Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
I just want to make sure we're looking at the same photo. This one, right?
I have really good eyes. I also have photoshop, which lets me zoom in to my heart's content.
First, I don't believe that what you're giving congrats to StanT for is what he meant. I believe he meant it was using the image of a dead person to sell papers, not that the person should be identified first. StanT will correct me if i'm wrong, which i'm certain i'm not. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by StanT
The lady floating in the water is someone's grandmother, mother, or wife. The New York Times is trying to sell papers at her expense. I don't find it graphic or disturbing, I find it in poor taste.
|
I never congratulated StanT on anything. I merely stated that I agreed with him, but OK.... Let me clarify. I agree with StanT in that:
1) the photo is of a woman
2) The newspaper is using the image to sell papers
Additionally, I think it is wrong to run photos of the deceased in any publication until the next of kin are notified. In this case, that would be awfully hard based on the photo alone. I should have chosen my words more carefully because I was actually making two separate statements.
1) Using the image was wrong and I agreed with StanT on that point
2) I don't think photos of the dead should used, unless the dead have been idendified. That way nobody has to find out their relative from a photo in a newspaper....and I do NOT mean this particular photo in question.
In general though, I really have a problem with showing photographs of the dead for any reason really. A dead body covered by a sheet would be the one exception. There are plenty of other things a photographer can photograph that will convey the full impact of what has happened. A good descriptive story, supported by photos of the destruction would suffice for me. I have no source to back this up.... It's my opinion. I don't need to see a photo of a dead person to know people died. If you were a blind person, and heard news of this whole mess on the radio, don't you think you would be able to really understand the enormity of what has happened?
You and I are not going to agree on using photographs of the dead... I say no, you say yes... You have your opinion and I have mine... and that's ok.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
How in the hell can you tell me that the body in that picture is, IN ANY WAY, even REMOTELY identifiable? Anyone? I guess you could from the face- oh wait, it's face-down. Maybe the clothes- no, can't even see what type of clothing, it's just a generic brownish garment, not even anything on it to signify what type of shirt or pants. Hell, I can't even see if it's a one-piece dress/mumu thing or if it's shirt and pants. You can't see the arms or hands, you can't even see if she's wearing a watch. You can't even tell what sort of footwear she's wearing.
|
For starters...it LOOKS like a woman to me, and once again that is my opinion. I was not alone in that opinion either. But I really couldn't care less whether anybody agrees with me about the gender of the person in the photo. I hope we are all in agreement that it is a person, I hope. It isn't necessary to be a smart ass about this you know. I am curious as to your use of the word "she" in the above paragraph. Care to explain? On second thought, nevermind.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
And where the hell did you get the impression it's female? It just says "the body of a victim". Do some of you have super sex-sensing powers? Or is it because you believe females are weaker and more likely to be killed in a disaster?
|
Like I stated previously, I think it's a woman. Notice I used the word "think". I don't know, and it doesn't matter whether it's a man or woman really. Here's where you crossed the line... You ought to know better as a moderator, and calm down a little. You're getting way too worked up about this, and your sarcasm isn't necessary. Are you mocking my opinion? Is that what moderators do? Or, are they supposed to intervene before someone does what you are doing right now... which is riding my ass because my opinion differs from yours. You can climb off now, and quit acting like a kid. I would think that as a moderator, you would want to exhibit a little more tact. What are you gonna do next...call names? I think you're singling me out, and for what reason I don't know. I notice you didn't call StanT on his assumption that the body pictured was a woman...why not? I also notice you haven't offered me any constructive criticism...just criticism. So, I'll offer you some. Calm down dude, or dudette...whichever you are.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
Bottom line is, there is no way you could possibly convince anyone with more than 2 brain cells in their head that the picture in question could in any way be used to identify a person. There's no way. It couldn't be done. It's too small, too grainy, and there's nothing to see. You can't even see the head to know what the hair color is.
|
What in the hell makes you think I am trying to convince anybody of anything? I am contributing, that's all. If you want to believe pigs fly...cool. Believe it. Really though it sounds more like YOU are trying to convince somebody of something...what it is I don't know. If you can't respect other people's opinions, then why did you start the thread? Did you think EVERYBODY was going to have the same opinion about the photo when you started the thread? If everybody had the same opinion on everything, there wouldn't be much use for a discussion board that welcomes OPPOSING OPINIONS now would there? I shouldn't have to defend my opinion to the extent that I have had to here in this thread. Gimme a break...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
This is a very poor argument for having not used the picture. For me, it's no argument at all.
|
The only one arguing is you....