April 25, 2005

  • I'll never understand it, not if I live to be a thousand years old . .
    . someone taking a photograph of a person in acute distress. 

    There are a pair of toddlers missing in Georgia, and one of the
    internet news sites has on its front page a picture of their father
    sitting on what are presumably his front steps, weeping over a photo of
    his missing children. 

    It's a heartbreaking situation, likely to end in tragedy.  How
    does it help, shooting a picture of a man coming to grips with this
    nightmare that's engulfed him?

    Show photos of the missing children, sure.  That might do some good.  But of their distraught father?

    It's using him and his grief to nab readers' attention, and it's disgraceful.

Comments (7)

  • In case you hadn't heard, the bodies of both children were found today.

  • Poor little lambs. And their poor parents.

  • A year ago, while I was attending the 2004 HSC conference in Virginia, the survivors of a house fire were brought to the hotel where I was staying. Two parents and one son. Three other children had died in the fire. I have a photograph of my own, imprinted permanently in my brain, of their devastated faces. I cannot imagine anyone being so cruel to them as to have shoved a camera in their faces at that moment.

  • Just after the tsuami the Denver Post ran a photo of a couple in their most extreme agony over the body of their dead 7 year old. I threw the paper away as that woman's anguished face is burned into my minds eye. I wish I understood why some find it necessary to post such pictures...it's horrible and goulish.

  • It doesn't excuse it, but good can come of such photos, though. Years and years ago, back during one of the great African famines (I think it was the one triggering the "We Are the World" concert), there was a picture in the newspaper of a woman kneeling on a dusty road somewhere in Africa, hand over her eyes, wailing in anguish. She and her husband and their five children had set out weeks before that for one of the refugee centers, in search for food.

    Her husband and children died of starvation along the way. She alone was left.

    Cheri, talk about a picture burned into my memory! I can still see it, and for many years that poor woman has, unbeknownst to her, helped keep me centered on what's important.

    She was married with five children. I was married with five children. Her family's dead. Mine is blessedly alive.

    Puts everything in perspective, y'know? I don't have any problems. Nuisances, occasionally, but no PROBLEMS.

  • Without making light of this conversation, I can't believe I read "Years and years ago" and "We are the World" in the same sentence.

    At best, "years and years ago" means the Great Depression.  "We are the World" still fits in the category of  "a coupla years ago".  The 9/11 tragedy falls into the "recently" category, and "LJS for lunch" is last week.

  • [scowling] If I can't recall precisely when something took place, bub, that automatically qualifies it as "years and years ago."

    So there.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment