icebear
Veteran
I didn't even scroll down the article linked by the OP after I read the description of the scene.
I don't need to be shown this corpse explicitly.
Except camera porn of course
, I don't think any kind of porn is suitable for the general public. A newspaper is for the general public, so an editor does have a job to select accordingly.
If he does select according to a suitable political message, is another matter but for me such picture of a charred skull is not suitable to print.
If that picture was on top of a newspaper article, I would have turned the page.
Does anyone think one photo would change the decisions how a war is run or about going to war at all ?
An article that is able to emotionally make enough readers connect with what is going on there, can possibly contribute to changing the public opinion but therefore a picture needs to pull the reader into reading the article in the first place and not cause shock and disgust.
Just my $0.02.
What kind of toll has the war most likely taken already on the photographer that he took the picture in the first place?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
The Pentagon does. Else, there would be no censorship based on content, no drive to embed and co-opt journalists. Those lessons from Vietnam about media control (or the lack thereof) will not be unlearned any time soon.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No. But a dozen might. Or a hundred.I didn't even scroll down the article linked by the OP after I read the description of the scene.
I don't need to be shown this corpse explicitly.
Except camera porn of course
A newspaper is for the general public, so an editor does have a job to select accordingly.
If he does select according to a suitable political message, is another matter but for me such picture of a charred skull is not suitable to print.
If that picture was on top of a newspaper article, I would have turned the page.
Does anyone think one photo would change the decisions how a war is run or about going to war at all ?
An article that is able to emotionally make enough readers connect with what is going on there, can possibly contribute to changing the public opinion but therefore a picture needs to pull the reader into reading the article in the first place and not cause shock and disgust.
Just my $0.02.
What kind of toll has the war most likely taken already on the photographer that he took the picture in the first place?
So why ban the first... Or the twelfth... Or the hundredth?
Cheers,
R.
icebear
Veteran
Hi Roger,
I am not afraid of the picture, I just want to decide for myself what I look at. And everybody should have the opportunity to make a decision whether or not to look at such a picture. In case of a public newspaper the editor makes that decision in the first place because the readers do not expect to be exposed to such a shocking scene.
Other than being a shock jock exploiting this for publicity purpose, there should be some restraint what is fit to print, if its news or a picture.
That charred body is not human anymore. There is a shield mechanism that for some works and for some unfortunately not to keep sanity when you e.g. have a civil job as fireman or emergency medic when you have to look at and treat severely injured people. They have to try just to function in their job in this situation and try to prevent the visceral connection you are talking about. For many this doesn't work and many start drinking etc. And that's why a huge number of soldiers have "post traumatic stress disorder". The scenes you are exposed at war are way beyond anyone's imagination - OK, take out horror movie fans.
There can be no doubt that war is the result when politicians have failed. Unfortunately a boat load of people are counting the $$$ when a war starts because there is a lot of money to be made.
Giving the public information about the financial interests in a conflict might help more to get an understanding than a shocking picture that is being looked at only for a blink of an eye.
What PG ratings for movies in the US let go in regards to violence for entertainment purpose but an exposed nipple for a fraction of a second cause a sh$t storm of media outrage, is a pretty good indication of the state of media.
zauhar
Veteran
I didn't even scroll down the article linked by the OP after I read the description of the scene.
I don't need to be shown this corpse explicitly.
Except camera porn of course
A newspaper is for the general public, so an editor does have a job to select accordingly.
If he does select according to a suitable political message, is another matter but for me such picture of a charred skull is not suitable to print.
If that picture was on top of a newspaper article, I would have turned the page.
Does anyone think one photo would change the decisions how a war is run or about going to war at all ?
An article that is able to emotionally make enough readers connect with what is going on there, can possibly contribute to changing the public opinion but therefore a picture needs to pull the reader into reading the article in the first place and not cause shock and disgust.
Just my $0.02.
What kind of toll has the war most likely taken already on the photographer that he took the picture in the first place?
If you are referring to the 'crispy' photo, the journalist had an obligation to shoot it.
How about photos that record the atrocities of the nazi death camps, or the khmer rouge? Seen one stack of bodies, seen 'em all?
Randy
zauhar
Veteran
Klaus, I am with you here, I do understand your point (although I stand by what I said regarding the photo in question).
Randy
lukitas
second hand noob
In other words, we adults can see these things, but they are too much for children and the weak-hearted, who must be protected from such harsh attacks on their peace of mind. Mr. JohnDoe is an atheist, but he goes to mass because the wife, and the kids must be protected from such harsh truths.
This is the kind of thinking that allows us to perform acts that are diametrically opposed to what we truly believe. We don't believe 'X', but we act as if we do, because 'somebody else' believes, and so we make 'X' into a reality, even though we do not believe in it. In the end, as lies become truth, everything becomes a lie.
Myself, I belong to that moiety of humanity that turns weak at the knees upon seeing blood. I'd rather not see such images. But it is necessary to see them. Like cleaning the toilet : a dirty job, but it has to be done. Man's inhumanity to man has to be seen, to be shown, to be denounced. If justice and morality mean anything, it is our duty to show these images, to see them and to become angry at the perpetrators of these cruel barbarities.
