I find it disgusting.

[SJ.]

I find it disgusting when the media feels the need to print pictures of the dead. I was horrified today to open a news blog and see a photo of the recently killed US ambassador slung over someone's soldier in a mob of people. Another example is after the shooting near the Empire State Building there was a news photo of one of the dead lying on the ground with a pool of blood around him.

 

Are these graphic images important to see? Is this new or has the media always shown graphic images of the dead?

 

I hate it. I always think it is disrespectful to the family and friends of the deceased. I hope the images carry some type of importance other than shock, horror, and ratings.

[In the Rain]

I don't know if it is new, but I don't like it either. I agree it seems disrespectful.

[NorthwestMom]

I agree with you, SJ.

[LaxMom]

Hmmm. I know that there are newspaper photos of people jumping out of windows, lying on the sidewalk and in the makeshift morgue from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911. So I would guess that it's been done as long as there has been photography. It's just that the photography wasn't all that great then.

 

Before that, there were drawings.

[Angel]

I find it disgusting when the media feels the need to print pictures of the dead. I was horrified today to open a news blog and see a photo of the recently killed US ambassador slung over someone's soldier in a mob of people. Another example is after the shooting near the Empire State Building there was a news photo of one of the dead lying on the ground with a pool of blood around him.

 

Are these graphic images important to see? Is this new or has the media always shown graphic images of the dead?

 

I hate it. I always think it is disrespectful to the family and friends of the deceased. I hope the images carry some type of importance other than shock, horror, and ratings.

 

:iagree: :iagree:

[Rebecca VA]

It's sad, but in a way it's good that the photos are shown. That man suffered and died yesterday. By looking at his photo, we are sharing his suffering a little bit.

 

I do find it disgusting when people mock a person's death or desecrate a body. But the American media isn't doing that in this instance; it's the people who killed this man and their sympathizers who are rejoicing in his death.

[SailorMom]

It's sad, but in a way it's good that the photos are shown. That man suffered and died yesterday. By looking at his photo, we are sharing his suffering a little bit.

 

I do find it disgusting when people mock a person's death or desecrate a body. But the American media isn't doing that in this instance; it's the people who killed this man and their sympathizers who are rejoicing in his death.

:iagree:

Well said. I'd like to add that it is easier for most people to ignore the true violence and tragedy of what is going on without being shown a disturbing image.....

[Chris in VA]

It's strange; we are desensitized to violence by being shown it over and over, but also we are never sensitized to violence if we don't see the effects.

 

There's some historical value, I think, in seeing pictures of the dead, esp in war or conflict.

 

I don't know--I don't like it, but maybe it's necessary in order to truly develop compassion and learn to abhor violence, or at least to know solving problems violently comes with a cost?

[8circles]

I don't like seeing them and I agree that there's at least some part that's disrespectful. But I think it's too hard to ignore without a visual. Even then its still ignored but I do think it helps.

[LaxMom]

It's strange; we are desensitized to violence by being shown it over and over, but also we are never sensitized to violence if we don't see the effects.

 

There's some historical value, I think, in seeing pictures of the dead, esp in war or conflict.

 

I don't know--I don't like it, but maybe it's necessary in order to truly develop compassion and learn to abhor violence, or at least to know solving problems violently comes with a cost?

 

I think that's true. I wonder if we (as a society) are becoming desensitized to violence more because violence as sport is so ubiquitous than because of media images of the dead.

[VeganCupcake]

While I don't like to see images like that, I think they need to be shown (in a proper news context). It is the responsibility of photographers to bear witness of what they see in that kind of situation.

[TravelingChris]

I think some people need the visual image to get angry. I didn't need a photo. I got angry with just the initial description of people scaling the Embassy in Cairo. I got much more angry with the reports of the attack in Libya and an employee killed. I don't even want to think about how high my bp rose (and I have normal bp) when I heard about it being the Ambassador and two other people. Then, to hear they were dragged through the streets.

