The front cover of the New York Times...
 

This picture...

http://www.mytubesteak.com/NOLA.jpg
Caption: "The body of a victim of Hurricane Katrina floats in floodwaters in New Orleans."


Was on the front page of the New York Times newspaper, as well as on the website. From the website:

www.nytimes.com

Now here's my beef, and where the poll fits in. Some have said that this picture is "graphic", "awful", and "terrible" to put on the front page of a newspaper. It was also noted that putting it on the front page prevents the person from seeing this "graphic" image.

So I guess people are ok if it's on page 2? It's still gonna be looking you in the face when you turn the page. It's not like on the internet where you can put a link and a "this might disturb some people" next to it.

I say this is far from "graphic" or "terrible" or "awful". I think people don't want to see this because seeing something that disturbs or bothers them forces them to reconcile it in their mind- and oh my god! People might actually realize what's going on down there! People DIED. Wow, how horrible are those NYTimes people to make us have to face that people died. It's the way of life. Everyone and everything dies. Saying, "I just don't want to have to look at it" or soemthing similar, is exactly the attitude that makes so many people turn a blind eye to the problems of the world.

Thoughts?

This is fine. If you think this is graphic then you're too damned soft. People NEED to know what is going on down there. This isn't another boring news event...this is major and relates to the whole country. Bodies floating around and having extremely unsanitary conditions is exactly what is happening so it should be portrayed that way. Many people in my classes didn't even know New Orleans was flooded and that people had died. Someone has to relate what is going on.

-Lasereth

I didn't even notice the dead body. I was looking at the big lady about to eat that cat.

As usual, I tend to agree with you. Is it wrong that I wanted a higher quality picture, so that it would actually "sink in" more? People DIED -- saying its inappropriate to show is niave at best. If you want to protect your children from "graphic violence," then you might have a foot to stand on. I don't think most people open NY Times expecting to see death.

So in the end -- I can see parents being upset -- but a grown adult saying "I don't want to see it?" Why not.. embrace it. Its a part of life and it reminds you to enjoy the time you HAVE, before some fluke hurricane ends it.

I might also mention that the body is face-down, not torn apart, broken, bloody, or otherwise visually ravaged that would make it gruesome... it's just lying there. If the caption said, "person take a cool dip in the river while their mom watches", you'd never know the body was dead.

news is too sanitized for my tastes.

The NY Times is just trying to sell its papers, and people want drama, so the picture is on the front page. Easy as that..

I don't want to get off-topic, but this kinda reminds me of that commercial that was banned in the states due to tremendous parental outrage.. because it depicted a child being blown apart (didn't actually show the gore of it, just the boom) by a land mine in the middle of a soccer field- but not in some remote country, right here in America. It was a commercial about how living with land mines is a reality in many, many countries, and that we should stop using land mines, or make better ones, or something.

Some people just don't find reality palpable, and ignore it as much as possible.

(p.s. if anyone has this commercial, let me know... i'll get it from you and host/post it here for reference)

It's not shocking 'til they turn cannibals.

That is not shocking or graffic. It shows thigns HOW THEY ARE. if people can't face that, then they need to shut the fuck up and get a good reality check before they open their mouths again.

This is certainly far from Rotten.com, People need to stop being pussies. thats the bottom line right there.

It's not too graphic. It's a reality check.

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.

Yeah... I'm waiting for the Zombies to show up.

I really don't understand the "reality check" mentality. This isn't reality for many people. Actually, it's not reality for MOST people. Some might find it disturbing, and there's nothing wrong with that. People need to get off their high horses about how "real" and in touch they are because they don't mind seeing a dead body. People have no obligation to familiarize themselves with the world's problems, and if they don't want to be reminded of them, it's perfectly fine.

Why exactly is that?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NYT is a newspaper. Like it or not, people down south are dying; corpses are floating down the river like rubber duckies. Is this a good thing? Hell no! But people should read the newspaper to become better informed about the world, not for a quick pick-me-up in the morning. I for one would be pissed off if my newspaper showed a cute picture of a cat stuck in a tree during the flooding. Don't like to be reminded that the world can be a cold, mean place? fine, but don't read current events and expect them to be sanitized to reflect your world view.
If you want to only see good news, that's fine. Read a newspaper geared for children. I want to see the reality of the world, and while that picture was chilling it woke me up to the reality of the situation. That's what journalism is for.

