It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perhaps we've become so anesthetized by movies and violent videos that graphics in real life are turning to over-sensationalization to stimulate audiences to even be able to respond emotionally to something without it.
In her 1977 collection of essays, On Photography, Sontag stated that: "In these last decades, 'concerned' photography has done at least as much to deaden conscience as to arouse it." Linfield naturally disagrees, but she is careful to place Sontag as merely the most frequently quoted voice in a chorus of similar misgivings. Throughout his life, Roland Barthes remained unconvinced by the idea that photography could be used to effect meaningful social change. John Berger, whose "hopes for revolutionary change" appear to inspire sympathy in this author, has expressed related views. Walter Benjamin believed that the simple reflection of a given visual reality could never adequately explain the reasons for its existence. Meanwhile, in 1931, Bertholt Brecht wrote in the German magazine Arbeiter-Illustrierte-Zeitung that "the tremendous development of photojournalism has contributed practically nothing to the revelation of the truth about the conditions of this world. On the contrary, photography, in the hands of the bourgeoisie, has become a terrible weapon against the truth."
As it happens, Linfield's main preoccupation is with the concept of truth, both as it relates to printed images and their evaluation. She fairly presents Benjamin and Brecht's ideas as products of their time, formulated in 1930s Germany - a point in history where the power of the photographic image was harnessed for anything but good. As for Sontag, Barthes and Berger, she concedes that their concerns are valid, but insists that healthy questioning should not stray into kneejerk cynicism; that the value of concerned reportage should not, as has frequently been the case, be trumped by rote accusations of voyeurism and abuse.
I've wondered what kind of society on the whole, we've become to even fathom such a thing.
............formulated in 1930s Germany - a point in history where the power of the photographic image was harnessed for anything but good
originally posted by: beezzer
I, personally, chose not to watch it.
It is not up to me to determine if others want to watch it or not.
Obama's sympathies lie with Muslims Theocrats (remember the now defeated Arab Spring), it is his administration that is pushing for massive destabilization of the ME, by pulling US Forces out to enable groups like ISIS to take control. Obama is doing everything in his power to finance extreme Islamists (like the half a billion dollars he wanted to give directly to ISIS a year ago) and topple Assad to further increase destabilization and increase the stranglehold of groups like ISIS.
and nasty old FOX news didn't make that up.
Actually the liberals were right during Vietnam, showing the snuff porn on every news cast did shorten the war and made people want to see the war end. They were horrified.
You are wasting more energy being mad at Fox for showing this than being mad at the bastards who stood there and lit the fire as they were filmed chanting about their God.
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Xtrozero
"I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."
- William Tecumseh Sherman
Oh please do tell. I would love to hear your opinion of 'good journalism'.
Back to FAUX outrage.
Lots of of media showed it.
Fox News has chosen to embed on its website the video of Islamic State burning a hostage to death, a move which makes them the only US media organisation to broadcast the video in full.
Several news organizations used still images from the video in their news stories both in print and online – including the Daily Mail, the New York Daily News and the New York Post, which also used an image of Kasasbeh on fire for the front page of their evening edition.
FAKE GD OUTRAGE.