barefooted's picture

    Irony

    By barefooted on Wed, 01/14/2015 - 4:05pm |

    Stop me if you've heard this before: "Some of these images may be disturbing to our viewers". What inevitably follows those words, or some variation thereof, is recorded carnage. Now and then we're even treated to it in real time. Things are blown up, people are murdered, mutilated and terrorized. We see their bloody bodies. We listen to the screams as shots ring out. And we watch those "disturbing" scenes over and over and over because it's news. Just ask every television network that airs them, any online site that imbeds the video or the newspapers that publish the gruesome photographs. It rarely seems to concern these bastions of journalistic integrity that viewing violence might incite violence among those with questionable tendencies. It's the news, so they report it.

    But Allah forbid we see satirical cartoons. Some people might be offended.

    Comments

    Hey, barefooted. I think the tendency of "violence depictions in media" to incite violence depends on what kind of media and the subject matter. Live television coverage of a riot in the making is most likely going to incite some others who have physical access to the geographical area and go there to participate. Whether it's the violence or the reality show qualities in general, I don't know.  

    As for the French attack, I read one comment that a cartoon is unique in that it is "handmade", making it a "personal" affront.

        


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 01/14/2015 - 9:14pm

    Apparently I gave the wrong impression. No, I don't think the media is trying to incite violence. Yet one of the main reasons given for not showing the Charlie cartoons is fear of backlash, along with a deference to those who may be offended. I find it ironic that real flesh-and-blood violence is not considered so. Why is it okay to show us new photos today from inside the kosher deli with bodies on the floor, but not cartoons?

    The outlets that are refusing to show them are willing to show the aftermath but not the apparent cause. Isn't that what the murderers wanted?


    by barefooted on Wed, 01/14/2015 - 11:34pm

    Ah, I just misread it. Very good questions, for which I don't have any answers.  


    by Oxy Mora on Wed, 01/14/2015 - 11:17pm

    An honest reader!

    I was going to say:

    An honest woman Oxy.

    Let us all march for freedom of speech.

    Whilst the leaders of the march incarcerate those who 'abuse' free speech.

    If I call for the murder of Rush or Hannity or whoever....

    THAT IS WRONG.

    I have written blogs about internet 'radio hosts' who projected the addresses of Judges and called for their deaths!

    It is hard to distinguish.

    When is speech ACTION.

    When is speech actionable felony?

    Cry fire in an elementary school?

    Or like Rush, just dream that riots break out at a Dem Convention?

    THIS ISSUE OR THESE ISSUES ARE NOT EASY TO INTERPRET!

    That is all I got right now.

     


    by Richard Day on Thu, 01/15/2015 - 4:18pm

    But Allah forbid we see satirical cartoons. Some people might be offended.

    I suspect the majority of those who believe in Allah, reject the violent images shown on TV because they know, what a person views or takes in, can corrupt the minds and hearts ? 

    Zeal for what is righteous and upbuilding      or   Zeal for disgusting things and it's influence? 

               NO PORN                                                         PORN 

    Phinehas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    by Resistance on Thu, 01/15/2015 - 3:53am

    To take your point even further, with the kind of terrorist act as in Paris, or something along the lines of ISIS video beheadings, this sort of depends upon people being appalled by bloody gore and violence, does it not? They are trying to induce fear, to terrorize with this. If people are more and more desensitized to this, what good is it?

    Are they on their way to becoming another IRA, where for decades it was "another day, another bombing in Ireland, so what?"
     


    by artappraiser on Thu, 01/15/2015 - 6:19pm

    Your video game reference is apt. The rivalry between AQAP and ISIS is reminiscent of PlayStation vs Xbox. Which can grab the most attention with high-tech marketing and violent, graphic gameplay?

    I hope you're wrong about desensitization. But on the other hand, maybe flooding the airwaves with the Charlie caricatures would take some air out of their balloon. A collective public yawn - is that what all the fuss is about?


    by barefooted on Thu, 01/15/2015 - 8:14pm

    The video game mention was on another thread (at least I think it was you!), but it's still a good one. ;-)


    by barefooted on Thu, 01/15/2015 - 8:24pm

    Your comparison of the schism between Al Qaeda and the Islamic State to video game platforms is telling and typical of Western inability to understand the world in any terms other than our narrow mercantile obsessions along with reducing their agendas to mere violence and attention seeking.

    The French government and Google financing the printing of 3 million copies of the intentionally inciting Charlie cartoons is not designed to reduce tensions any more than the airing of the murder porn will produce a collective public yawn.

    The Western public is certainly desensitized  to the suffering we create but is hardly desensitized to the manipulation that drives Western aggression and arrogance.


    by Peter (not verified) on Fri, 01/16/2015 - 12:22pm

    Latest Comments