It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Graphic Images in the media

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I would like to open a discussion about the graphic images displayed in the media.
Not just the casualties of war as that could be a topic in and of itself, but the displays of accidents on the evening news, and newspapers, sometimes just as they are happening, with no regard for friends or family members who might see that.
It became quite a heated debate in my area with the local newspaper who frequently puts pictures of accident scenes on the front page and deems it breaking news.
I find it disrespectful.
Do we really need to see these?
I'm not advocating that we need to close our eyes and make all the bad in the world go away. I'm not that unrealistic.
Yes, Iam aware that the news is spun for our entertaining pleasure (sarcasm).
We need to stop being conditioned to accept more gore and misery as "NORMAL".
Thoughts?




posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
Sounds like the local news in Wichita. They allways have footage of recks or who got shot last night . Worthless info, nothing useful. No reporting on whats really important, thats why I come here. I quit watching TV back in Feb, don't miss it....

I really feel that a large part of the population are scared and don't want to know the truth and would rather watch News that entertains instead of informing.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AccessDenied

I'm not advocating that we need to close our eyes and make all the bad in the world go away. I'm not that unrealistic.


How does SEEING the aftermath of whatever tragedy happened increase one's knowledge of the world, let alone one's empathy? (You don't need to SEE a victim of a car crash to know that car crashes can be fatal and produce a lot of blood, right?)

It does not.

In fact, what it does is the opposite: based on my observations, it fosters a feeling of HELPLESSNESS - which leads to PASSIVITY.

People who are the most "hooked" on tabloids and graphic TV - and they call it "being informed", the poor saps - tend to do less of whatever is it in their power to help "here and now". They are the ones who are the farthest removed from the philosophy "I am only one, but I AM one".



Yes, Iam aware that the news is spun for our entertaining pleasure (sarcasm).
We need to stop being conditioned to accept more gore and misery as "NORMAL".
Thoughts?



Think: people who refuse to accept ugliness and gore as "normal" tend to be happier, more interested in DOING things, they need less medication (there's good reason why this word is emphasised
) - and, of course, they are unlikely to buy tabloids (which are, as you probably know, the best selling type of newspaper all over the world).

Is it a conspiracy?
I don't know; I don't usually think in those terms.

But who cares?
The inertia that drives this particular dynamics is nefarious all the same.

I commend you for standing up against it - and I hope you don't stop.







[edit on 15-9-2009 by Vanitas]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


AD, I could not agree more with you.

The problem stems from the reptilian brain stimulus that is required for the news media (read sensationalistic opportunists) to keep some people's attention.

Remember, sex sells, and so does violence, as well as the "tragedy story", so while you and I and others do not like it, they are not necessarily playing it for us to see.

It only conditions those of low IQ and those lacking any real intelligence.

When I referenced the "reptilian brain" I mean the part of our cerebral cortex that is stimulated psychologically through sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

The neanderthal man or woman, the low brow part of us that has blood lust, a need for seducing to act, and to not think.

I have only paid attention to the media to see if anything really important has happened, but most times I tend to tune them out because like you stated, they only focus on the hot topics, the deaths, births, or sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

I can find my "news" right on the street with people I speak with every single day, here, or elsewhere because the media as we all know is the money gathering monkey while the Government is the money coveting organ grinder.



We ALL know the Government and Media don't want to talk about the 911 pound gorilla in the room, now don't we?

Well, they will talk about the 911 pound gorilla, but only his lack of social graces and bananas, and not the money he is collecting for the coveting hoard of organ grinders behind the scenes.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

One significant factor in determining how the media use images of death is the proximity of the event. "If something is geographically distant and psychologically distant as well - [with] no close emotional ties to the area - then the home media is a lot more likely to use graphic images



Coverage of the Madrid bombing last year bears that out. The US media were much more explicit in depictions than the Europeans were, she says. "British papers and TV, for example, were just about as reticent as the American media had been in 9/11," she says. "In other words, they really didn't show body parts."

In a reverse case, coverage of the twin towers' collapse often got more stark play outside the US. Most Americans identified with the people in those towers, explains Jim Naureckas, editor of Extra, a journal of media criticism put out by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). They didn't need to see more than discreet images of death to understand the carnage, he says. "If you were in another country where people who live in New York might be an abstraction, then seeing the actual person jumping out the window might have brought you closer to the event."


From an article posted in the Christian Science Monitor, January 2005

www.csmonitor.com...

While I don't push the source, the article is very well written, and conveys the meaning I'm aiming at quite well.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   


People who are the most "hooked" on tabloids and graphic TV - and they call it "being informed", the poor saps -


And they are right! That's what "in-formed" means: they are given shape.
They are being shaped.





[edit on 15-9-2009 by Ethereal Gargoyle]



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


I read this post this morning and was already to agree with everything you said, but something was nagging at me, and I find that I can only partially agree after some thought.

There should be no graphic images of accidents and the like in media, as that serves no purpose other than shock and horror, or as in the case of family and friends, pain. In this I am in total agreement with you.

But as you mentioned war, I must speak up.

A Government decides whether or not to go to war.
A Government is supposed to be the voice of the people of that country.(for most countries)

Therefore it is really the people of that country that are sending their son's and daughter's to fight and put their life on the line.

Many times you read about a skirmish in which there are 2 dead and 10 injured. What most don't realize is that out of the 10 injured, some of those brave soldiers are coming home without legs, arms,and the like. Out of those 10, there is a likelihood that a few of them would have rather died than being turned into someone that they cannot live with.

With that in mind, I believe that if country (it's people) sends it's soldiers to war, then they should show the graphic and brutal aspects of that war. Maybe then our brave children would not have to fight any wars where even they don't know what they are fighting for.

To show the horror night after night on the news, the people of that country would question whether or not the war is justified, and perhaps show their displeasure. Vietnam anyone??

It is indeed a slippery slope the question you pose, and the more blood and gore that is shown on TV that is accepted, the more you will see.

But as far as accidents and the like, no pictures need be shown. To me that serves no purpose, other than sensationalize the story. Each station trying to outdo the other.

And that's all I have to say about that.



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by AccessDenied
 


Regretfully, we are now a society that is numb to anything that is not 'sensational'. It's the overload of Mass Media... Sorry to say...



posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
A lot like the use of many illicit substances, I suppose. (not that I would know) Increasing doses are require to satisfy our need.

On CNN yesterday, they played (about a million times) the video of the terrorists blowing themselves up with the roadside bomb. It really was fairly appalling, but they wise cracked about it. It seemed pretty insensitive to even show it in the first place, but since these people don't share our ideologies and are fighting our occupation of another nation, you are encouraged to cheer at their demise.

Nothing new though. The thought of lions and Christians comes to mind.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by tribewilder
 


Tribe, i agree..hence why the topic of graphic war images could be debated alone.
I often wonder what goes through the minds of young people when they enlist, knowing full well what could happen to them.
Why does pride for country take over pride of life?
Your country cares not for your individuality..only you as a collective part of their war effort.
Sad to say.




top topics



 
6

log in

join