Eerie/creepy photos. **UPDATED** - Historic newspaper front pages. Shitloads of newspaper front covers about tragedies.
- Thread starter Haggis
- Start date
- May 16, 2013
- 44,564
- 21,434
But years before that, the People's Temple was just trawling newspaper readers, looking for new attendees:
- May 16, 2013
- 44,564
- 21,434
- May 16, 2013
- 44,564
- 21,434
- May 16, 2013
- 44,564
- 21,434
1975 article complaining about the newly-built WTC lack of fire protection after a fire:
1993 WTC bombing:
9/11:
NSFW
Freedom Fighter
Amazing updates that I'll go through again. Found the Bulger ones hard so whizzed through.
The dropping of the Hiroshima Bomb and the initial findings of the Nazi concentration camps would be interesting. Also the newspaper reaction to Emily Davison might be good to look up. A few things I've noticed is the use of language. I love seeing how language use changes so the early articles about the Pearl Harbour attack were fascinating, more of that sort of thing would be cool.
Maybe looking back at such things like the Peterloo Massacre or events in the 1800s.
The Titanic newspaper clipping is always worth a look.
The dropping of the Hiroshima Bomb and the initial findings of the Nazi concentration camps would be interesting. Also the newspaper reaction to Emily Davison might be good to look up. A few things I've noticed is the use of language. I love seeing how language use changes so the early articles about the Pearl Harbour attack were fascinating, more of that sort of thing would be cool.
Maybe looking back at such things like the Peterloo Massacre or events in the 1800s.
The Titanic newspaper clipping is always worth a look.
- May 16, 2013
- 44,564
- 21,434
Yeah, I find it interesting how the presentation changes through the decades too. The most obvious being the use of words like "Japs" in headlines, of course. But also, coverage of gun massacres has changed fairly recently too, and changed to a far more responsible style, IMO. Compare Time magazine's covers of three major school shootings over 20 years. Spot the shift in coverage and emphasis:
Columbine, 1999:
Virginia Tech, 2007:
Stoneman-Douglas High, 2018:
These days, you're far less likely to see a killer's name and face plastered all over media coverage of what they did. In New Zealand, for example, the Prime Minister has very deliberately and explicitly never spoken mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant's name in public (so far as I'm aware), and even in the official report of the day, he is identified by his full name early on and thereafter he's just "the individual" or "the gunman" or "the shooter". As he is in most mainstream NZ publications. The idea being not to give the killers what most of them want the most - fame and notoriety. Which is the correct stance to take, IMO.
NSFW
Freedom Fighter
Yeah, I find it interesting how the presentation changes through the decades too. The most obvious being the use of words like "Japs" in headlines, of course. But also, coverage of gun massacres has changed fairly recently too, and changed to a far more responsible style, IMO. Compare Time magazine's covers of three major school shootings over 20 years. Spot the shift in coverage and emphasis:
Columbine, 1999:
Virginia Tech, 2007:
Stoneman-Douglas High, 2018:
These days, you're far less likely to see a killer's name and face plastered all over media coverage of what they did. In New Zealand, for example, the Prime Minister has very deliberately and explicitly never spoken mosque shooter Brenton Tarrant's name in public (so far as I'm aware), and even in the official report of the day, he is identified by his full name early on and thereafter he's just "the individual" or "the gunman" or "the shooter". As he is in most mainstream NZ publications. The idea being not to give the killers what most of them want the most - fame and notoriety.
Find the last one to be the worst and most offensive. Obviously the prior two were not great but at least they appear to focus on the event and those that lost their lives. The last one looks like an horrible teen angst led fight back rather than an assessment of an horrific crime and a valid response from people capable of tackling the issue of such incidents. The last one is just horrible the more I look at it, really pathetic.
- May 16, 2013
- 44,564
- 21,434
To be fair, the last one is not the cover of the first post-massacre issue like the other two are. (I looked for it, but couldn't find it.)
The first cover obviously features the killers front and centre, the victims are an afterthought. The message is "what the fuck, look at these evil kids."
The second doesn't feature the killer at all. The message is "here are the victims."
The third (a month after the massacre) puts the victim-activists front and centre. The message is "what will it take to put an end to these events?"
It's actually an interesting cultural shift/point of discussion. What is "appropriate", or how these events "should" be covered.
I mean, if you just look at Time magazine alone, they went APESHIT for Columbine. Which on one level is fair enough, because it was a unique one-off of a crime and it sold a lot of magazine copies, which is the point of a magazine existing in the first place. Still, you will never see them produce this kind of killer-centric coverage again, mostly because it's giving them exactly what they wanted:
Now, if/when something as serious and dramatic as that happens again, the coverage will be about the victims and the gun control issue. The killer/s will be pushed to the background.
- Aug 11, 2013
- 791
- 413