posted on April 9, 2003 01:08:22 PM new
::In the context of what we were discussing, tv's coverage of the war, you originally said that "US TV has always stayed away from images judged as very disturbing..."
And I refuted that. TV has not always stayed away from images judged disturbing. In the matter of accidents, homicides, perhaps. In the matter of war coverage, absolutely not. ::
Yes, I did make that statement, perhaps I should have spelled out exactly what I meant more exactly . When I used the word "always" I did not mean since the beginning of time. I meant across the board in areas of news coverage from basic human tragedy to the results of war to the results of acts of god. Images of dead are not shown on TV no matter how they died. If I applied your interpretation of that policy to the car industry I could also deduce that they were trying to hide the realties of the danger of auto accidents. As for image of corpses resulting from war in the past 30 years, I don't recall seeing them on American TV.
As for my changing my arguement on the image displayed in the original photo, I'm not sure how that is possible since I have never actually expressed an opinion on my read of the photo.
For the record: I thought it was probably a stock photo. I never assumed it was an Iraqi child. I thought it was a great image and wished I had taken it as it is evokes strong emotions on either side of the fence to see a muslim child with an American flag. It's an image that makes people think and that is a powerful thing.
If you notice, on the occasions that I post photos, I also post the caption to explain the context of them.
posted on April 9, 2003 02:01:56 PM new
"As for my changing my arguement on the image displayed in the original photo, I'm not sure how that is possible since I have never actually expressed an opinion on my read of the photo."
... First you argued against my assertion that it was staged. Then you brought in a totally new issue and posited that since the photo wasn't captioned it would be impossible to determine the message it was meant to present. I disagreed. Those were your two separate arguments, on issues unrelated to each other, save that they were both about the same photograph.
"When I used the word "always" I did not mean since the beginning of time."
You said that our war coverage had always been like it is now... Is "always" now open to interpretation too? It seems pretty straightforward to me, "always" means always.
You can't remember seeing anything different, and that's why you think it hasn't changed. I remember, and that's why I know it has.
You do switch around nimbly though, that's for sure.
posted on April 9, 2003 02:31:00 PM new
... First you argued against my assertion that it was staged. ::
I never argued against your assertion that is it was staged. Please show the quoe where I did that. I did ask you why you were so convinced that every photo that one could attached a positive feeling to is a fake but I never asserted an opinion one way or another on the photos - I pointed out the dichotemy of your opinion regarding genuine vs staged and doctored photos.
As for you assuming that I am changing statements perhaps I am just not being quite literal enought in my xplaination to avoid your desire to bend them to your desire. I assumed that I was able to have an exchange of ideas with you, as opposed to you trying to change my ideas.
Again - if you can show where I argued that the photo was not altered and was genuine, my hats off to you because I have never said that. I never made that leap.
[ edited by neonmania on Apr 9, 2003 02:32 PM ]
posted on April 9, 2003 02:41:48 PM new
"I never argued against your assertion that is it was staged. Please show the quoe where I did that."
Here it is:
"So all of the photos and film of happy Iraqi citizens rejoicing in the the promise of a life without fear of Saddams whims are from Olin Mills Iraq, and a hollywood soundstage? Let me guess, they are using the same desert location that used to create the moon landing footage right?"
posted on April 9, 2003 04:24:22 PM new
Oh crimeny! Thats right! You are the one that has no comprehension of sarcasm! That was the same thing that I've been asking thru this thread... why you are so insistent that all images that could be viewed as positive are staged or fake whereas all negative images are real. I've asked you the same question phrased about 5 different ways hoping you can explain why photographers and news services that are willing take and display negative images would bother faking positives ones? The "Olin Mills Iraq " and the moon landing shoot location quips should have tipped you off to the sarcasm.
And once again - you are trying to reroute my statment/question to fit your purpose. I was speaking to your assertations that the media is staging and mocking up images and that every positive image is a fake.
BTW - you are the one that made the assumption that the photo is of an Iraqi child in Iraq. Personally, I do think its a stock photo. Most of the outdoor town shots I've seen from Iraq in the past two weeks not are as crisp and bright as that photo is. Most of the ones I have seen have a slight haze or brownish tint from the smoke and sandstorms.
posted on April 9, 2003 06:11:15 PM new
When I read the frantic, desperate posts by some of those still opposed to the U.S. government's liberation of the Iraqi people, I have to laugh.
If your life is spent in some paranoid fantasy world where doubting your own government makes each day more bearable, I pity you.
Get a clue - the loss of life in the liberation process is lamentable but unavoidable. Furthermore, by intervening, the U.S. has SAVED lives. Probably millions, based on the past history of Saddam's regime.
THESE PEOPLE WANT US THERE, and despite their losses, they have clearly shown their support for America, their liberators. Why? Because THEY KNOW that without our help, they would NEVER have broken Saddam's stranglehold on them. The tortures, rapes, and murders would have continued ad infinitum; they had nothing powerful enough to confront and overcome that evil.
Enter the USA, THE FRICKIN' GOOD GUYS, FOR GOD's SAKE! (Why is it so hard for some Americans to figure that out?"
We came, we sacrificed, we liberated.
