phredgreen

[moderator]

how the fuck does this post contribute to the thread? i think you need to spend less time nitpicking other peoples' vocabulary and belittling them, and more time making commentary that is related to the topic at hand or simply moving on to the next thread if you have nothing worthwhile to add.


that is all.

[/moderator]

__________________
My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.
- Thomas Paine

Redlemon

Well, no more worrying about seeing dead people...

U.S. agency blocks photos of New Orleans dead

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Cynthetiq

i see, stupid people who don't think death is a part of life...


even more reason for me to read news from outside the USA.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

meembo

Bill Maher said last Friday (on his show on HBO) to Anderson Cooper that one silver lining of Katrina is that reporters have taken ownership of the news again, and they are exercising first amendment priviledges that have been surrendered one by one to the government. I think the pictures of dead people take the abstraction of death out of the reporting and put it in people's faces, and as a result state and local and federal governments squirm as they are forced to examine and explain their reactions (or lack thereof) to a needs of their constituencies.

However, there are legitimate reasons to restrict access to areas in which workers are retrieving many, many bodies from a natural disaster. There is no need for a reporter to be taking pictures in a neighborhood where many bodies are being dragged from homes. The picture in the NYT (of the body floating in the water next to survivors who are downtown trying to evacuate) is a legitimate expression of the situation. Gratuitous, gruesome pictures of bloated bodies in private areas, such as underwater residential neighborhoods, serves no public good.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

texxasco

I agree with you meembo, but at the same time I think there has been enough phtographing of the dead. I think the public has gotten the point. Enough is enough I think...at least until the next of kin for the dead have been contacted...so the family doesn't have to find out about the death of a loved one by seeing them online or in a newspaper.

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

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.

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.

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?

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.

This is a very poor argument for having not used the picture. For me, it's no argument at all.

pig

A picture is worth a thousand words. I can understand not wanting to upset the families of the deceased, but as analog points out, I think this particular picture is very unlikely to lead to anyone identifying this person as a family member. To me, the image is a much more abstract expression of the reality in New Orleans...and if you don't want to know what's going on in the rest of the world, I don't really understand why you would read the newspaper in the first place? Movie times or TV listings?

For the people who say that they can understand the situation in New Orleans, or in general the full impact of the text based news without imagery, I would have to ask why are there *ever* pictures in newspapers, why do people keep photoalbums instead of diaries describing their holidays and family events, why do scientific papers incorporate graphics and plots instead of text-based descritptions, etc. I believe there is sufficient evidence that we do identify and are more directly affected by images than by text. I personally would prefer the news carried more graphic representations of news...I wonder what people would think about the Sudan, for instance, if they saw pictures of what was going on over there on a daily, or weeky basis. Or to use examples from this thread...what if they had to look at the homeless in LA, or NY, or wherever?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

texxasco

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.


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.

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.

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...

The only one arguing is you....

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

pig

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

texxasco

Ok, what's this?

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

smooth

That's what I wondered, too

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

pig

Monty Python Reference - The Holy Grail Scene 2.

edit now with link

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

texxasco

Be careful..... or you somebody might bitch about being off topic . Look at #41

**MOD NOTE: This is a good example of how not to voice your opinion on what you perceive to be a bad call from a moderator. The best way is to either PM the moderator and ask (respectfully- you don't have to be our best friend but you can't be an asshole, either) why, or (if that doesn't work) ask another moderator to look into it for you.** - analog.

I PM'd him, and also talked about it in my journal. Jeez, RELAX!

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

pig

Yeah...well, I'm not too worried about it. I think the problem with your previous post is that it's pretty easy to perceive that you were sort of putting down the other poster. That pic above, while potentially a bit irreverent, expresses not only my position that images can convey a lot of meaning completely in the absence of text, but also my frustration with the current situation. The spirit of that scene in The Holy Grail pretty much sums up my feelings on this subject.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Charlatan

Don't let that rub you the wrong way... he's brusque but he means well. Threadjacks and being off topic, while bothersome aren't the issue, it was the tone and personal nature of your post he was reacting too...

Let it go. Keep posting and reading and you will get the hang of how you can walk the line without crossing it...

Cheers

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

analog

So... even though there's no way anyone, anywhere, could ever tell who the picture is of, that somehow should still prevent them from using it, as next of kin can't be told?

Well... since this entire thread is about the photo in question, and not imaginary photos or some other photo elsewhere, I again don't understand what you're driving at.

I think half the point being made in this thread is that people shouldn't feel satisfied to be so sanitized and disconnected from the realities of the world. While this may suffice for you, I think it is a poor way, in general, to water down the atrocities that have occured. This is precisely the reason why there are other threads in which people complain that we don't have to care or concern ourselves with things happening elsewhere. That's a very dim, narrow, and poor way to treat everyone else on the planet.

People are too protected, and that's why they have so much fear.