I am not a fan of the "if it bleeds, it leads" mentality of many of our news sources. That being said, I think a more relevant picture would have had more bodies floating in what is soon to be a cesspool. I am stunned by the complacency that I am hearing both here at TFP and locally. "If it doesn't affect me directly, then you have no right to intrude on my happy day."

The NYT is a NEWS paper and this is arguably the worst natural disaster in a century. If you want to remove yourself from the world's problems, I recommend People Magazine. No, wait. There are all of those nasty celebrity divorces to deal with.

Americans live in constant denial. Denial of sex, death, money...par for the course.

Analog you can screen the clip here: http://www.stoplandmines.org/slm/index.html

It's looks pretty effective at getting its message across.

Oddly, I liked the landmine ad.

I'd be livid if it was my mom on the NY Times front page.

Right now, there are several hundred mothers, fathers, children, etc., lying and floating out in plain view of everyone down there. Rescue effort comes first, then body removal. That's the way it is.

The reason most people complain about sensationalizing things is because the media will take something and show the worst, show the most graphic, show the most heart-wrenching of a situation... but this is a small sample. This is ONE body. There are LOTS of bodies just sitting around down there. This is not "picking one outrageous element and making the whole thing seem bigger". This is what's littering the streets in many areas.

1. This is reality for about 15,000 to 20,000 people definitely still trapped within the city. That's a very large number of people to turn your back on and say, "this doesn't effect EVERYONE". Thousands more have nothing to come back to, have lost family, friends, everything.

2. I don't think anyone in here has had any kind of "I'm better than ______" attitude with regard to "being able to see dead bodies". Those who are calling this reality are simply saying that some people need thicker skin. I don't think anyone is using this disaster as an opportunity to brag. Many, however, are using it to affirm to everyone else in the world just how little a person can care about devastating loss of human life and the total destruction of a city.

If there's any bragging going on in here, it's that some of us give two shits about the world around us, and aren't so self-centered that they think of no one but themselves.

That's the single-most insensitive comment i've read in a long time. Your tune would be the total opposite if you or your family lived in New Orleans right now, wondering where the red cross is... you know, with FOOD, or even WATER. This kind of attitude only carries a person until they're the one whose everyday life has been destroyed, and decended into hell.

Didn't there used to be rules about no images of dead bodies in the media? I could have sworn that was the case, maybe 20 years ago or something. Was it actually a rule, was it just generally agreed upon, or am I completely mistaken?

I know that people are dead. That's what the words say. If you really need a picture to understand that there are dead people in the water, go take a reading comprehension course.

It's people's choice to veiw what they want. The NYT is a newspaper, but it's a for profit enterprise. I long ago got past the notion of an independant, informative newspaper. To me, the only difference between the NYT and the Weekly World News is that I can get one at a checkout lane in a grocery store. With that in mind, if they want people to keep buying their product, they need to cater to what their customers want. If it's pictures of kittens while there's a hurricane, fine. It's noot about sanitizing things, it's about printing what your customers want to see. By your reasoning, every cancer story should also be printed with a picture of a cancer patient in their last days, correct? Or a car accident should have decapitation pics, since it will show the "reality of the situation" better?

Me personally, I understand what is happening without having to see a floating body. It doesn't make it more real, just more gratuitous and exploitive. If you are half as in touch with reality as you like to think (this is a general you, not pointing fingers), it shouldn't take a photo taken by someone gunning for a pulitzer to make you understand what is happening.

And I say why do people need thicker skin? There's no obligation to care about anyone else. If it's so important, people can ride their high horses down to NO and start helping. And leave those who have no care or interest to their business. Not everyone can even afford to be so worried about everything else in the world, they have lives themselves that they worry about. And why is it you only hear about this indifference during some tragedy? Before the hurricane, how many people died from starvation around the world without any uprorar whatsoever? Where was all this caring and compassion then? It's not about being self-centered, it's about taking a long-term view of the world. You say 20,000 is alot of people, I say it's a drop in the bucket. And that's the reality of the situation, not some pic of a dead body.

