Robert Gentel wrote:
Other press is much more willing to use graphic imagery in an appeal to emotion or in an appeal for ratings and sales than American press.
Reading through all of the posts first, I sort of dont want to interject this thought here.. because it almost doesnt belong.. but..
When i first read this sentence, my very first reaction was that.. I doubted the news was looking for sensitivity, or I should say.. trying to BE sensitive when not showing bodies, and other strong visual images.
I think they are just not allowed to. And I can not understand why.
Almost every single movie you watch in america, or from america.. has SOMEONE dying in it. And more often then not you get to see gory details.
Yes, yes, I know.. this does not apply to all movies. But I question the film makers who will produce childrens shows were parents get shot, friends get mutilated and others die from unnatural causes.
Our society is littered with horrible depictions of death, dismemberment, and shoot outs. Yet, be half naked and you earn an R rating at the box office.
Im not trying to down play 9-11 . not in the least. Im just not sure the motives behind the lack of strong imagery was 'romantic' in nature. That it was really about caring who was watching, and more about some odd ball disclosure law.
I for one will join in the chorus of being truly appreciative of the lack of photographs of that nature . Just swallowing that where I lived was under attack was more then I could handle. Learning later on that we may NOT have been attacked by someone OUTSIDE the US?
Oh man. Thats an even bigger chip to swallow. but I am getting side tracked..