snowy

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

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

mixedmedia

I agree with you completely, snowy, and it's something I haven't been able to wrap my head around either. How we got to a society where violence and barbarity and gracelessness are not obscene and yet sex and nudity are.

It's quite disheartening when you really consider what that says about us.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Jetée

Or, perhaps it is because violence is another commonplace in the American establishment that it need not be censored at all for the masses have become too jaded to not be offended by such portrayals, whilst the sexuality prevalent in the country is swept under the rug and kept out of sight for fear that America's dirty little secret of perversion and voyeurism becomes known to all.

After all, we must think of the children. (sorry, analog )

__________________
As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves.

—Mohandas K. Gandhi

Toaster126

Just wait until the old people die. Then we will see commercials with nudity, pot will be legal, and we will have new politicians to bitch about.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

ngdawg

Back in the early 80's(or late 70s), Hustler magazine did a cover story entitled 'True Pornography' and the article inside was gruesome to say the least; Vietnam war casualties of the worst kind.
For those who don't recall, Hustler won a landmark case when sued for its magazine content as being too pornographic-the Vietnam article was in response to that...they didn't get sued for it.
Our values are so fucked up....death, mutilations, piles of bodies, that's ok.
A naked breast? Heavens!!!!

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

Willravel

I'm glad you pointed out the double standard. I've gotta be honest, I think it should be okay to print both. If you're too young to appreciate the meaning behind the picture, they should stick to the funny pages. This is the same type of thing, in my humble opinion, that parents face with all media. Children probably shouldn't watch certain movies or TV shows, just as they shouldn't see some images or read some stories.

The paper shouldn't be reinforcing such a brazen double standard, especially considering we're talking about the NYT. This isn't some second rate paper.

Again, excellent comparison.

MechCow

I agree. Change will come when it is socially unacceptable to fear sex in the same way that being unable to "handle" violence is a sign of immaturity.

HamiC

I think that for most, it comes down to context. Neither picture is wrong in the right setting. I do not find anything objectionable about newsworthy pictures depicting violence or its aftermath nor do I take issue with pictures of an explicit sexual nature as long as neither is exposed to my children without my having some reasonable ability to prevent it (i.e. put on the side of a bus as opposed to the NYT).

As an adult, I have the ability to turn away if something is not to my liking. There is -- or should be -- an open marketplace of speech and ideas where we are all free to make choices.

highthief

I'd buy a newspaper showing a dead terrorist. It would catch my attention.

I would certainly be unlikely to want to buy a newspaper with pictures of naked fat chicks in it. It might even stop me from buying the paper.

These aren't really conscious decisions, but they reflect what actually happens.

Newspapers are businesses and they will print what will sell.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

thingstodo

I think a lot has to do with our cultural fear of sex, primarily based in organized religion. That's why the guilt is attempted to be pounded into our heads for so many years when growing up. Don't do it until you're married. Yet the very same people that want to excercise that control are the very ones involved in everything.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

Willravel

I think if there was no religion people would find another reason to fear and subjugate sexuality. Religion is a tool, and it can be used in different ways.

SecretMethod70

Agreed, and agreed.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Ourcrazymodern?

Dead bodies are less to be feared than living ones, are they not?
Our culture's wanting to keep sex unseen is another matter and probably related to the fact that depictions of it would be less profitable if we were more open about/to it.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

analog

OMG THINK OF TEH CHILDREN

But seriously. This isn't a graphic picture. There is no blood, there is no gore, he's not mangled or scorched or covered in his own post-mortem excrement.

He's just dead.

Only in America have we become enamored with fearing death, with treating it as something hush-hush and scary- and only in the last few hundred years.

It used to be that death was just another inevitability of life. When someone died, their body was put on display in the home- they did not go to "funeral homes". They were not immediately taken away so that no one had to see the scary, scary dead person. I don't know of any other cultures who are as afraid of death as in America. Over time, death went from being just another part of life, to something gross, disgusting, scary- and apparently, something to be hidden from children. OMG PEOPLE DIE! JESUS H CHRIST, IF CHILDREN FIND OUT PEOPLE DIE, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE WORLD??!

Secondarily, Mr Nimoy's photographs are intentionally sexual in nature, which places them squarely under the umbrella of being viewed as pornography- by those who wouldn't see the difference between sensual art and porn, which is practically everyone looking to cover their ass.

Third, sex and violence (if you can count a dead guy as "violent"/graphic) will always be treated differently in this society, and we're well beyond trying to correct that on a grand scale... our best hope is baby steps in the direction of containing and eliminating this double-standard.

Save the children!!

This too.

mixedmedia

It has nothing to do with "the children" for me. In my estimation a picture of a dead guy surrounded by other people taking his picture is more pornographic...to me. And I am not afraid of death. I think the issue that you're missing is that we seem to find a naked living body more obscene than images of violence, whether real or not. You don't have to be on a mission to "save the children" to realize that. So basically all you're doing is reiterating the OP in your own way.

