mamallama
Forum Pro
Not sure whether she works for the newspaper or is a freelance photographer. There are several photograph versions of the scene, even a video of it. But her shot published by the newspaper has become the iconic one.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The photo of the dead father and daughter in the Rio Grande.
- Thread starter Mark_A
- Start date
I have not seen this specific photo; but, in general, disseminating photos displaying a deceased person or persons to public viewership is distasteful.
There is very little that remains sacrosanct today. A shame, really!
People demand more. It's extreme, it's excessive. But there are some who are only all too willing to dish out the goods, so to speak.
Give them bread and circus....
Don't you think showing the grisly reality of a situation can be good for raising the consciousness in a public about a situation?
There have been evocative images posted down the years, should this not fall into that category, the death toll on migrants trying to enter the USA is a story after all.
Are people demanding more, or did this newspaper just decide to give more?
Mark_A
Why are photos of USA domestic gun killings not published?
There must be loads of opportunities for photos yet I don't think images are published, does anyone have a logic as to why there are photos of poor asylum seekers photos published but not domestic US gun violence victims?
Mark_A
There must be loads of opportunities for photos yet I don't think images are published, does anyone have a logic as to why there are photos of poor asylum seekers photos published but not domestic US gun violence victims?
Mark_A
I can understand those who hold this type of view. Personally, I'd leave it up to imagination. All too often, as can easily be documented, graphics images of death and mayhem have been put on display, if I may use this phrase, gratuitously.
I believe it's both. One begets the other, and so on and so forth. Most likely, it all began with institutions of influence, like a national newspaper. This goes back to the proverbial question of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
In Europe, the story of migrants crossing the Med (at great risk) didn't capture the public's imagination until the photo of the drowned boy who washed up on a beach was shown in the media. It brought home the hopeless situation the migrants found themselves in.
However the situation continues I believe, there have been no more photos.
What struck me was how this was quite an average photograph, I don't know if it is right to say that, but I recall photos from VIetnam, and Iraq and of 911 having been rather more composed natures. However it was undoubtedly real.
Mark_A
This can only be read as a rhetorical question. Publishers are selective about what they put out for public consumption, for one reason or other, but I believe, it's usually politically motivated.
Same reason as above. The choice of what is and what is not seen is influenced by political/ideological forces. This is done so as to create a certain narrative by which the establishment (any organization) can maintain power.
WunWegWunDarWun
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 274
Probably fear from vexatious lawsuits, the first amendment protects newspapers from government action but not from private suits for emotional distress from relatives etc. The NRA would probably happily bankroll those and even if they have little chance to succeed they will still incur costs on the publishers.
Also its quite possible these are simply not very available as the police will not let photographers on the scene.
WunWegWunDarWun
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 274
I believe that was the point, to show the bodies as yet another shore drift alongside with discarded cans
WunWegWunDarWun
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 274
It depends on her contract terms, if I had to guess I'd go with "lolz, no" - but maybe it will get her prizes speaking opportunities etc.
Maybe not enough to move the public into a collective, coherent response but, to some degree, I'm sure it did affect many, many individuals who would constitute this "public" we speak of.
Remember, it's not just the photographs, but the media apparatus in its entirety along with other systems of influence, such as, academia. The narratives that have been created have a certain appeal or force to move generations (of people).
Yes, that is probably close to the truth, fear of legal action.
Indeed.
Mark_A
Would there be a point to that? It'd be like photographing an obese american male eating at a mcdonald's, it's so ubiquitous that it kind of loses any shock value to begin with (which is kind of the point of publishing a journalistic photo usually).
In other countries where people don't kill each other for sport every other minute under the cry of "2nd amendment!!1!11" then such photos would certainly be more poignant and relevant.
Be thankful the US is a country where images like this can be published, one poster on here states that this is nothing but propoganda that Joseph Goebbels would be proud of, of course the irony is that Goebbels and his regime went to great lengths to ensure people never got to see what was happening and that's the same for all of today's autocratic regimes.
M
minababe
Guest
Because there's a double standard today when it comes to showing dead people. Brown people from Third World countries are considered less than human and therefore less deserving of human dignity. Americans and Westerners are considered more worthy of dignity and therefore their bodies aren't shown.
This wasn't always the case. One of the most famous photos of all time was Kent State.
This would never be shown today. Americans are so sensitive about showing one of their own dead or dying that they blew a gasket when the Falling Man was published right after 9/11. You couldn't see the person's face but it caused so much outrage.
jerryf128
Leading Member
I agree...politically motivated.
jerryf128
Leading Member
Back in the 20's and 30's you could buy probably dozens of different models of guns from Sears catalog, no background check. No mass killings, no school shootings. The second amendment has nothing to do with these shootings. Society has changed. If you take guns from people, nothing is going to change. Do you really think that taking guns from people that society is going to change? More laws maybe?? Did you know it is against the law to murder people? Take all the guns from law abiding people is not the answer. Society has to change.
jerryf128
Leading Member
HOGWASH!!
WunWegWunDarWun
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 410
- Reaction score
- 274
Yeah the 30s in particular were notoriously free of gun violence.
Last edited:
jerryf128
Leading Member
+1!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum