http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/assignment-19/

these are some images that are coming from Haiti. As I went through them my feelings of despair and helplessness and impotence grew. I got chills in every single one of them and I could just see horror.
I couldn't get them out of my mind since I saw them and started to think about photography in a situation like this and I got the point of thinking....do we really have to see images like these? Cannot we imagine already when we read, there's 140.000 people death (and counting) ?
And I'm not talking about censorship or anything, I'm thinking more about....respect to the victims and to the survivors. How morbid can we get these days that we need to consume this? Again...do we need to see it? Do we need obsenity (if that's what this is) to say..."oh how terrible" isn't it enough to read it?
It's even different than war, with war images the PJ is also denouncing atrocities, they become political, they are supposed to bring awareness. Same with famines and things as such. But these? what do these bring? Could one say that they are there to give us a true dimension to donate money?
What are the PJ's doing there? these are helpless people going through something that not even one of us could ever slightly imagined. What are we then? morbid voyeurs needing to see every scar, every tear of desperation, ever drop of blood?

anyway....I'm deeply disturbed by these and I'm thinking out loud here I'm trying just trying not to judge yet. I wonder this to myself, as photographer, as a spectator, but overall as a human being,

I'd like to hear your thoughts too..... Do we really need to see these?.......

Don't know... thanks for bringing this up.
... and also what about the risk of desensitization ?


You make a valid point but very controversial IMO. To what extent the circumstances should balance this? In other words why this argument should be valid for such disaster from natural cause, whereas it is not for wars ? not sure. (and by the way is that the result of only natural cause ? not sure either...)

Nicolas, I'll start with being honest: I didn't open the link... Because even with my eyes closed, I can already imagine what they will reveal. And that is already part of my answer.
I also didn't open it, because I've seen enough of them and no one can even avoid them. They are all over: every news program on tv, every frontpage - be it magazine or newspaper. And these images have such an impact on me that I cannot take it anymore. I get sick of them, chills as you describe, my stomach turns because my feeling for humanity cannot cope with such horror. You ask "is that what it is, horror?". To me yes.
And you asked our opinion: do we really need to see these? Mine is No, I don't need this to have a deep sense of helplesness, of despair and so much other undescribable feelings.
What frightens me is that this could confirm a loss of empathy towards our fellowmen. When we lose empathy, we lose respect. Does anyone making these, showing these, stands still even for a minute with the fact that these poor people are someone's mother, father, child, sister? And they always are. What I think by seeing these is, what has become of us that this is allowed, justified under the "news flag"? Is it a matter of money and prestige? Something in the sense of: if I don't show them, someone else will, so I'd better be first ? I'm also just thinking out loud now...
Yesterday there was a similar discussion on one of our national radio stations. I was in the car with my husband. And when the lady-presentator started the topic, we both looked at each other and said simultaneously: is that the tone in which she has to say that. She was obviously smiling - you can hear that in someone's voice - and her tone was one of a "fait divers", "let's discuss this for a while"... I didn't understand how this was possible. It gave me the impression that it had become "common". The question was asked to one of the journalists, he didn't answer really, except for: there is a thin line between what is allowed and acceptable, and what is not. That was all he had to say about it.
In my eyes a totally sad evolution, and where will this end? Children see these pictures and images too, parents cannot keep them away because then they have to live blindfolded - as I said, they are everywhere. I'm afraid they will start to grow up with things like these, they wil get used to it (!) and then the end of all this could even be further away. What's next?
This is obviously a moral discussion, one will call it necessary because it is reality... Sadly enough it is, and I'm not running away from it, I just don't need pictures like those.
Marleen.

But is it not important to show this? How many disasters have passed through the years that no one really new or really cared about? Just passed by with so many looking in another direction. It's sad but it seems as media need to show this kind of imagery to make people react and help.

thanks for your opinions guys. I hope more people join throughout the day. I keep thinking out loud..



it's a good point thomas but, do you really think that showing these is what makes people react and help? For me, and this is one of the things that scares me ,is that they don't have as much as that effect as to that of desensitize people as Jaques very well pointed out. Marl also made a very good observation which is, frequenting images like these make us used to them, they grow in us and we reach a point were seeing a dead body completely dismembered doesn't really shock us as much as it should. I mean, every day you watch the news and there's a bunch bowels and blood on the ground. For a moment, we forget that those are actually humans like you or me, they become a number (of casualties). In the end, in the next page you get to learn that it's gonna be sunny, in the next that Brad Pitt got divorced and in the next you'll get to learn how to cook apple pie. Finally these Haitians fall into oblivion. Did this PJ or any other who shoots like this showed this tragedy putting the dignity of these people first?
(I don't want to necessarily making it personal with this PJ)

Could we think of other ways to portray these tragedies that don't necessarily expose these completely helpless people like this? Is the photographer who's failing as an "artist" and "documenter" ? We probably fall into very subjective fields. But where's the limit? should there be limits? are we losing them or are we still within what's reasonable?




as i said Jacques, i think war photography is more about denouncing and they become political in themselves. But again...there are limits, but which are they?
and you make a very good point...a tragedy like this wouldn't annihilate this massive amount of people if it had been in a better developed part of the world, not in the poorest, and that's definitely not a natural cause)

Very true. But it remains true with or without photo (i.e. the flow of news would make it anyway).

Like Thomas I still think it has to be documented (and that PJs are mostly doing their job). And though it is obscene in the literal sense of the word they are still relevant (what about nazi concentration camp pics shot when Allied forces came in ? where they not obscene as well ? but so important...). To me the problem is more the set-up, the context, the "how" people are exposed to these images (how they are "consumed", you nailed it Nicolas). Too much of a meaningless flow of information as you pointed out, too much of a frenetic rhythm.

I think you struck a point to think about, Jacques. Pictures from the concentration camps... they came too late. Maybe if they would have reached the world sooner, something different, earlier could, would have been done... Those pictures still strike me now, still make me shiver. I didn't live in the time they first reached the public, but it's a fact that news gathering was much more difficult those days, that it took more time and consequently people too actually had more time to "consume" them and think about it.
Now it all comes so extremely fast and in such huge amounts, the more colourfull - and by preference in HD - the "better". It's not only pictures, it's film too, live for that matter. Could it be that danger exists that as a human being we don't get the time to stand still long enough, to "absorb" ... and that in the end, we will no longer be moved by the next disaster, we will be "used to it" ?... I compare with the tsunami pictures of a couple of years ago, they were horrible too. But I'm under the impression they were less horrible, less - and pardon my words - sensational, there was more consideration for the victims involved at least over here where I live (don't know it was like that everywhere). The exposure you're talking about, to me it goes a step further, pictures are more horrible, so what will be the approach to the - heaven forbid - next one ?
Marleen

Isn't that contradictory to some of the feelings you expressed Marlene ? ... sure they came too late, but at least they came.


Though I agree with you in some way let me be the advocate of evil one moment ... I am not sure what you are saying here is very correct. Indeed news came in a more smooth and slowly way at this time. But also people were as accustomed as the news flow than we are today with ours. In other words the news flow back then might have had been not less meaningless as it is today. People eventually get used to lots of thing that seem unimaginable and unbearable few decades before. Think how kids grab computer and internet stiffs so quickly.

Yes, it is contradictory. At least it is to me, that's also why your remark about the camp-pictures made me think again. It's a mixture of feelings. Don't get me wrong, I'm only talking out of my own personal - mixed - feelings. Pictures have to be shown, news has to be known, people have to be informed and the sooner the better. What I mean in this particular time and setting is how and in what way. What I meant is that people back then - because life as a whole was 'slower' - had more time to learn to deal with it (I don't think there was such news mass consumption as there is now) and maybe because of that the impact was even bigger. And as you say, people get used to lots of things very fast, and children even faster; it amazes me every day. But that is also what I fear: (some) people might get used to these images too fast. Though I don't think I will ever get used to them. I hope I make myself clear...

Yes I think we need to see these. If we don't then we get closer and closer to becoming a sheltered state, like George Orwell talked about in 1984.

People don't see a number. 100 thousand USD donated today. 100 million. 100 billion in total. Just numbers. People are more inclined to help when they put a story and a face behind the name.

If you knew 5 of your closest friends in Haiti wouldn't you go stir crazy to do anything in your power to ensure they were all right? Imagine if you had 100 thousand friends...and they were all over there dead or missing.

So yes, definitely, I agree we NEED to see these. I think we NEED to buck up and realize this little fantasy reality we live in in the developed countries of the world IS NOT what 50%+ of the rest of the world is living in and if and when we come to the point where we are so blinded to think that 100 thousand people dead and dying in the country right below us is not reason for concern then I do believe we have hit the point where we are no longer a civilized society.

How civilized is anybody who sits next door watching TV while the house across the street burns to the ground, not wanting or deciding they need to see if anybody is okay?

Do we need to see these? I believe it is our right to see and learn the state of our world, and our right to protect it.

It is important to document it for history.

it is important to document it for news today.

It is important to see.

It is great that we live in a society that this stuff doesn't happen all the time (sans Katrina) and we have the luxury to not look at it and look at stuff like Dolphins and whales in lieu. It is sad that these people can maybe close their eyes to not have to look at it - but will still smell and live it.

Agreed.
So, yes Nicholas - Yes. For many reasons - too many to write here.
I would think that how much you see is up to you, not the TV, or newspaper. You decide for yourself what you want to let into your life. No one is holding you down and chaining you to a TV.
However..I hope that you will watch at least some of it..because..


Very important. I hope that after things have become a bit more stable in Haiti, that the cameras will not go home. Instead, I hope that people all over this world will come to understand the history of Haiti, and what this country and its people have lived through - before this earthquake. So, yes, if you put this disaster in context it becomes even more profound.

And then there is compassion. It is okay to let your heart break...you will not lose your empathy. If we can keep our hearts open and allow all of life to enter, we will become more aware and not just for the people in Haiti..but for our families, our friends, and communities.

I would say to you Nicolas, in the end you are not doing it for them..you are doing it for yourself.
Phyllis

i can see no reason why we should not see this. its so easy to forget about all the awful things around the world. i think people everywhere should get confronted by images like these to remember that we are a community on this planet.

IF you KNOW what is is... and you DONT want to see it... then WHY look at it!!
I get so tired of people who look at images like this and then demand to know why we have to look at it.
this is not *clockwork orange*.... nobody is forcing your eyes open while a nurse pours water in your eyes while your restrained head is foced to watch the horror.

WHAT should we do when such sad events as this happen???? Shove our heads in the sand and ignore it... rush to our computer and look at all the pretty pictures of our kids???

We cant ignore these events in our lives... we can contribute and help... but we dont have the right to condemn... to whine about those people who have the courage to record it so that we that we do not become a race of densensitized compassionless robots.
I am a street photographer... my images are raw and honest... I deal in reality... and I do it to remind people that not ALL of us are fortunate enough to even HAVE a computer to look at any form of art... any form of news and communictaion. That not ALL of us have the good fortune to have a job and a house!
We have always been a species of seperation... we seperate ourselves from compassion and caring... we whine about the most UNimportant matters... I could go on.... the bottom line is... if you KNOW what it is about... then DONT look at it and DONT ask why it is there if you DONT want to see it!!

After a few days of thought I realized that what possibly disturbed me the most is the kind of images.

I asked to myself in my first post "Do we need to see these?" And by that I realize that I wasn't meaning the situation but the kind of photos.
Do we really need to see what's going on?document it? well YES, OF COURSE! I'd never think of saying we don't have to see it. Maybe that's what some of you thought I was saying.
I think my conflict has to do more with the HOW.
As I said before, I think is a must to know but I'm also sure there have to be limits and that's probably a subjective territory. I'm far from being a conservative person but I'm not sensationalist and I tend to think that these go beyond.



hey mate, nobody is angry here. I guess we are all thinking out loud. We all have the right to question things, so don't get tired, debating is always enriching. Plus, I think you missed the point. Nobody complained about seeing these. We all know we are not seeing what we would like to see. Nobody is expecting to open the newspaper and find firemen rescuing grandma's kitty from the top of the tree. My attempt was to bring up a debate about the limits of what it's being presented, about the limits of PJ and as a consequence the limits of media (if you think there should be limits at all) I think there should, what do you think? When you say your photos are raw and honest, does that mean that everything is alright with you? Is it all free will and then it's up to the viewer to choose what he sees and what he doesn't ? For me being raw and honest doesn't necessarily imply that you don't have to have limits.

