So while I was at work today, I was thumbing through the New York Times. I don't always start with the front page; in fact, I usually don't, because usually someone has left it open to a page, and I start with that. So after reading some articles on the inner pages of the front section, I finally closed the paper. The picture on the front caught my attention right away, due to the lurid color of pink sheets. To my horror, the NYTimes had printed this picture on the front of the paper:
That man is dead--that is a dead body on a stretcher, with people surrounding it and taking pictures of it. Certainly, the man in question (Mullah Dadullah) is guilty of some heinous crimes, but what gives anyone the right to take pictures of him in death and splash them all over the front pages of the news? Wouldn't a picture of him living sufficed? How is printing a picture of a dead body on the front page of the newspaper--where anyone can see it, including small children--appropriate?
In contrast to this, the Sunday Styles section of the New York Times from yesterday refused to print pictures of Leonard Nimoy's latest exhibition of obese women in artistic, sensual poses, photos which are meant to contradict the American image of beauty. This is one of the pictures they did print with the article, which gives an idea of what Mr. Nimoy's work is like:
The paper said in the article that the images of Mr. Nimoy's work are too explicit for printing in the paper.
What I'm still trying to wrap my head around is this idea that sensual nudity is explicit while a dead body on a stretcher is not. Does anyone else see something wrong with these pictures? Why is an image showing the result of extreme violence and showing a corpse responsible for atrocities acceptable when showing fat women naked is not?
Links to the articles in question:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/fa...b19&ei=5087%0A
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/wo.../14afghan.html