354 megabytes compressed into 45 megabytes, on a 24-frames-per-second digicam (which explains the dark horizontal band over the screen), hurriedly done, on very faint audio (you have to turn up your computer speaker to 100%), very grainy:

Here’s the blog discussion of  that: The KBP code of ethics and other codes of ethics of  press organizations state only very generally that graphic images of violence and  gore should not be shown, but do not specify when  an image is considered too graphic to be presented that it should be pixelized or cut altogether thus sacrificing some information it might contain.

And so…When (or where)  is editorial judgment exercised? In the newsroom — the cutting and the exercise of self-restraint occur in the newsroom, by the news director and the news department (and it should be exercised well) ; on the other hand, administratively or managerially speaking, the camerastaff  is always instructed to film an event as it unfolds, and to keep filming,  and not to censor themselves while on the field. When a camerastaff  decides to censor himself/ herself by stopping the shoot, a lot of valuable information might be lost.

(the question of whether a camerastaff  should keep filming or stop filming,  an injured person is addressed in the first segment, next video; still being uploaded.)

As background, i clarified too  that: In the first news broadcast of the news story, the news program showed only a brief shot, maybe 2-3 seconds,  in black and white, without audio, of the injured person; in the next clip, the body of the person covered by a blanket, was shown being brought to the morgue. Thus, the newsroom exercised some restraint there, in the first news broadcast. It was only a few days later, when the cameraman and reporter were accused by the police of obstruction of justice, and they  had to explain themselves, that the full footage was shown; and i think that’s when the audience reacted to the images, per se (well, at least, my students who saw it), not necessarily to the explanation; images are sometimes more powerful than the words being used  as voice over. So…if you’re going to show the full footage of a shoot as powerful, or as impactful, or as graphic as this one, the explanation as to your purpose should be explained more fully so the audience understands why it is justified to show such a video;  at the very  least there should be a “warning” to, or  a “forewarning” of, the audience.

(for the administration of justice, for example, as evidence,  is a justifiable purpose – convey your purpose).

(apologies for the poor quality of the upload. Faint audio too, please turn up your speakers.)