It may not be a bad thing for a society to have very strict taboos on certain subjects. Torture, rape, child abuse should be so horrifyingly unthinkable that we would not even talk about them. But if such crimes are happening, maintaining the taboo becomes criminal. When such crimes are happening, somebody has to put on gloves, stopper his nose and expose the stinking bloody mess. Making us gag on our sunday breakfast is then an act of piety, not a crime : the crime is in creating the scene that the photographer finds in front of his lens.
Denouncing the crime will not of itself solve the problem of course, it took much more than the 'napalm girl' to stop the war in Vietnam. But it is a necessary first step. In delaying the publication of the burned Iraqi photo, the american media failed in it's duty. I'm sure they justified this dereliction of duty with : "Well, it is a little gruesome for the kids, isn't it?". Meanwhile, the kids were watching Zombie movies.
Oh, That charred body : it is very human indeed. It is what remains after humans have bar-b-qued other humans, and in this case, defenceless humans. Nothing more human than the burned body of a human.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Once in a while, you all remind me why I check in at this forum. Thank you, to every contributor on this thread.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dea Klaus,
Para 1: True, but those making the money are seldom the media -- unless they spout the Party Line and avoid making people feel uncomfortable.
Para 2: The two are not mutually exclusive
Para 3: Indisputably true -- but again consider my response to para 1.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
Exactly. Which gets to the bottom of what's wrong with censorship, a person doesn't get to decide for them self; someone else does.
~Joe
Agreed 100%... and the state of the US.
icebear
Veteran
Obviously a coin has always 2 sides, doesn't it ?
If that picture gets printed in a newspaper and someone just opens it up and takes a direct look at it, he doesn't have a choice anymore does he? Unless there is a fair warning on the front page but then it can also have the shock jock effect I was talking about earlier. But people who are seeking the shock are not looking at it because they might feel for the poor victim, they are looking at it for few seconds of thrill for entertainment. Otherwise their life is boring.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Kind of judgmental, don't you think Klaus? Who knows why someone chooses to look at a particular image, and what the effect on that person will be.
Certainly that picture should not be featured in a children's book or magazine. But, from what I gathered from reading the article, the photographer was trying to convey the reality of what was happening in the first Persian Gulf War. A war that was portrayed in the States as more of a video game with laser guided missiles and bombs. Many times I remember seeing the video footage showing a black and white grainy image of a "target" with a cross hair on it, and a missile or bomb zeroing in and exploding on the cross hair. Just like a video game. We in the States were not treated to the death and dismemberment that went along with that explosion.
I think the above photo was an attempt to show the results of our laser guided bombs and missiles on the real human beings who were living the reality of our video game.
Best,
-Tim
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Klaus,Obviously a coin has always 2 sides, doesn't it ?
If that picture gets printed in a newspaper and someone just opens it up and takes a direct look at it, he doesn't have a choice anymore does he? Unless there is a fair warning on the front page but then it can also have the shock jock effect I was talking about earlier. But people who are seeking the shock are not looking at it because they might feel for the poor victim, they are looking at it for few seconds of thrill for entertainment. Otherwise their life is boring.
The answer is obvious. If you don't want to see pictures that may jolt you out of your complacency, don't buy journals which may feature such pictures.
But don't blame the journals that do.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Tim,
Reality? Reality? We don't need no stinking reality! All we need is what the government wants us to see!
"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia"
Or (also from George Orwell's 1984)
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Cheers.
R.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Roger -
I wish more pictures like this were shown to even more people. A great many of the pictures taken in conflicts have the same message. “Don’t do this.” I don’t know any photographer or Marine gunnery sergeant with war experience who doesn’t think this is important. It’s not a question of whether a picture is upsetting or not or whether you want to see it or not. Of course it’s unpleasant. Of course people don’t like seeing it unless they are psychopaths. But it’s important enough information that they should see it. If you think that the photo is upsetting, think about the folks that saw the real thing. And that always includes the photographer. In other words, we agree.
Bill
icebear
Veteran
Bill,
as you are in the unique position to personally know the photographer, you can much better judge what I have already referred to earlier, see the quote of myself above.
We can argue pretty much pro and con in this case, what essentially does not change is, that people who ultimately make the decision about war are not really moved by one photo, or ten or hundred to follow Roger.
I think - unfortunately though - it will not make a difference.
Me personally, I don't need to see these explicit pictures of burned corpses, blown up bodies, dismembered body parts and splattered intestines. I read about them in today's NYT in an article about the US bombardment of ISIS troops attacking Erbil in the Kurdish area of Iraq. Otherwise a week later I possibly would be reading about a massacre of unarmed civilians by the religious fanatics. Do pictures make any difference in this case?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Klaus,
You are confident that they don't? At least to some people, if not to you?
Cheers,
R.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I think pictures are very different from words. Words say, "27 people were killed in a battle on April 28." Pictures of the same event evoke a stronger emotional response, hopefully quite negative. I think war should make people quite uncomfortable. I think pictures often do that more than the words in a relatively brief news report.