Correct me if I'm wrong but no one here has tried to make a case out of "saving the children."

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

As someone who has both had sex before AND who's been dead before, am I an expert on the subject? Hmm.....

analog

Someone saying an image of a dead person (who, again, is not visibly harmed in any way other than being deceased) bothers you as being bad or violent, etc., has nothing to do with that someone then saying they don't "fear death". If the societal imprint of "death is something to shun and fear" in America hadn't made its mark on you, you would not find this image graphic- indeed, we may be the only country where seeing a plain dead body gets anywhere near this kind of "censor it!" reaction.

We're very happy in our complacency, in this country. We enjoy a lack of war within our borders and a comparatively (global) nonexistent amount of terrorism (really, just 9/11 as compared to many places where they've been terrorized for LONG periods of time).

We enjoy a very protected atmosphere in America- and rather than use that to nurture and teach the future generations, our parents spend their time trying to micromanage every else's life by dictating what can and cannot be broadcast in print, radio, and television. No one's kid will be irreversibly fucked in the head if they see some big naked women or a clean, whole dead guy laying on a gurney. They're just not.

Because if more breeders were parents, "the children" would be just fine... they would already be armed with something much better than any weapon- knowledge.

A naked woman! Shock and awe and ohnoes! Ah shit, some kid saw, now he's a serial killer rapist carjacker who gives babies the finger and never pays his taxes!!

I know many people who are screwed up and/or stupid young adults, and it wasn't because they were allowed to play violent videogames and watch movies with swearing and violence and nudity- it's because their parents didn't do a goddamn thing to raise them or teach them anything, and just sat them in front of the tv, which happened to be hosting their violent video games and movies with swearing and violence and nudity.

Actually, that was my third point... the double-standard.

1. I didn't say anyone did.

2. But for the record, the OP mentioned children, willravel mentioned children, and Jetstream brought it up directly (though I'm undecided if it was just to mess with me or if messing with me was just a bonus to his sincere opinion lol).

3. That doesn't mean my mockery of the "OMG TEH CHILDREN" is less applicable when this is precisely the sort of topic that would normally initiate that war cry. It's an inevitability that a conversation about censorship of violence and sex in the media will lead to protecting "the children".

Also: I can think of no better way to silence an absurd war cry like "what about the children" than to mock it and point out the weakness of its use as an argument.

Charlatan

I am not so sure I believe the first part of your statement... but given the fact that we do not have a culture that hasn't felt the influence of religion, we will never know.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Willravel

Maybe one day we find an alien planet infested by little green Richard Dawkins' and we can put that to the test.

Still, being an atheist, I believe that most of everything in religion has it's Genesis in either human nature or some other human reason. When the Bible and Qu'ran damn homosexuality, it's because homosexuality makes a lot of people uncomfortable. When the Torah says not to eat pork, it's because swine are considered unclean and it's natural to not want to eat unclean food. If man wanted to subjugate women, then they were going to do it...Bible or not. If the Bible were written today, it would read a lot differently. Actually, one can see clear differences between the OT and NT, which were separated by many years and attitudes.

fnaqzna

I have to agree about the picture of the dead body. It's just a dead body.

That said... I have a hard time seeing Nimoy's work as being pornographic. It's nude photography without the typical models.

Oh... and I have zero interest in living in a world that is safe for children. That's what parents are for... to protect their children.

Ourcrazymodern?

Maybe. And?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

tenniels

I think both images should be printed. I truly believe the second image was not printed because the ladies are large and people tend to get their shit in a knot about stuff like that. Personally, I am one of those people who has to look at things like dead bodies, curiosity I suppose. But sometimes it leaves me feeling uncomfortable. It's not the media's job to make me comfortable though. I'm not sure if this is correct or not, but I think the media in Canada is a little more open to stuff and not so onesided (about things like war and whatnot). I have seen shows about the "bubble" America lives in when it comes to what is actually happening in the war (example) whereas the rest of the world is seeing more of the whole story. Anyways, I did go off topic here, sorry. I think it's sad that so many people are uncomfortable with naked bodies, especially big naked bodies. It gives a negative message and if you don't like it, don't look!

__________________

Willravel

I was just thinking out loud.

jajajaja

that pic makes me drool

tecoyah

Picture Christ on the cross. He is covered to protect the eyes of us all from Godlike Gentitilia....but we can cleary see the wounds of torture, and well.....He's Dead.

The stigma associated with sex, as well as the acceptance of violence go back a very long way.

Val_1

You have to click a button saying "I'm Over 18" to see a boob but, for some reason, I saw (mind you without ever trying to see it) Saddam's hanging video numerous times cause it was played to death on TV and the Internet. Double standard indeed.

__________________

I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day.

-Frank Sinatra