Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dilemma, publicizing these events certainly leads to their being repeated and yet suppressing the press is dangerous. I wish the media would self-police themselves and report the incident but not put the perpetrators in the spotlight which to a sick individual is a form of glamorization.
How to control the press without restricting the press?
There is also the question as to whether or not it fosters copycats.
But, because of what you accurately say is a dilemma, it's a tough question since you know that the worse the better, when it comes to the news.
You can almost sense the media personalities salivate over any indication of a sensational story.
I did read your OP, that is the reason I asked. I reject your anaolgy.
Emmit Till was murdered in 1955, do you believe black americans had never seen other blacks murdered by racists prior to his death. What single law did Emmit's death photos change? His mother wanted to show the world the brutality of his murder, but I doubt she did so in the hopes of changing laws.
Which is why I believe you want these children's bodies photos released...since you were never clear of the reason other than citing "Emmit Till".
I understand what the OP is saying, and I think you're all missing the point. The photos of Emmett Till shocked white people. People who knew about conditions in the South, but conveniently managed to forget about it on a day to day basis, allowing it to continue.
The Emmett Till photo was one of several moments that really made the nation ready for the Civil Rights movement. The nation's apathetic acceptance of racism and Jim Crow was never the same after that photo was published.
In the same way, nightly news coverage of the worst elements of the Vietnam War changed the nation, too. Suddenly war was no longer some distant, vague concept, but death brought directly into our living rooms.
Historians have written about these things at length, if you're interested enough to follow up on them.
That said ... nowadays we see graphic things every day, and we're all completely inured to it. Such images as the OP suggests would do nothing to shock us out of our apathy, and, as some have said, would further serve to give perpetrators the attention they crave.
Overall, I'm going to vote no to the question. The idea of 20 children ripped to shreds by gunfire hasn't changed us, so it's clear that nothing will. We'll go on accepting mass shootings as collateral damage, as the price of "freedom."
Nobody accepts mass shootings! All of the perpetrators of mass shootings in this country broke numerous laws! As has been said millions of times, restricting the rights of law abiding Americans will have NO affect on criminals bent on committing crime! One would have to be incredibly dense, naive and just downright stupid to think otherwise!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen
We'll go on accepting mass shootings as collateral damage, as the price of "freedom."
I understand what the OP is saying, and I think you're all missing the point. The photos of Emmett Till shocked white people. People who knew about conditions in the South, but conveniently managed to forget about it on a day to day basis, allowing it to continue.
The Emmett Till photo was one of several moments that really made the nation ready for the Civil Rights movement. The nation's apathetic acceptance of racism and Jim Crow was never the same after that photo was published.
In the same way, nightly news coverage of the worst elements of the Vietnam War changed the nation, too. Suddenly war was no longer some distant, vague concept, but death brought directly into our living rooms.
Historians have written about these things at length, if you're interested enough to follow up on them.
That said ... nowadays we see graphic things every day, and we're all completely inured to it. Such images as the OP suggests would do nothing to shock us out of our apathy, and, as some have said, would further serve to give perpetrators the attention they crave.
Overall, I'm going to vote no to the question. The idea of 20 children ripped to shreds by gunfire hasn't changed us, so it's clear that nothing will. We'll go on accepting mass shootings as collateral damage, as the price of "freedom."
Emitt till's death photos were a moment in the civil rights movement. The American opinion changed 10 years later with national televison coverage of the marches and protests that were met with violence.
Civil rights comming into the living rooms of america via the nightly news...not Emitt Till's death photos.
If the OP wants 'change" then he should be calling for the news media to have access to massacare sites. To be able to show uncensored and raw...destroyed bodies.
Let's not **** around with photos. Let's show it live and raw...OP.
I did read your OP, that is the reason I asked. I reject your anaolgy.
Emmit Till was murdered in 1955, do you believe black americans had never seen other blacks murdered by racists prior to his death. What single law did Emmit's death photos change? His mother wanted to show the world the brutality of his murder, but I doubt she did so in the hopes of changing laws.
Which is why I believe you want these children's bodies photos released...since you were never clear of the reason other than citing "Emmit Till".
weak reasoning on your part!
Till's mother's insistance that his casket be open did showcase the brutality of his death and the inherent brutality of racism, particularly in those days. she didn't have to convince other Blacks, it was the silent or quiet majority of white Americans that needed to be awakened to the truth, which certainly added to the civil rights movement...
i see a correlation to gun violence, particularly of mass shootings, in our nation; people need to see what are the consequences of our weak gun regulations! 20 six year olds, literally slaughtered, and nothing changes
its shameful! perhaps if we saw the actual aftermath, as heinous and sad as its must be, we would actually do something meaningful and beneficial to thwart gun violence...