Hi Nicholas,
A very good question and one that poses some serious soul searching questions to decide if this kind of image really is nescesary to understand the plight of those caught up in the disaster in Haiti.
Imagine that one of the victims portrayed in an image is the remains of a close family member!!! would you want the shock and distress of seeing it? most likely not! Would you want that image to become part of your memories of your loved one or would you prefer to remember them as they lived? Would you be offended to see an image of the body of your loved one being used to sell newspapers? The issue here isn't so much about whether we as individuals want to see these images or not, it should be more about whether we want the relatives of the victims to see them or not.
Yes, give as much help as possible for those that survived to recover from their loss, but don't forget that those that didn't survive have a right to be treated with the respect that we would demand for ourselves and our families!
In conclusion, i think that these images are unnescessary, exploitative and disrespectful to both the families of those that have died and the dead. What has become acceptable within the world of the media is a sad indictment of modern society's growing thirst to have all the gory details graphicaly displayed for them. I think it is a great shame!!
Vic.

we need to see this images for sure but they could make more effort at selecting the right ones. an image that has strong emotions will bring much more support as we can relate to human emotion. i have seen some photojournalist work(we have crazy amount of them here in israel) and i am not too impressed. for many it is all about getting an image at any cost.
so a stronger selection will help use emotional images and will keep the dignity of the people. keeping their dignity helps us not becoming desensitized.
but desensitization already happens through movies and computer games.....

this is exactly how I feel about many of those images Vic and what drove me to start this open debate.

And as sasson said

and that's what I question about any work that shows things this way. It's about how.

It seems to me more clear where the distinction between true masters of PJ's and the not so good ones starts to show. The former (obviously) seem to walk better the fine line between what's acceptable and what's not, their images show dignity in tragedy and disgrace while the latter just go for the sensational, the gory details, the obscene and what appeals to the morbid.
It's an exercise I will start doing, comparing how different PJ's present tragedy. Start studying the differences, trying to catch this fine line. And I guess in situations like these is where the skills as artists are put to test more than ever.

very interesting indeed

not just the photographers but also and even mainly the editors

I suppose it goes back to advertising..they say the shock factor is the best seller. Like with anti-drunk driving or anti-drug ads.

If I am given a choice to see or not to see - I want to be able to see. I may choose to limit how much I see, but I want to know. I do not want to live in a world of denial. Knowing always brings risk.

As for the families of course it is incredibly difficult for them; that is a given. However, have you been listening to their pleas? They want the TV cameras there because they want the world to know what has happened, and just how bad it is. They also want their families to know if they are okay or not; many people have families in other countries and no way to reach them. There are no telephones, nothing. They are setting up radio communications to get messages back and forth..with families.

Once you allow PJ or TV in, to get the whole picture, it becomes impossible to really monitor what is going to be shown. That goes with the territory - with the tragic event. Who is to tell them not to shoot this or that? They don't even have enough police to deliver enough water safely to keep people alive. What would you have them take pictures of? Those who are healthy? 150,000 people are probably dead, and we don't know how many wounded...they think maybe over two million. So really, how to avoid, blood, and gore? Buildings fell on top of these people of course they are bleeding and wounded and half out of their minds.

Sometimes the benefits outweigh what you re calling dignity. There is very little dignity in starving to death, or dying of thirst. And this is especially true when there is water available if information is available. So far I have not seen any pictures or people on TV that I have felt were disrespectful to a family. Not everyone fells the same about what they would want in that situation, and so I don't think we can impose our own views. For me, if half my family was dead and the other half starving and without water...I would be very grateful that a photographer was willing to risk their own well being to get my news and situation out to the world.

Perhaps the most important reason to allow the images to be shown relates to how they affect us. Not knowing we can do nothing. Knowing we have some chance to be of help even if we only send money. One of the most surreal experiences in my life was watching the way Hurricane Katrini was played out here on the TV. I sat and watched on a split screen - one TV - the same event played out in two ways. I could only shake my head in total disbelief. My mouth would not close from the shock. On the left side were the images of bodies floating in water, people screaming on rooftops, people begging the TV crew to tell the world they needed help, fires burning everywhere in the water, hospitals under water, no electricity, no food. In the heat of New Orleans! . On the other side of the screen, at the same time, were people in charge explaining that everything was under control and taken care of and all was well. Till this day I still cannot believe I saw - what I saw. Now because of those images most people were outraged, and action was forced upon those in charge. Many died, but many did not because they put it into our faces.

