Jump to content

Just another reason the Statesman sucks


TXLNGHRN10

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

The dumb asses are running a story on their site, on the home page with a picture of a drowned 2 year old
Sensationalized media sucks

I realize it's a tragic story, it's a tragic situation, but you don't need to run 2 different pics of dead bodies Story

Yeah, if you don’t want to see that, maybe advocate for your representative government to change the laws that cause those types of scenarios. It’s heartbreaking, but it’s newsworthy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, the statesman may suck, but every major global media outlet is running that picture. it popped up on cnn, provoking me to change the channel last night because i'd rather my sons not see stuff like that. 

but it is poignant, and it is important for us to see and confront what's happening ON OUR BORDER. that's newsworthy. it's less than 250 miles away, for chrissakes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

The dumb asses are running a story on their site, on the home page with a picture of a drowned 2 year old
Sensationalized media sucks

I realize it's a tragic story, it's a tragic situation, but you don't need to run 2 different pics of dead bodies Story

Ok, I'll bite.

Why don't you "need" to run 2 different pics?

What's really got you up in arms? It sure isn't this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Ok, I'll bite.

Why don't you "need" to run 2 different pics?

What's really got you up in arms? It sure isn't this.

How many pictures of a dead toddler do you need to see? I don't think there is a need to show one, much less two. 
Are they going to show pictures of every child that dies tragically ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Recent history is replete with instances of dead or suffering children changing public perception.  Just a couple of instances:

The image itself has the power to change perceptions.  It is what is framing a debate today.  It is newsworthy.  And the Statesman would have done its readers a disservice had it opted not to publish it.

yep

time-100-influential-photos-kevin-carter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture from 'Nam that was posted along with images from the starving kids in Biafra were just a part of my childhood. I'm not calling anyone a snowflake but reality is a bitch and seeing reality SHOULD make you weep. It's part of being human. I guess it's fair to question the "why" but that is another discussion.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

The picture from 'Nam that was posted along with images from the starving kids in Biafra were just a part of my childhood. I'm not calling anyone a snowflake but reality is a bitch and seeing reality SHOULD make you weep. It's part of being human. I guess it's fair to question the "why" but that is another discussion.

Shit, just think of the dread Armybrat felt when he was seeing all of the photos that Matthew Brady and his crew were taking during the Civil War, thinking that one of those days, his grandson was going to show up in one of those photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

How many pictures of a dead toddler do you need to see? I don't think there is a need to show one, much less two. 
Are they going to show pictures of every child that dies tragically ?

Not every picture of a child who died tragically is germane to the leading political controversy of the day.  Nor does every such picture have the potential to significantly impact that controversy.

Is it your argument that a newspaper should not publish this photograph, knowing that it depicts the instant of death of numerous people (including children):

e46b1627c2d57affb42fa2d0855cc1d0--americ

Should western newspapers not have shown this photograph, relecting the Japanese atrocities in Nanking:

Rape-of-Nanking-Massacre-Baby-Header.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

How many pictures of a dead toddler do you need to see? I don't think there is a need to show one, much less two. 
Are they going to show pictures of every child that dies tragically ?

This was a Texas-related story, so yes, it's important.  It should make everybody uncomfortable, make us think, instead of drawing out the snowflakes.

I'm more disturbed by the fact that you still read the Statesman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

This was a Texas-related story, so yes, it's important.  It should make everybody uncomfortable, make us think, instead of drawing out the snowflakes.

I'm more disturbed by the fact that you still read the Statesman.

I never said it wasn't important. Just don't like to see pictures in the news of dead kids
Sorry I'm the only one who thinks this way. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they should be showing pictures of dead children in the news. 
 

14 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Can we just speak frankly for a minute, because we seem to be dancing around something important.

Is it that you think a photograph of a dead child should never be photographed, no matter how newsworthy?

