On Monday 28 Mar 2011 10:08:23 pm Jon Cox wrote:
>  Silklisters,
> 
> 
>   The faces of several "trophy kill" victims in Afghanistan
>   were presented on DemocracyNow.org with their faces blurred.
> 
>   Here's same treatment applied to another well-known war image:
> 
>       http://www.experiments.com/exp-1.html
> 
>   As always, let me know what you think.

One thing I always found curious when I first went to live in the UK  was 
"cultural sensitivities" that demanded that the face of a dead person should 
be covered. In India faces of dead people are left open, by and large. 

Photographs of maimed corpses are often shown unedited in Indian media while 
similar photographs would appear with a warning or with some masking in the 
media in the west. I don't know whether this is a cultural difference where it 
is considered OK to look at such stuff in India,  or whether it is a process of 
evolution where western societies that used to allow graphic images in the 
past have now changed to cater to the sensitivities of those who are shocked 
by such images. The implication being that in India such sensitivites are 
currently ignored. 

I am currently reading a gripping book about the psychology of men at war 
called "Acts of War" by Richard Holmes. For me it is a gold mine of 
information. The author writes of coping mecahnisms that soldiers use to come 
to grips with the randomness of death in war. One such coping mechanism is 
what appears like "disrespect" for the dead. The jocular "familarity" with a 
corpse - like taking a photograph for the family album is one way of coping 
with the idea that the corpse could be you next. 

One final possibility about uncensored faces is the legal angle. For example I 
believe the relatives of two Pakistanis killed by a US operative in Pakistan 
(Raymond Davis) have apparently been allowed to emigrate to the US. If 
tomorrow they were to become citizens - they would well become Americanized 
enough to sue a media outlet that shows the faces of their dead realtives for 
"distress caused" 

In tis case I think the "trophy kill" expose ws made by Rolling Stone. I 
wonder if theer are legal implications for the use of those images by other 
media?

shiv

Reply via email to