Umm...wrong. Why would my tune change? Why should someone else care just because it's my family? For one, I hope I would have had the good sense to evacuate the area. And if I was stupid enough to stay, I wouldn't be bemoaning the failure of the world to shut down and save my dumb ass. Seriously, you make alot of baseless assumptions. I have had hardships, as have many of those in my family, and many of my friends. I didn't expect (and don't expect) any exceptional aid or compassion from the world. And again, why is it the person in NO who should get the sympathy for lacking food? What about the kid in LA who doesn't have a place to live because his mother chose crack over rent and food. Or someone in Pittsburg who is slowly being bankrupted paying medical bills for his wife because she got cancer? Or the 300,000,000 other tragedies that occur in the country yearly? Or for that matter, the 7,000,000,000 worldwide? Honestly, i'd take a million missing white woman of the week stories over this sanctimonious, gratutious, self-righteous crap any day. At least those didn't try to be anything but fluff. I'll maybe start worrying about people caring more when everyone can look beyond the current headline-grabbing situation toward the daily, hourly tragedies that happen constantly all over the world. Now excuse me, I have something far more important to do now, which is prepare for my fantasy football league draft.

rofl, I laughed :P

I think its in very bad taste.....I dont need to see a dead body to believe the reports that there are people dead....just like I got sick of them showing that poor woman under the blanket at the convention center. It that were a family member of mine, the people responsbile for having that on the front page wouldnt be able to pour piss out of their boot when I got done with them

The picture is a wake up to reality. There are so many pictures of diasters as well as other things that have never been shown.

I'm just saying that it's not something people should be surprised about. Nor shocked. The people of the police departments, fire departments and various others see these same things happen where ever they are.

Am I saying that it's okay to place these pictures in a newspaper? I'm not sure. For myself personally, I have no problem with it. It brings a strong sense of reality to the unfortunate people that are there or where ever they are.

When you stop to think about it, how many times have you watched a TV show that displays murder victims or other such? No, it doesn't compare. It's fake. But, millions of people watch it anyways.

How many people slow down when they pass a accident or other such things? It's like George Carlin said, "Officer can you bring the body over here? My wife has never seen a dead body before!" I may not be putting exactly what he said, but the idea remains the same. Alot of people are nosy and want to see the "horrors".

Am I really making any sense? To myself... yes. To others? I haven't a clue. I would rather see the realism of what is happening. If it were my family in the picture, it wouldn't matter. I would be grieving too much to care about a picture. I would be too worried about trying to survive to the next day and providing for my child.

Do I seem a bit crude? Or even cold hearted? I hope not. Reality checks are needed for some people. For others, I'm sorry that some poeple don't think those pictures are right.

I usually stay out of threads since I don't feel that I add anything to them. But, I hope that people don't take me wrong and I apologize if I'm offensive in any way.

People are too isolated from truth and reality these days.

Sex, death... you name it.

Hm, recall how many times they LOOPED the planes slamming into the WTC on 9/11?

Somehow that's okay. The graphic violence in movies are okay, but... floating bodies in a river and a boob (w/ nipple jewelry, mind you) during a super bowl show isn't.

Eh, people in general just need somethin to complain about I guess.

There is nothing wrong with the picture being run on the front page of a newspaper. No one here has convinced me otherwise.

God Bless the First Amendment, and newspapers exercising it. I think all Americans should experience in some way the trials of fellow Americans in harm's way. It's goddamn patriotic to see and react to this as a nation, and if this awfulness happens in in our country, it is our problem, not someone else's, and we should deal with it head on.
Again I say -- God Bless the First Amendment.

I think that if thousands of people died in this disaster, the newspaper is doing much more than just selling papers by publishing that photo. I feel sorry for anyone who feels nothing but cynicism seeing that picture. It means a lot to me that I know of these things happening in my country. It's amazing that hundreds of corpses are intermingled with the suffering masses in New Orleans. It's very easy to be casual and flip about it here on a message board. but I think my life would be changed being there in New Orleans this week.