Or is it instead that you don't want to see a photograph that lays bare the consequences of our country's abhorrent and inhumane treatment of refugees?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

cryingsooner.0.jpg

Solid counterpoint. Notice how his mother clings to a pack of Marlboro Lights and his misguided, toothless, meth cooking father wears cargo shorts. This unfortunately shows the celebration of another child’s societal atrocity aired on live television. I for one, will be candid. I celebrated this moment and I know that most of you cold hearted bastards did as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

I don't think they should be showing pictures of dead children in the news. 
 

 

From personal experience a lot of what turned Americans against the war in Vietnam, in addition to all of the good American soldiers that were dying there daily, was the news coverage - which included graphic images.

Leadership learned its lesson and in subsequent conflicts the medias access has been limited in combat areas. We didn't see the horror that was Iraq, not up the close and visceral images, like we saw prior. Not in mainstream media. We as a nation supported our troops for the most part but have little to no idea of what suffering was inflicted upon the civilians in that country.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Image result for emmett till

Was it sensationalism when Jet Magazine posted the bloated, beaten body of 13 year old Emmitt Till who was murdered because he SUPPOSEDLY whistled at a white woman? It wasn't the story of Emmitt Till that resulted in thousands of people to reevaluate their understanding of civil rights, segregation, the Jim Crow South, and racism. It was this picture. It was people having to reconcile their own treatment of blacks, their own prejudices, and their own politics. Difficult images result in change. You need to see that so you know the ramifications of current border policies.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

I didn't say I didn't "want the news", I can read the article just fine.  I stand by my opinion that it's sensationalized media and the pictures didn't need to be posted.
 

Your opinion is wrong.

The very fact it bothers you this much is exactly why you need to see it.

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TXLNGHRN10 said:

I didn't say I didn't "want the news", I can read the article just fine.  I stand by my opinion that it's sensationalized media and the pictures didn't need to be posted.
 

Perhaps you should focus your outrage on the governmental policies that led to the kid dying, rather than the newspaper that published a photo of the dead kid.

I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the photograph being "sensationalized."  That's a nonsense word that conveys no information other than your subjective judgment.  Photographs are important because of how we humans digest and internalize information.  The photograph conveys what's happening on the border in a way words never could.

And that's precisely why you object to it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Your opinion is wrong.

The very fact it bothers you this much is exactly why you need to see it.

this.

the visual representation of the actual atrocity/tragedy/whatever is powerful juju. 

did the nfl do anything to ray rice when someone wrote a story about ray rice hitting his wife?

no.

video comes out, and we are all faced with the visual, and it assaults our brain. same with the picture of the poor man and his child.

YOU NEED TO SEE IT.

otherwise, it's just words and that's easy to disassociate from "another sad happening on the border."

no, this is real for the people involved, and there are life or death stakes. that's important to see.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Perhaps you should focus your outrage on the governmental policies that led to the kid dying, rather than the newspaper that published a photo of the dead kid.

I fundamentally disagree with your characterization of the photograph being "sensationalized."  That's a nonsense word that conveys no information other than your subjective judgment.  Photographs are important because of how we humans digest and internalize information.  The photograph conveys what's happening on the border in a way words never could.

And that's precisely why you object to it.

The governments of El Salvador or Mexico? The deceased was born in one of them and had sanctuary in the other.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Statesman sucks for many reasons, but this isn't one of them.

And calling this "sensationalized media" is simply incorrect.  Uncomfortable photographs are fair game when they accurately contribute to an understanding of the story.  That's photojournalism.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

 

Oh, come on.  That would NEVER happen and you know it.  As bad as you think Trump is, there is simply no way he would ever ask permission to play through.

He'd never come that close to a water hazard. He'd just have his caddy place his ball on the green when his opponent wasn't looking. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m curious about the unwritten rules for the media in which pictures are shown. It seems that they do have a line that they typically don’t cross. Usually the face isn’t shown but the body with the scene to give context is. I also wonder how the internet has changed things as people have become desensitized to graphic images. Some of those images from 50 year ago were so powerful because people hasn’t seen stuff like that in print.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...