment number 57.

    So... the BBC editors are concerned about showing the exact moment an Israeli police officer shot and killed the driver of a bulldozer who was running amuck with his machine in downtown Jerusalem. Children might be watching you say.

    Excuse me for laughing but children see violence and murder on the tell-lie-vision everyday. And would it not have been more pertinant to inquire about WHY the Palestinian bulldozer driver had gone amuck? What were his motives?

    Oops! I am probably not supposed to ask those questions. They could lead to a can of worms suggesting apartheid and collective punishment for the $ake of arrogant tribe-all-eeego.

  • Comment number 58.

    Following up on this - why are you now so concerned that you showed the shooting?

  • Comment number 59.

    Ultimately its not the BBC's decision to broadcast such content, its OFCOM thats make the decision based on what the publics decides is acceptable. As far as i'm aware the broadcasting code forbids televising the moment of death.....lets see what OFCOM says. Big mistake BBC.

  • Comment number 60.

    No it was not the right things to do, not least of all because you did not show all of what happened.

    Why was it even reported apart from the fact it happened in a sensitive area? Did the shootings in Hungerford get coverage in their country?

    Was it even reality? A man goes amok. That does not represent daily life even if daily life there is grim and frequently violent.

    A better heading : 'Bored BBC reporters seeking anything that might be news'.


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.