I like the front page and the landmine commercial. It was shocking and raw. I'm sick of everything in the media getting sugar coated. Show the unedited reality. I'm ready for it.

Too often the masses are kept from seeing the whole graphic truth of tthe world that we start to lose grip on reality. The tragety of the hurricane is terrible, and will haunt me for a long time. AS WELL IT SHOULD. To sheild myself from the suffering of others is to shield myself from truth, which would be a mistake. 'Ignorance is bliss' is supposed to be an ironic turn of phrase. It is supposed to actually say that those who are ignorant only think they are blissful.

Now if only we could be exposed to the reality of war, famine, starvation, sickness, terrorism, etc. It's more difficult to ignore the whole truth of a situation than it is to ignore it's surface.

That picture is there to sell more newspapers. It is using death as a means of increasing profits, and I find it reprehensible. I hate news agencies, and if it weren't for the issues of censorship, would prefer that they be publicly funded rather than privately.

Coming from a family of newsprint publishers that is reprehensible.

My uncle was approached by Ferdinand Marcos and he demanded that my uncle and the paper write pro-Marcos articles. My uncle said the paper will not be forced and the printing presses will be turned off before that happens. He was arrrested and jailed for 9 years.

That's sad to hear, but I'm afraid it doesn't sway my opinion of the majority of news agencies. They, like everyone else, are trying to make money, and I fear it has affected the way news is reported in a very negative way.

right and letting the "public" and government run it gives better, clearer, more direct information.... :rolleyes:

it's sensational. that's it. Reality is very ugly sometimes.

Sweetpea

Interestingly on the very same day, the front page of the National Post... Canada's most conservative national daily newspaper used the same image... the only difference is the image was cropped. It was cropped so it was a close up of *just* the floating body and nothing else.

I tend to agree with those above who argue that we don't need to know what is happening elsewhere in the world. I much prefer local news that has some bearing on my life. This is not to say that a news paper or TV news shouldn't post images of this nature just that I like having the choice to *not* read it (if that makes sense).

As for graphic images... I would rather they were inside the paper than on the outside. This way, those who don't wish to see the graphic images, don't have to as they wander by a newstand or past the news box. Put them inside and in full colour.

If it makes you feel better informed, great. Have you done anything about it?

If this is reality then emergency work or even living through disasters must be a snap.

It holds some illusion of being real, something to make us feel as privileged participants while going about our day-to-day struggles. As such it's an easy sell to an armchair society of distraction addicts.

Reality? Not even close. No, it's media sensationalism. Find reality on the ground in southern Louisiana. Or just get outside and avoid these shallow electronic spheres of existence for a few hours. Do something useful.

/BS-detector

They keep talking about it and talking about it but no one shows it. I'm glad they did. It's one thing to hear about it, it's another to see it.

Say...what a vocabulary... Fuck... what an interesting work. I once listened to a guy tell a story, and in the space of say 10 minutes, I heard him say the word FUCK better than 25 times. Any chance you two are related?

I agree with StanT. That woman is somebody's relative. I think posting that photo before she is indentified, and her next of kin notified, it is in very poor taste and shows a lack of respect for the dead woman...and her familiy as well. Reality sells papers...and that's the bottom line. I know I would be highly pissed if that were my mother, and THAT was how I found out about her death.

For the record....it's not about being a "pussy" as others have posted, or afraid of facing reality, or anything like that. It's all about decency and dignity. I work in Corrections and have seen blood, stabbings, and death first hand. The news can be reported, and be done in a tasteful way. That picture should never have made print, or the internet....at LEAST until the family, if any was notified of her death.

[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]

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

U.S. agency blocks photos of New Orleans dead

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.

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.

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.

I just want to make sure we're looking at the same photo. This one, right?

http://www.mytubesteak.com/NOLA.jpg

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.

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?

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....

:confused: Ok, what's this? :)

That's what I wondered, too :confused:

Monty Python Reference - The Holy Grail Scene 2.

edit now with link

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.