Well, you seem to think it's a popular opinion that the body is female, so I'm just going with it.

Sarcasm is hardly ever necessary, that's it nature. It is, however, a very valid form of expression, so I have no idea why you're taking umbrage to it. I've debated with many people before you, and will likely continue to do so for quite a long time, and I can say that I have never (and will never) "ride [someone's] ass" just because they have a different opinion on something. Especially on such a trivial matter as this. I know what tact is, thanks, but I don't see anything that qualifies as tactless. To be sure, I am human and have had my share of tactless posting here or there, but this is not one of those times. I'm not singling you out, i'm responding directly to something you posted. It happens all the time. Someone posts soemthing, someone responds to it. Not that tough a concept. I keep responding to you, because we are engaged in a debate here. I'm not obsessed with seeing your words on the screen or anything. I didn't have an issue with what StanT said, which is why I didn't have reason to respond. You two have different opinions, and his is fine with me. Yours, I took issue with. And here's some constructive criticism, since apparently you've been wanting and i've denied you... accusing people of a laundry list of nonsense isn't the best way to debate with people. None of what I said was personal to you, yet you are responding directly to me in a very personal way. This behavior, on these boards, is tactless, because we try to strive for a higher level of debate, away from petty personal bickering.

If you think this was a tough debate, my constructive criticism would also include not going anywhere near the politics forum. This is Sesame Street in comparison. Also, there is more than one use of the word "argument"... and "arguing" is not the same thing. I'm not arguing with anybody. An argument is your case in a debate. That's how it was used in my context, and that's how it was meant.

Precedent can be a bitch.

Oh, and i'm a guy, since you weren't sure.

pig

Directed at me? I'm just lazy, but after I went back and checked, i think texas' original comment about the four-letter fornification word was directed at seer. i know you're packin' sausage.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

analog

No no, he said: "Calm down dude, or dudette...whichever you are."

Sorry for the confusion, I wanted to end with that line, and because it came after my quote for you, I can see where you might think that. Actually, both lines after your quote were to texxasco.

OH- and nice Python reference. I understand completely.

texxasco

You got it. I think it is disrespectful, and shows poor taste. I have read that people believe that the pic is just reality, and we should be ok with it. I see their point, and I also know that the U.S. is in love with reality. Reality this, reality that. One reality show after another. I guess I am just a little too conservative in my views to be ok with picking up a newspaper, or turning on the news, and having to look at a dead body. Maybe my opinion would be different if I thought the reason for showing the picture was something other than generating ratings and/or profits. Cal me closed minded, and in that regard I guess I am, but I just can't see why a person needs to look at a photo of another person. It isn't neat, or interesting. It's sad and tragic

Ok, I'll be specific. The picture you posted should not have been on the front page, or any page of the newspaper. I think it is wrong.

I don't think that not showing images of dead bodies sanitizes us, or disconnects us from the realities of the world. We all have our own reality and experiences, etc. I work amoungst criminals. I have not only seen, but witnessed stabbings, beatings, and other assorted things in my days, and you know...after awhile people tire of seeing that stuff. I've had to fight with, detain, restrain, and basically babysit bad guys for so long that when I am off work these days, I'm not looking for reality. I get plenty on a daily basis. I'm, not bragging, nor complaining, but that's my reality. You aren't old enough to have experienced it... but I am a 60's child, and I got to live (as a kid) in the 70's when life was more upbeat, and not so negative. Back then, to run a picture such as the one being discussed, on the front page of a newspaper might have cost someone his or her job. You didn't see boobs on TV either back then (I like this new trend). And, back then I would have thought it was cool, cutting edge, etc. But you know what? Society changes, you will change, I definitely have changed (so much that I suprise myself sometimes). Life changes. Reality never changes, but our take on it usually does with time. Society has become so de-sensitized that people are used to seeing things like that picture. Let me give you an example...

We've all been in the car with the folks, or others, and while on the road we pass an accident scene. I can remember back when I was a kid, that an accident on the side of the road was no big deal, in that we didn't need to see it to believe it. We'd say something like I hope they're ok and keep on going. People were more respectful, and wouldn't want to impose by being nosey. Now, it is an almost daily occurance when driving down the road, an accident (off the road, not blocking traffic) causes traffic to slow down for miles. Why? People just can't get enough of reality.... They GOTTA see what happened, and even at the risk of causing ANOTHER accident.

It seems like with each decade that goes by, society becomes a little more lenient as to what we deem acceptable, and not acceptable. Look.... I can tell you are a very articulate, and intelligent person. I can tell by the way you write, and what you write about. You'd have a hard time convincing me that you wouldn't have gotten a good grip of the reality of the situation in New Orleans without that picture. I think it is possible that you are confusing your needing to see that picture with wanting to see that picture. You don't need to see that picture to make you understand what is going on. You want to see that stuff. And, that's alright. The stuff is gonna be in the papers, on the tv, etc. I accept that, but I don't like it. I always have the option of not looking at the picture, or changing the channel... It is an option I do utilize occasionally. I can remember a time, when I would have argued FOR using those kind of pictures, but I have changed.