I understand what the OP is saying, and I think you're all missing the point. The photos of Emmett Till shocked white people. People who knew about conditions in the South, but conveniently managed to forget about it on a day to day basis, allowing it to continue.
The Emmett Till photo was one of several moments that really made the nation ready for the Civil Rights movement. The nation's apathetic acceptance of racism and Jim Crow was never the same after that photo was published.
In the same way, nightly news coverage of the worst elements of the Vietnam War changed the nation, too. Suddenly war was no longer some distant, vague concept, but death brought directly into our living rooms.
Historians have written about these things at length, if you're interested enough to follow up on them.
That said ... nowadays we see graphic things every day, and we're all completely inured to it. Such images as the OP suggests would do nothing to shock us out of our apathy, and, as some have said, would further serve to give perpetrators the attention they crave.
Overall, I'm going to vote no to the question. The idea of 20 children ripped to shreds by gunfire hasn't changed us, so it's clear that nothing will. We'll go on accepting mass shootings as collateral damage, as the price of "freedom."
exactly; someone gets it...
the 'idea' may not have been enough, but the actual pictures may have been!
I think what the op is trying to say is that we need gun control. And if the public was allowed to see the carnage of it all, we just might agree. Then the nra would be having a fit.
Why do we need to "see" anything? What does it matter whether or not if a shooting victim has a small little hole in their body or if they were blown apart? They are dead either way, right? Dead is dead, right? The ONLY reason people like the OP would like photos released, is so they can cause people to abandon all fact and all logic, and play off the emotions of people in order to push their agenda.
If you have to get people all emotional to pass your agenda, well, thats pretty pathetic.
As far as the question itself? I don't care either way. If the families of victims want to release photos, thats fine. It's a free country...... It wouldn't change my views on the subject at all. Why? Because the facts and the statistics are the same either way. No matter how much blood or gore, the facts don't change, the statistics don't change either.
The problem is, NONE of you who push for gun control know the facts, or you choose to ignore them because they don't fit your agenda. IF you did know the facts, you's know that mass shootings make up about 1% of violence in this country. Big problem? Not really. IF you knew the facts, you'd also know that what the media has falsey labeled as "assault weapons" are used in less than 300 of the 9,000+ gun deaths that occur each year. Big problem? Not hardly, and yet, those are the very weapons all you phonies claim we need to do away with.
Phony people with faux outrage, that about sums up the gun control crowd both on these forums and in this country, which is also why the gun control movement as a whole has never gained any traction except for a few wackjob liberal hotbeds like CA and NY.
I understand what the OP is saying, and I think you're all missing the point. The photos of Emmett Till shocked white people. People who knew about conditions in the South, but conveniently managed to forget about it on a day to day basis, allowing it to continue.
The Emmett Till photo was one of several moments that really made the nation ready for the Civil Rights movement. The nation's apathetic acceptance of racism and Jim Crow was never the same after that photo was published.
In the same way, nightly news coverage of the worst elements of the Vietnam War changed the nation, too. Suddenly war was no longer some distant, vague concept, but death brought directly into our living rooms.
Historians have written about these things at length, if you're interested enough to follow up on them.
That said ... nowadays we see graphic things every day, and we're all completely inured to it. Such images as the OP suggests would do nothing to shock us out of our apathy, and, as some have said, would further serve to give perpetrators the attention they crave.
Overall, I'm going to vote no to the question. The idea of 20 children ripped to shreds by gunfire hasn't changed us, so it's clear that nothing will. We'll go on accepting mass shootings as collateral damage, as the price of "freedom."
Mass shootings make up about 1% of violent crime in this country, it's really not that big of a deal.
Seriously, why do you phonies waste much time on something that is such a small part of the problem? You people act as if it is the biggest problem we have right now. It's....one......percent....of...all...crime!
The very fact that you get all teary eyed and emotional over twenty kids being gunned down in a CT. schoolhouse with a rifle that is used in only a fraction of all gun crime in this country, while essentially ignoring the fact that a teen gets gunned down with a handgun on a city street corner everyday proves your all a bunch of fakes.
And to your last point, you are correct. Freedom isn't free, it comes at a price. Nor is it safe.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 10-27-2013 at 11:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]
