PhotoDude.com

Thu. Feb 16, 2006

Mixed Media Messages

For the past couple of weeks, we’ve been hearing about how US newspapers (and other media) saw no need to publish or broadcast the cartoons that have caused such a ruckus around the world.

The basic explanation was that the images were inflammatory and would be offensive to Muslims. There was simply no need to republish them, because a written description of them should be more than adequate for people to judge their nature.

Thus, I’d estimate well over 90% of those in the West haven’t even laid eyes on the cartoons, and are basing their opinion of them on what they’ve been told by others. I wouldn’t be surprised if the numbers were the same in Syria, Iran, and other places Muslims have protested these cartoons.

There are people in hiding, burnt shells of buildings, and funerals as a result of cartoons that vast majority haven’t even seen! The media seems to think we don’t need to see the catalyst for such anger, mayhem, and destruction, we should just trust their description.

People also used to be told the world was flat, and if you go out into that ocean, you’ll fall off the edge. And everyone believed what they were told. Until somebody decided to go look at it themselves.

Over the past couple of days, there are newly released photos from Abu Ghraib in the media. Certainly one would think that these photos of Iraqis being nakedly abused would be inflammatory and offensive to Muslims. Which was the reason the vast majority of media outlets refused to publish the cartoons.

The photos, apparently, are different. They can be easily found all over the place.

I realize that the cartoons are an “abuse” by private individuals, and the Abu Ghraib photos represent an “abuse” via a government’s actions (or inactions, depending on your point of view). And it’s more socially important to point out a potential abuse by a government than by a dozen cartoonists.

But that’s not the argument we’ve been given. We’ve been told republishing the cartoons would be inflammatory, offensive, and was unnecessary to telling the story. Well, we’ve seen a bunch of photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib. The new images I’ve seen do not tell a new story, they are a continuation of the old one. Thus, potentially inflammatory, offensive, and unnecessary to telling the story.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. I guess it’s the fact it seems so blatant. I’m of the mindset that it all ought to be published, and let me be a Big Boy and see it for myself. If I can’t handle it, that’s my problem and responsibility, not that of some media organization.

But there’s another clear difference here. Newspapers that published the cartoons got death threats. Other newspapers decided that wouldn’t be any fun, so no republication. However, what are the repercussions for a newspaper for publishing some more photos from Abu Ghraib?

Zilch. Read into that whatever you want.

I understand this week Sports Illustrated has released their annual swimsuit issue. I know some people find the photos in that issue offensive, and I’m wondering if they are really necessary. Wouldn’t a written description be more than adequate to describe the supermodel and her teeny bikini?