But that’s just it. The folks who who are determined to cling to their beliefs, for whatever reason, are the type of moronic narrow-minded, inbred, bigoted assholes that certainly wouldn’t be swayed by pictures, nor are they reasonable people. Reasonable people, who imhVho are in the majority don’t need pictures.
My history books didn’t show any pictures of the holocaust either, but neither I, nor any of my classmates had any trouble at all absorbing the horror of what had happened.
The whole “people have to see gore and horror to behave in a ‘correct’ way regarding the tragedy” idea is severely misguided.
Why are those of you who want all of these pictures published so insistant that graphic photos are the ONLY thing that will, in your words “heighten awareness and outrage”? From the sounds of things around the country, reproduced in miniature here in the Dope, people are QUITE outraged and aware. And I can’t see how photos of the dead will somehow make people even more angry regarding those in authority’s slow and inadequate response.
We KNOW, we KNOW, and a lot of us are doing something about it. WithOUT having to have pictures shoved into our faces. Again, those who are unreasonable and obtuse aren’t going to have their minds changed by pictures. Likely instead, they would consider it entertainment. Or, judging from some of the other threads I’ve seen here, Judgment.
What knowledge is being withheld from the public by not publishing pictures of the dead being recovered?
???
This makes no sense, are the dead all black? Are only the black victims being disallowed regarding being photographed? Not to mention as someone else has already explained, at that point in the decay and decomposition, race is very hard to determine. I’m honestly confused here, how is this about race?
Not a “correct” way (as if there is a correct and incorrect way), but pictures are effective. Pictures affect people. People take in information in different ways – not just perceive information, but acquire it (to slip into teacherspeak).
I’m not disagreeing that pictures are a valid part of imparting information. What I’m disagreeing with here is the seeming idea that people will only respond with the right amount of outrage and action if the horrific, gory and graphic photos of the dead are used.
Let me say that again, “…the dead are used”. This idea that it’s an either/or situation (either we show pictures of bloated rotting corpses or people won’t care about us) is just really sticking in my craw.
Sorry, I don’t buy it, people can and do care and take action without such graphic and horrific blackmail. I agree with the poster who spoke about how rather than feel managed by the lack of photos, he felt exploited by the obvious sensationalism wrought by news shows USING the dead to provoke.
How about just keeping them off the front page, so no one has their dead baby staring at them from the newstand? Publish them on the inside, so people who feel the need to see them can look, and those who don’t aren’t constantly confronted by them.
Some people can. Other people need stronger stimuli. They’re not obtuse or callous, they just absorb information in different ways. “10,000 dead” is pretty abstract to a lot of people, but a picture of a hundred corpses is much more immediate. For people who are more visually oriented than yourself, it might provoke them to more action, for a more sustained period, than simple statistics. That’s not to say that there aren’t a lot of people who are sufficiently motivated to change things without these pictures. The question is, are there enough? I think so, but why take chances? Get as many people outraged and active about this as possible, to more perfectly insure it never happens again.
True. Good point. I do agree that they have their place. Again, I guess my beef is not so much with the need to have this properly documented photographically, but with the idea that without it, people just won’t care.
Well, regarding that, all of the outrage in the world, fueled or not fueled by pictures of dead bodies won’t prevent a Cat5 Hurricane.
And as a previous poster stated, quite reasonably. I have to agree that while yes, quite obviously there was incompetence in the response to this disaster, picture perfect response wouldn’t have made it less of a tragedy to those affected, even though there may, or may not be fewer of them.
I’m sorry, but mere words do not convey the full impact of Bush’s (and other state and local government for that matter) incompetance and the deadly results thereof. We NEED pictures of dead bloated corpses so this matter won’t be brushed under the rug a month from now.
You know the saying “A picture says 10,000 words”?
Reports of prisoner abuse in Iraq were circulating before the pictures broke out, but it was only after the pictures were released that the public seemed to care. I think you put too much faith in the intellect of “the majority” in a country where Talking Points and soundbites win the day over reasoned discourse.
Uh, actually, yeah, it would have made it much less of a tragedy to those affected. “A hurricane destroyed my home,” is pretty bad. “A hurricane destroyed my home, and I had to live for five days in my own filth, with no food or water, in an lawless, overcrowded shanty town inside a football stadium, where I was raped twice,” is a whole lot fucking worse, and much more easily avoided than a Cat 5 hurricane, provided the people in charge aren’t colossal fucking morons.
You know what, I don’t need to see pictures, but it might be a good idea to take some for the people who do.
I was watching the news the other night and the reporter was standing in a an affluent area, where you could see national guards patroling properties in the background. The distrubing thing was what the reporter said. Paraphrasing, he said that 3 blocks over was a poor black neighbourhood with tens of bodies floating in the streets and not a soldier or guardsman to be seen.
I believe him, but in the aftermath, someone else might be looking for documented proof of things like that when the lawsuits start.
Believe me, the civil and criminal courts are going to be clogged by people looking to pin the blame and get some sort of justice.
The pics need to be taken and to be shown. I agree with off the front page–this event hardly needs sensationalizing.
IMO, Americans have terribly short memories–and no pics means that there is no visible, immediately available and able to be absorbed images to remind people of various officials incompetence.
It’s very simple. If you don’t want pictures of dead people on the front page of your newspaper, don’t vote for irresponsible fuck-ups.
This is exactly what a free press is FOR. There are people in power in this country who want us to forget about those dead bodies rotting in the Lousiana sun. They want us to forget that ACTIONS have CONSEQUENCES. They want to dodge accountability.
And I think that’s far more important that our modern hyper-sensitivity.
NOW this picture is a historical document. But THEN it was breaking news. It’s exactly the sort of slimy, muck-raking sensationalism that people are complaining about in this thread. A dead body, front-page, above the fold, in newspapers across the nation.
If the standards expoused in this thread had been followed in 1970 this picture would never have been taken. If taken, it would never have been published.
I don’t think the reason for FEMA’s request is necessarily because they’re looking to help cover up their inadequate response. I think the real reason is the that a large majority of the dead will be black and that the ugly reality of exigent corpse recovery is going to require stacking of bodies which will inevitably lead to claims of FEMA’s disrespecting the dead because they’re black. “They wouldn’t stack white folk like that.” So I can’t blame FEMA for wanting to cover up a truth which will likely be warped into a lie.
I can understand and respect the people who don’t want the photos published, because they will be awful, and some of the people taking the pictures may just be vultures looking for a quick buck. However, the only way to make this country understand what a disaster this was, what a huge bureaucratic fuck up this was, is to let the world see it all, in all its horror.
Just think how much worse the holocaust denial movement would be had the media spared our fragile sensibilities and never documented any of the deaths. Gosh, someone might actually know someone who died! Let’s just sweep this whole embarrassing little faux pas under the rug.
In the interest of fairness, how do you differentiate between the pictures of those that died from the storm winds, surge and flooding and those that died after the fact because of delays in aid efforts? How do you differentiate between those victims that refused to leave and those that had no opportunity? I’m just curious because, obviously, all the pictures will be used to incriminate those in positions of responsibility. I’m not taking sides in this issue or trying to protect anyone, I’d just like to see the accusations remain just.
