1) Does a picture do more damage then a bomb?
2) should photographers be on the battlefield? (or some kind person or device that records events on the battlefield?)
3) Should there be pictures of dying/ dead people? And does the place or person really matter? (this includes if the people were enemies, "friendlies", or if it was shot in America or Africa).
What I got from this article is simply censorship. How, and, whom and where does not matter; just do people have a right to censor photos of people dying.Its the message being sent to our enemies/ show the people we are strong (from the military) and how people feel about what they see in the picture (whether it makes them sad or sick, or maybe they see someone they knew and they want it taken down). If you hadn't guessed it i'm doing the third question, I just feel that this was the biggest issue of the three questions. Regardless of what we want or want people to see, people will see it. Our world is changing very fast and technology will make most censorship impossible. I'm not trying to say that censorship is wrong or right but should the pictures be taken in the first place and why the whom/where is important. People are dying all the time, it should not matter if the person is in Africa or America or anyplace else, death can happen anywhere anytime. Should there be records of the dead from battles? Sure, records are good for a lot of reasons just don't abuse them. Basically if people take pictures of dead or dying people I just hope there is a reason for it, and they do not exploit the dead for their own ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment