Thai Rath Publishes Carradine Hanging Photo, Sparks Outrage

Christopher, you make some good points, and I thank you for what you add to the discussion. What you say about the U.S. coverage of 9/11 rather surprises me, however. I didn't watch British or other coverage of the event, but I was in NYC at the time, and felt that what I saw on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc, etc, looked enough like what I was seeing and smelling from lower Manhattan to adequately describe the horror. I do recall there being coverage of people leaping from the towers--but that after one or two airings, the networks stopped showing it. And believe me, that was quite enough for me. I honestly could have lived without those images seared into my consciousness, where they will live for the rest of my days. However, I do get what you're saying about 'complete coverage.' Had they NOT shown me those images, once or a hundred times, I might not have known the full scope of people's despair, might not have had all the information about the tragedy. I agree that complete coverage, un-sanitized coverage, is crucial for good journalism. Had reporters NOT shown images of children being napalmed in Vietnam, would antiwar protests have been as loud?

You say this isn't a matter of ethics, but of "bad taste." Well, perhaps, but I respectfully disagree. When I speak of ethics, I am thinking of a 'code of right behavior.' This can, of course, differ from person to person and group to group, but in general it speaks to our sense of right and wrong, moral queasiness, knowledge of what is hurtful to others vs what does good. Can you really argue that publishing these photos does any good? It doesn't seem quite the same to me as putting out Saddam Hussein's death photos--even there, there was argument over whether to publish them, but in doing so, the world was able to confirm a dictator was indeed dead. David Carradine doesn't have the same sort of global significance (or any, really). Putting his corpse on display serves no public purpose. Yet we can demonstrably say that the publication of the photos does harm--specifically, to his family.

I guess my point in this particular case is that the decision was not based on sound editorial judgement, but on greed and voyeurism, as far as I can tell. These photos in themselves are not newsworthy, unless they in some way dispute the facts or bring some new information to light. They're just to sell papers.

Yea I thought the same thing. The person the the photo has very dark hair,it doesn't look gray at all. Wasn't Carradines hair almost all gray, or is it possible that his hair was dyed for some movie he was doing? The photo is just way to fuzzy to tell if it is really him, and his feet look like they are either off the ground or strangely positioned, they appear bent. Wouldn't his legs go out from under him when he passed out, and wouldn't all the weight of his body then be supported by the closet rail, and wouldn't it break?

I understand now that he was in a woman's wig and had on fishnet stockings. I am very tired of others censoring what I am to see. Let me decide what is good/bad for me. Everything is sanitized so nothing is 'awful'. Maybe that is why people don't think much of the holocaust or 9/11 anymore. No one sees what these poor people went through so everyone thinks it is 'peaceful' when that is far from the truth. Carradine did something that ended his life whether by his own hand or another's. That was his choice. To be seen by others should have been considered ahead of time.