Dead babies

[gwendally]

There's a close-up color photo of three dead babies above the fold in my newspaper today

Comments

[gwendally]

If the point of this is to get the United States to intervene, a couple of things on that topic:

War is the greatest crime. All other crimes are contained within war. Children are murdered, women (and men) are raped, personal property is seized; promoting war is to promote bloodshed and horror. To intervene in a war that is contained is to spread it.

To intervene in a war - even if it were possible to reduce bloodshed instead of increase it - should be done with the clearest possible thinking, as unclouded by emotional reaction as is humanly possible.

Every human on earth is against killing innocent babies. There is no group that "just needed to see that" to be "made aware" so they can - d'oh - be against killing children suddenly.

+1

[zornhau]

Yes. Get annoyed when somebody puts around a Facebook meme about some tragedy or other as well. I already feel strongly about not - ya know - massacring civilians. Don't need to have the pics stuck in my head.

[kayjayuu]

While I'm ambivalent about the emotions of the subject, I find myself pondering more and more: why it's fine and okay for the media and the Outrage Machine to use Syrian babies killed by Syrians, but not other Middle Eastern babies killed by US drones.

I'm opposed to the de-humanization of de facto state-sanctioned killing, war, and law enforcement, as is happening more and more every day. I'm also only mildly surprised that there is a double standard from society at large. That -- my cynicism -- horrifies me, tbh.

On point, I agree, we don't need to get involved. We're already causing civilian deaths and shrugging our shoulders.

[barking_iguana]

Thank you.

As for showing both, one relevant difference is that the particular outlets dally has seen showing these pictures are unlikely to be seen by the families. I don't know that that makes it OK, but it is a real difference.

[girl_on_a_stick]

I see your point, but on the other hand when the majority of Americans couldn't find Syria on a map, let alone begin to understand or care about what is happening there I don't mind a bit of shock if it wakes a few up.

[girl_on_a_stick]

I should clarify that I'm not for US intervention as I know our involvement there is primarily political rather than humanitarian. But I am tired of how little world news we receive in our country, how watered down our reports are of conflict abroad, especially in areas where we are already involved or are considering becoming involved.
I've just finished re-reading a book by my favorite reporter, Kevin Sites, on the subject of conflict and journalism and it's got me doing a lot of thinking about the subject. I should probably hash it out in a post of my own once I get a free moment and reliable wi-fi.

[crazyburro]

In the internet age it's trivial to find international news. Virtually every paper/magazine in every country has its own internet presence. Even if you stick to print media, there's lots available. Economist, Foreign Affairs, a bunch of other news magazines still have print editions far superior to those of the US mass market, and are also available here.

[ssterikoff]

+1

[ford_prefect42]

It is outrageous, but on the list of outrages from the press in recent years, it doesn't rise even close to the political frauds, cover-ups, misrepresentations, and other journalistic abuses.

This is simply beating the war drums for attacking Syria in support of Al Qaeda. Nothing new in Obama's America.