**viewer discretion advised** THESE IMAGES ARE NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART OR STOMACH. http://crisispictures.org
Maybe this site has already been posted here; if so please let me know, I'll delete the thread.
I took a media class last semester and a professor directed us to this site, saying it showed everything our mainstream media wouldn't. The rest of the world sees stuff like this -- on al-Jazeera, for example -- but we don't. (The BBC will show things more graphic than CNN, but not to this extent.) The moderators of this site are very clearly against the war, and that affects how the images are presented (and certainly which ones are and are not). I don't always disagree with the presenter's attitude, but I find value in the images themselves.
Do you think presentation of such things damages our country or the war effort? Is he right to present them the way he does? Why doesn't the mainstream media present any of this to us? The only reason we can see these at all is because of the internet; otherwise they'd pass entirely underneath our radar. If you favor the war, does realizing this is what everyone else sees help you understand why there is so much opposition?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
(first let me say I have NOT looked at your link, Kasie, because I don't think I should do that while here at work)
ANyway -- I'm assuming they are gruesome photos of war. Yes, War is gruesome.
However, we also know there are a lot of areas of good things happening over there, and we have also seen photos of good things (soliders helping children, etc).
As in all in life, there is good and bad. But over there and over here. I can probably round up some photos of stuff here on home soil that would make you hide your eyes.
Unfortunately, I can't answer to the persentation since I did not view the site. However, any kind of unbalanced propoganda (showing only bad with no good) will, yes, have a negative impact on the people who see it.
Farmgirl
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
I feel like we *do* see a lot of positive pictures in the mainstream press, and we don't see any of this. Does looking at two sources balance it out?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I do think it's important that we see both sides of what is going on. However, photos alone aren't going to be enough. For example, the "Family killed at checkpoint" series just shows some soldiers, some children and adults, some blood, and a damaged car. Who died, and why? Who killed them?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think the photos should be shown, but agree with Farmgirl that the positive facets of the war should be shown, as well, and agree with Shigosei that context is important, too.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
Why do they only show pictures of dead Palestinians? I don't see any picture of dead Israelis. [sarcasm] I didn't realize that it was only the Palestinians who had a death toll. [/sarcasm]
[ February 05, 2005, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: aretee ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Honestly, I think some of these pictures are doctored and/or placed in an improper context. For one, I don't think that the "taxi" sign from the top of a Taxi would land in such a way that it is possible to discern without looking carefuly. Second, I doubt that Iraqis have taxi's that actually say, "Taxi" on them. Third, the picture of a man who has "Fallen down" while being arrested looks more like he's being helped up from the ground. Finally, this comment...
quote:If our cause is just, we should not be afraid to witness its cost.
Is both judgemental and highly biased. I am not in any way afraid to see what this war does. But I also don't think these guys are actually showing pictures of that.
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
And! Where are the pictures of the mass graves of the people who were killed by Saddam Hussein? What about the torture chambers used by his lackies?
I'm havining a difficult time with this website because it's not showing the before pictures. The death toll is much lower now than before the regime was toppled. They are skewing information and telling half truths with emotional and graphic information. These are probably the same people claiming this adminstration is being deceitful in its reasons for and tactics in this war. Yet, they have no problem diseminating these kinds of half truths. What makes these people any better?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Ya know, the closer I look at some of these pictures, the more it seems like they've been faked. Sorry if I am getting to too detailed with this, but it looks as if the "dead body" shown in one picture was dragged to its position, not blown there by an explosion as the subtitle claims. Also, there seems to be a severe discoloration to the blood in this same picture. It honestly looks like someone dragged a dead pig into a perfect shot and took some pictures. The fact that the "body" isn't decernable as a human being in any way makes me more suspicious.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Boris, I doubt people would go to great lengths to fake a picture (pig blood, etc.) That body was still a person killed by a car bomb, whether it was moved to its photographed location or not. If anything, the caption isn't perfect. (I didn't see the picture you're talking about.)
With the level of violence occuring in Iraq, I don't think people would need to fake pictures to find a body, as sad as that is.
It appears that the large majority of these pictures are credited to established news organizations (AFP, etc.)