Liberals have no shame.Follow

Is that really common decency?

Not reporting on a war, especially censoring it for public sensibility causes some pretty certain harm. It's decency, but decency that you need to go out of your way to effect, at a cost: extra decency, idealistic decency, impractical decency. I'm not sure that it's honest to call something like that "common."

I am making way too many typos recently

Edited, Sep 6th 2009 2:22pm by Pensive

No, it's standard operating procedure. Should every picture that a newspaper decides to publish need permission first? If so, newspapers across the country would be lacking in art to publish every day.

It's ludicrous to assume that a paper, who's job is to distribute the news, would not publish a very poignant and important piece of art because two people ask them not to. The foremost important thing to a journalist is to make sure that news is delivered, not to make people happy. It's an unforgiving job, a thankless job, and a job that is judged very harshly, but it has to be done.

I'm with the fat guiy on this one. This story easily could have been written using a photo of the soldier while he was alive and healthy and then use another photo of the war torn area. I'd have no problem that the photo was used if the parents hadn't specifically requested, on multiple occassions no less, that the photo not be used. The story easily could have been told without that photo, but the journalist put his specific way of writing this story above the simple request of grieving parents.

I just don't see the point in such a vehement objection to it, now punctuated with exclamation points and laughing smileys. You're obviously either offended or looking for something between the lines that isn't there and using a childish form of rejection to illustrate your disappointment.

Or you're just behaving as per the status quo and being retardedly thick headed. You chose a poor word to use as a description of motives, give it a rest.

Must be doing that then, because it's always one of us.

It's funny that you would use something one of the Idiot Trifecta said as support of a claim.

I'm not saying you're picking sides, I'm saying it's hysterical that you think ThiefX is some litmus test of discussion.

Said the guy from the Warmongering nation to the guy about the peace keeping nation.

Unless you've got something tangible to present that shows photos such as that are a necessity, I'm going to assume you're just basing this on your own opinion, in which case I'll have to politely disagree.


Are you saying the ends justify the means?

Photos aren't, but they are one means of going about doing some necessary function. The function is to present a real and non-sanitized version of states of affairs. It's just contained in the concept of a war (or at least in a more historical understanding of war, without the idea of a just war) that people die in brutal fashion; if we don't report on that, then we are misrepresenting what is going on.

You can accurately represent in lots of ways, many sans photos, but if you do have a photo like this, it's hard to represent falsely.



It's easier to monger war when you don't have a vicious and clear idea in your head that it hurts people. That doesn't mean you can't monger it regardless, nor does it mean that the absence of the clear idea that you will necessarily go to war, but it's a way of approaching the subject honestly.

***



No. I am rejecting the notion that the means are different in the first place.

Edited, Sep 6th 2009 3:44pm by Pensive

No, again: grisly photos are sufficient to fulfill a necessary function, and the function is necessary for being honest. If you could do it another way, then that's probably preferable. In that light...



Well I don't know. I don't think that a picture of the dude in a some proper military regalia in front of a blue wall would work though, to convey an accurate message. It's not a matter of doing a little more work; it's a matter of devising some way that actually does convey the same point, going beyond just paying lip service to the violence that happens when you put guns and angry people together. How would you do it?


Was it that the fact that in your nation, where you have never seen gore in the paper avoids war whereas my nation, where I can see gore in the paper goes to war, undermines my intuition that the amount of gore in the paper is inversely proportional to the drive to go to war? Because if it was I thought it was a good one, but I did address that.

Edited, Sep 6th 2009 4:14pm by Pensive

The same way any half decent lawyer would get a jury to side with their client, by making them, the victim, whatever, someone they can relate to, and a pitcure of a dying soldier isn't someone they all clearly relate to. A brother, son, boyfriend is though, and that's something you get with a separate picture.

Well, surprise surprise. Something you said, flew over my head. Sometimes, your thought process and resulting wordings blow right by me.

I don't think I can continue this discussion, as I really don't care enough to bother with it anymore. I think the respectful thing would have been to omit the photo and I'm going to leave it at that.


Edit= quote tags > me

Edited, Sep 6th 2009 5:24pm by Uglysasquatch