I haven't read through any of those threads. I wouldn't want to. I couldn't keep up with it either because I would have so much to say...and I can't type fast enough for this thread, let alone a thread like that. I feel sorry for folks that believe we shouldn't care about the world. I AGREE with you that that is a pretty dim, narrow, and poor way to treat everyone else on the planet. I don't think people are too protected though. If anything this world is one hell of a lot rougher than what it used to be. We're anything but protected. 20 years ago, if I was setting behind a car honking my horn to get the driver to realize the light changed, and go..... The worse that would have happened might have been a few choice words yelled at me, or better yet, that person probably would have shot me the bird. Now? That same situation could get me shot, or worse. There wasn't a thing called road rage back then either. We called them maniacs, or for lack of a better term - just plain assholes.

Thank You.... That part of the discussion is now *closed*.



It had to do with the context in which you were using your sarcasm, and the condescending way you were "expressing yourself". Is sarcasm a valid form of expression? It depends on who you talk to. It is acceptable? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. For me, as long as I don't think the person is talking down to me, it's ok... It's pretty clear to me that our views are very different.....I can remember when my views differed, and still do differ with those older than me. And no it's not just about age, it's more about priorities. To me it was personal, the things you were saying, and how you were saying them. In my mind, the way you were expressing yourself did take a personal tone, and therefore I responded in like fashion. But, it is VERY clear to me that the tone you are using now, is much less abrasive and condescending than your previous post. You say you were just responding to something I posted.....and you are ok with what you posted in response.

...And my response:

I didn't view my response here as harsh or abrasive, (a little sarcastic maybe, but not harsh), and I wasn't talking down to him..at least in my opinion. In fact, I was telling this person in the nicest way possible that I took issue with his statement. To me your response to me was much harsher than mine to him. What's becoming clear to me is that here in TFP right and wrong aren't clearly defined. I can write one thing and be wrong, yet you can write something similar and it's ok. To me things are more black and white, and what's wrong for one is wrong for another. Plain and simple, and fair is fair.

That's pretty obvious


Like I said previously, I viewed your comments as beyond debating, and more of a personal nature.



No I don't think this is a tough debate, but to be quite honest with you it has gotten pretty old. Especially knowing it all started with a damn picture. I really don't even give a shit about it anymore. And no I won't be going around any political debates. I learned a long time ago that there were two areas that It was best I not converse with folks too much...Those being religion, and politics. I am a conservative republican who regularly attends church.... right away that would put me in the middle of controversy should I decide to debate on those topics. I also know my limitations, and would rather just leave those subjects alone. I keep my views, and others keep theirs.

In every conversation, debate, argument, there comes a time when two people have to agree to disagree. I know my limit, and I am now at it. We live in completely different worlds there analog. I guess I am a little neanderthal in my ways, but in my world I have to be. I get paid to socialize with people that most folks wouldn't or are too scared to deal with. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, stop by and I'll see about getting you a tour of "my" reality..or at least what is for 40 hours a week. I promise to not let the bad guys get you, if you'll promise to tell me if someone using bigger words than I do is making me look like a dumbass and I don't catch it.


I don't have enough patience to carry on a good debate for very long, and I can be too defensive sometimes whether I need to be or not. You're a good debater. A smartass too... but I like you. Yes, that is very personal.... but I mean it as a compliment, and not in a derogitory manner. Honest. You know, after all that hs been said back and forth in this debate, I believe giving credit where credit is due. I admire a person with enough balls to speak their mind.

I offer you a truce - hell you can even say you won if you want. That's ok. Either way, I am checking out of this conversation... Enough is enough man...

I kinda figured so, but I wasn't sure, and I didn't want to offend anybody.

__________________
...A Bad Day of Fishing is Better Than a Great Day at Work!

pig

Oh. I didn't read that part.

For me, I can understand the position taken by texas et al a little more if it's a single homicide, or a bad wreck...but in this case, I really think these pictures serve a purpose. If it were my family, I'd rather the images of them floating in the streets served that purpose, and in that way their deaths might gain some meaning by bringing national attention / forcing people to deal with the reality through imagery. I personally feel a lot of life was wasted in New Orleans this past week, and it sort of pisses me off...and scares me. I know New Orleans is a particular site that might be a worst-case scenario, given the rampant poverty and the dike system there...but there are a lot of poor coastal areas in the SE due to the high levels of historical generational poverty down here...if this is the best response we're going to get, it's a little scary. It sort of sucks that it would seem that New Orleans may have essentially been the functional dry run for our national response mechanisms under the new Federal reorganization, and that the performance was so incredibly piss poor.

edit : shit, i think i might go watch holy grail tonight.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style