Someday, just as we did with post-World War II Germany and Japan, you'll be able to add "WE LEFT" to that string. And those two countries haven't fared badly, have they, all you squawking nay-sayers? They didn't become eternal monuments to this imperialist dogma you love to espouse, did they?
A surgeon removes a cancerous growth to save the victim. He doesn't like it when that requires an amputation, but he sleeps at night because the patient survived.
I'll bet some of the misguided minds who post on this site would recognize amputation as the only alternative if THEIR lives were on the line . . .
posted on April 9, 2003 06:25:20 PM new
I agree, ferncrestmotel
Just caught this on Drudge...what a great front page title!
"Be kind. Remember everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." - Harry Thompson
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
posted on April 9, 2003 06:27:57 PM newferncrestmotel, you state,
"A surgeon removes a cancerous growth to save the victim. He doesn't like it when that requires an amputation, but he sleeps at night because the patient survived."
neonmania states,
"No one welcomes bombs. It's the goal and end result of the effort that they welcome".
"No one welcomes a needle either, but they appreciate the end result of the treatment."
My advice is that both of you avoid using analogies.
posted on April 9, 2003 06:32:41 PM new
You're welcome, colin. I'm glad you liked it.
This whole thread started off with a simple sentiment which appeals to many of us - one of patriotism and hope for the people of Iraq.
While it's possible the image was a "stock photo" or "staged", it was a peaceful representation of what many of us see as the end result of America's intervention.
Anyone who has doubts that such scenes of thankful Iraqis are the real deal, turn on your TV. The people pulling down the statues and smacking the pictures of Saddam with their shoes aren't staging anything . . .
posted on April 9, 2003 06:35:35 PM new
::.. First you argued against my assertion that it was staged. Then you brought in a totally new issue and posited that since the photo wasn't captioned it would be impossible to determine the message it was meant to present. I disagreed. Those were your two separate arguments, on issues unrelated to each other, save that they were both about the same photograph. ::
I just wanted to clarify this one. This are not two seperate issues. You assumed the photo was of an Iraqi child taken in Iraq and therefore must be staged.
I brought up the possibility that it was neither and that you were basing the accusation on an incorrect assumption
posted on April 9, 2003 07:19:49 PM new
Thanks ferncrest!
Edited to add: I think anyone who can't see what is right in front of them is a "Mr. Magoo". One poster (don't remember who) called the Iraqui defense minister Mr. Magoo when he said we weren't in Baghdad.
For those tender babes too young to know, Mr. Magoo was a bumbling cartoon character from the 60's or 70's always mumbling under his breath. He was very nearsighted (even though he wore glasses), a bit snooty, and kept getting into all kinds of predicaments because of his poor eyesight.
Kinda fits, dontcha' think?
Patty
[ edited by meadowlark on Apr 9, 2003 07:39 PM ]
posted on April 9, 2003 08:30:23 PM new
"He can't find the words."
That's because words to describe you aren't usually used in polite society. But, then again, you wouldn't know much about polite society, would you, having been rarely invited there?
posted on April 10, 2003 07:28:16 AM new
hi helen,
I really get a kick out of how you squat on your little throne of supreme wisdom, dispensing moral edicts to the masses so we will know how to think.
As to your most recent attacks on me:
There is nothing disjointed about my posts.
You wish!
At least a few others seem to see the conceptual continuity in my words.
As to not being able to "find the words" - my "analogies" (which you advised me to avoid using) seem to have resounded with more people in this thread than your own comments.
Perhaps that is because analogies don't have to be dark, sinister weapons of deceit. Give me a break, helen. You haven't gotten the message about why the U.S. is liberating Iraq . . . I was just trying to make it simple enough for you to understand.
The fact that you still don't get it doesn't mean the analogies weren't apropos . . .
posted on April 10, 2003 08:37:34 AM new
There you go again, helen, diving into a comforting pool of psychobabble drivel to justify your position.
I don't need your blue-ribbon panel to tell me what my motivations are. It's precisely that sort of braintrust which would sit around analyzing why the poor repressed terrorists on their doorsteps are torching their homes, instead of saving their families from the flames.
posted on April 10, 2003 09:02:33 AM new
After watching the amazing news and images these last few days I thought I should visit out the old round table forum and see if Helen is still doing her tiresome table dance and strutting around like she has a clue.
posted on April 10, 2003 09:25:14 AM new
There is no way I would read the entire lesson, helen. Maybe you view such thoretical pap as worthy of your time, but I don't.
I think I'm starting to grok you, helen: you don't know what emotions really are, because you seem to need someone else's theses to provide structure for your feelings.
Here's a selection from the first paragraph of your beloved link:
"Empathy is always simulation, but may simultaneously include theory-application. By properly specifying the analogical processes of empathy and their constraints, we are able to show how the amount of theory needed to empathize is determined."
I'm glad I don't believe that empathy is simulation.
Does anyone else on this thread think so?
posted on April 10, 2003 01:01:14 PM new
"The distinguished psychologist Robin Dawes (1994) recently surveyed the empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of psychotherapy. He determined that therapy does help people,"
See helenjw, there's still time for you to get help. Even your own article says so. Maybe then you can see the need to put others down is just a manifestation of your lack of adequate upbringing & the inferiority you feel to most well educated people.