What I am much more concerned about is not the dead bodies..but what comes next when the cameras all go home...and they will go home. New Orleans still not rebuilt and so few people are aware of how terrible the situation is there...and this is here in a rich country. Can you just imagine Haiti. So while it is good to have a consciousness around how PJ etc..might negatively impact some of the people involved...at the same time, if you a leader you must prioritize. Save my children first, and I don't care how you do it..just let them live. Later we can worry about how they looked in the photo. Maybe I am coming from the perspective of a mother and grandmother..and not a photographer. So forgive me if I sound passionate. :)
Phyllis

Of course we need to see them. OK it's not Haiti but I saw today a photo of the Taliban attack on Kabul this morning, it showed a female Western journalist hiding during the shooting, and she had such nice sexy legs - my day was made. I wonder if she has a blog or something I could subscribe to.

BTW Haiti - I saw the same photograph illustrating two separate articles: a martial-looking guy leaning out of the car window with a shotgun in his hand. Version Nr 1: "street gangs on the rampage". Version Nr 2: "police tries to keep order". Only difference: the word "police" was visible on the windshield in version Nr 2. What a big difference a little cropping can make, eh?...

One of my website clients is Dr. Fritz Olivier of the Universite GOC in Port au Prince. His university collapsed trapping many students and some staff in the rubble. I have been in touch with him frequently during the crisis. As of two hours ago he and whatever rescuers he can muster are still digging people out with their bare hands. Five more today. But already he is planning to restart classes in tents to help the surviving students continue their education. He needs help and we are planning to put up a page for contributions on the university website as soon as he can get things organized enough. I think we will definitely be using pictures to show people the real scope of the tragedy. Unfortunately I have none yet.

Some folks manage to capture beauty nonetheless:


Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters

That's a hopeful one.

Point made Nicolas.. I do have limits as to what I will look at.

What I find more irritating is that others want to tell me I need to see something when in fact I don't need to see anything that I don't choose to. What happens in these sad events is hyperbole is ever present in the language of many & of course in respect to describing an event of this magnitude words often cannot begin to describe the hardship facing the survivors. The word need refers to something we cannot do without. I cannot do without food water & a few other basic needs but I can do without seeing these images.

In the UK often there is a public health warning like "this report/these pages contain disturbing images" given out preceding the publication so we can look away if we so wish. Then it all comes down to choice. I personally choose to stay engaged. Having traveled I do know that other countries more regularly publish without warning the grotesque side of disasters atrocities & accidents unlike in the UK & perhaps thats to do with our national psychic & perhaps that we are given a choice.

Clearly we cannot legislate that other human beings should look at these types of images but on many different levels advertisers film makers & news reporters are faced with getting across to their audience a message an emotion to engage them in the same way that they were engaged in providing the medium through which their message is portrayed. But we don't have to see a film we don't have to buy a newspaper & we don't have to watch the news.

What is clear to me is that when any of us are faced with a problem no matter how large or small it is it is always difficult to give that problem a dimension. The natural tendency is to dismiss one persons plight as insignificant in the face of another quite different but quite clearly in size & scale far greater. You just need to read the front page of the BBC news on a daily basis. And here in the UK we have been bleating on for weeks about the weather which for some is a disaster but in a flash all of a sudden somewhere else in the world people are dying in their thousands & suddenly everything takes on a whole new & different perspective. But does that dismiss the personal or collective disasters that are occurring here. What is clear that since I have had my eyes open that the older I get the more shocking the images that are in front of me become from the very first time I saw the Vietnamese man shock in front of me on a black & white screen to todays images from Haiti I see the media in all its forms attempting to shock us more & more. To a degree I have become desensitized (apart from where children are concerned) & I am not alone so the more we all become desensitized so I imagine the images will become more shocking.