 

I am sorry but I am furious. We have known for the last 10 years that anniversaries of certain terrorist attacks are times we should have heightened awareness and extra security. Every year at this time, some c>>p happens. All of the sudden, 'random' people in many countries decide to kill people and destroy things because of a cartoon in Denmark, a politician in the Netherlands, a preacher in rural Florida, a youtube video, or whatever. I am sure that at all times of the year and every year you can find youtubes or internet sites attacking every religion and every viewpoint on anything. I haven't hunted these things down and don't want to- but from what I understand, there are vile depictions of any celebrity, religious figure, political leader, etc, etc, out there. These attacks aren't random and they aren't really because of any cartoon or any youtube video. They are, in fact, manipulative events organized by certain groups to cause death and destruction to Western institutions and individuals and not a organic uprising of anyone. I read a very interesting article about how these so-called demonstrations don't happen in all Islamic countries- only in ones where there is a certain unstable political structure that someone decides to exploit. So you don't see this in some very stable countries where no one has any need of distractions or bogeymen to take the blame from general chaos in the country.

[jelbe5]

I agree, but unfortunately these pictures are considered "newsworthy" and many people want to see the pictures. Such a picture is also provocative . . . What will our government do NOW?!?

 

If you ever have a chance to see an exhibit of the Pulitzer Prize winning photos you will see disturbing images have been around for a while. A picture really does say 1,000 words, and then some.

 

When I was in college in Des Moines in the 80's the Des Moines Register ran a picture on the front page of a man who had been accidently killed on the job. It was very controversial for the time and a disturbing picture to see. But it was "news" and sold papers. This is one of the reasons I never made it in journalism.

[Ohdanigirl]

This is why I won't even buy Mexican news papers. Those even have the pictures on the front page where children can see the,. They are also a lot more graphic than what you have described, although I won't go into detail. I have a theory that this has desensitized children here, and contributes to quite a bit of the violence problems. Along with other factors, of coarse.

 

Danielle

[butterflymommy]

One thing to keep in mind, is that pacifism as a movement can be directly linked to the advent of war photography. I don't enjoy seeing morbid pictures but I'm grateful they are available.

 

One thing that has always troubled me is how sanitized the media version of 9/11 was. I think we, as Americans, should have seen the reality of what transpired that day. I've never seen a media picture of a corpse or body part from that day, yet thousands perished. I understand wanting to be respectful to the dead but this was a massive moment in our country's history, yet what the media showed us was a burning building...

 

Remember too that under the Bush administration media wasn't even allowed to photograph coffins of war dead returning home. Obama lifted that ban.

[TravelingChris]

The Obama administration has not entirely lifted the ban, which is an action I do support. They leave it up to the families. If one objects, no photographs can be published.

[Maus]

Hmmm. I know that there are newspaper photos of people jumping out of windows, lying on the sidewalk and in the makeshift morgue from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire in 1911. So I would guess that it's been done as long as there has been photography. It's just that the photography wasn't all that great then.

 

Before that, there were drawings.

Matthew Brady and a couple of others became some of the earliest photojournalists with their photos of the Civil War.

 

It's both good and bad. For instance, prior to the work of Matthew Brady, et. al., war was viewed as rather "romantic" by many people. The photographs made it real.

 

On the other hand, the photos chosen by the media are specifically chosen for their "shock" value, meant to draw people in and play on their emotions so the publication can persuade people to favor the point of view it does.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Didn't the Secretary of State and the President say that the Libyans were carrying Stevens to the hospital?

 

I saw the photo on Drudge and thought it looked like they were parading his body in the street.

 

Did anyone question this discrepancy?

[Kathryn]

It's sad, but in a way it's good that the photos are shown. That man suffered and died yesterday. By looking at his photo, we are sharing his suffering a little bit.

 

I do find it disgusting when people mock a person's death or desecrate a body. But the American media isn't doing that in this instance; it's the people who killed this man and their sympathizers who are rejoicing in his death.

 

:iagree:

Well said. I'd like to add that it is easier for most people to ignore the true violence and tragedy of what is going on without being shown a disturbing image.....

 

:iagree:

[runbikeswim]

I agree with you. I try to imagine if it were my loved one, how would I feel to see their lifeless body pictured in the media? It would be horrifying and so disrespectful.

 

People today seem to have a general apathy about the violence that goes on in the world. Perhaps some need the shock value of a dead body to act as a wake up call. These are the same people who will probably be horrified for a moment and the next pondering who Kim Kardashian's next boyfriend will be.

 

I don't need a graphic picture to bring home the horror of an act. I don't need a headline to proclaim "4000th death today in Iraq" to remind me that we are at war. I realize a service member a day is still being killed in Afghanistan or Iraq even when the media can only be bothered to report it if it's a high ranking person, an event that takes multiple lives or it's a catchy number.

 

I'm sorry if I sound self righteous, this is just a topic very near and dear to me.