Greeny News

There were interesting differences of opinion among my students at City University yesterday on the use of images showing, Muammar Gaddafi, after he was killed.

Part of the discussion focused on whether it is always correct and / or good taste to publish a photograph of a dead person.

After all, I thought that posting pictures of Gaddafi is justified, given the particular circumstances surrounding the manner of his death, the context of its own tyranny and wide distribution of them in Internet.

But overall, I do not think newspapers should take pictures of the dead.

seems the Press Complaints Commission, in a decision released yesterday, agrees.

the Daily Record has been blamed for using a table that shows the body of a man who is on a path near the Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh , which was wrapped in leaves.

man complained that the use of the image was insensitive and amounts to an invasion of pain. He had caused the distress of relatives and friends.

the body of his nephew was only lightly covered, so that the outline of his arms and body could be seen clearly.

was not a celebrity, he argued, and the role they have had a stress level rather than an explicit photograph published.

aunt, Susan Thomson, not disagree with the accompanying report or the owner of "seat body to find Arthur," which was published on June 13 this year.

The record, although I am sorry for the pain, did not accept because he had violated the clause in the code editors dealing with the intrusion into grief or shock.

As newspapers have the right to report the tragic events of the "absolute necessity" that the code was that the publication must be "treated with sensitivity" in times of sadness or shock.