Having said that I think the question may be better phrased by asking do we need photojournalism of this nature & my answer to that is yes we do need it because without it we can never really fully appreciate the realities of this world & while yes Balazs the camera can mislead us intentionally or not but it never lies at least the RAW data never lies. Only the other day we were reminded here of the power of the camera in an on field act of aggression in a European Rugby game where two French players were captured in the act of gouging an opponents eye. Without the still picture evidence it would have gone unnoticed (in this case at least as the referee never saw it). The end of that story is that the cameraman an Irish guy (the opposition player was from Munster) when he attended the home game in Paris he was allegedly spat on a verbally abused by the French crowd upset that two of their star players were banned & will miss key games!

But does images like the ones referred to answer the questions or raise more unanswerable questions? I sense in many cases they leave more unanswered questions. Some may seem callous but how do we really know what is behind anything because then we begin to engage in judgment if we start taking sides & thinking ill then who are we to judge. It is though I find extremely difficult not to get emotionally enraged angry or concerned at what I see. Does that then say that the image has had an impact?

Finally I come to censorship & yes unfortunately we have to have a degree of censorship because of younger viewers because of all sorts of issues associated with what is out there & what could if all are given carte blanch access could so easily damage or disturb our children who we have a responsibility towards. Would you want your children to see these types of images?

In Spain, maybe in other areas too there is a popular sentence that states:

"Eyes that aren´t seeing, heart that isn´t feeling"

I think is not only what we choose to see or not but also what they show us and why. We have to keep in mind that in this society we are treated as consumers most of the time. And they speak about and show what more consumers will be attracted.

I heard on a TV show about this disaster, that for the media and news consumers that there´s a relationship between number of deads and distance. Meaning that as farther the distance of a cathastrophy more dead people will be needed to call attention. For the media and moist of the people two victims of a car accident in the neighbourhood are more "important" or "interesting" than twenty killed on a bomb attack, let´s say 5000 miles away.

Yes, I think we need these picture the question is that thodays drama will be soon uncovered when more recent, fresh and "interesting" dramas happens or when consumers get tired of seeing such horror.

All is pretty sad

Yes, and the sooner the better. Because it's better if they ask you about such things until they trust your answer. If they get confronted with real life at an age when they get doubts, it will be much more difficult to explain things. Just make sure you don't lie to them, and don't try to tell them the world is a better place than it actually is. I'm rather talking here to myself, having a kid who'll soon start to ask me such questions.
In the age of happy slapping videos on youtube, what's good in the censorship of graphic photos anyway? Just two thoughts: by the time a child developes enough emotional intelligence to be frightened by a photo os a blood-covered earthquake victim, it has probably seen much worse images in video games, on youtube and movies. No censorship can help that, nor does it need to. Because if we take a closer look at tales (as a reflection of humanity's subconsciousness) with all their gore and violence, at the cruelty of child soldiers, at bullying even in the kindergarten, the lust for blood seems to be anchored very deep in human soul. Our over-sophisticated civilization is just a thin layer on the beast. Nothing new to this, of course.



MAXIMUM TRUTH OF GAME by Theater Of CrueltyNOH AZsacra

..exactly Balazs! and thats your choice. So you may but others may not want these images in the faces of their children. Your choice but not theirs & the imposition of your views on them is as insidious as some say these photos are. So some form of censorship must be available (& you can choose to adopt it or not) to afford those parents that want it that choice. Don't overlook the fact that older supposedly more emotionally prepared individuals suffer alleged psychological scars from being in or seeing similar atrocities. I have a friend who chose (yes) to work in Sri Lanka as a nurse nursing war victims and has returned in pretty poor shape psychologically. So is it "better" if they ask about such things. How do you know its better. It may be better for you but are you certain it is better for them? I always remember my fathers words "I know better than you" he may know more than me but he could never know better than me! Perhaps if you are keen to treat your children with respect & maturity & with an open mind then why not offer them the choice?

And the immediate question any of this raises is why? & do you really know the answer? And finally to your last point regarding the plethora of violence available in the media & the abhorrent acts we see not only in the playground but outside (two minors maliciously mutilated another two children to such an extent the media cannot report the details) what if the abundance of such material is the cause the excuse that makes this sort of behaviour acceptable...but then this is strictly going off topic so I will desist.

"Eyes that aren´t seeing, heart that isn´t feeling"

Hey Sergio do you believe this? How does a blind man or woman display emotion if he or she cannot see!

Gerard,


It´s a popular and metaphoric sentence normally referred to things that hurts. If you don´t know about something you cannot suffer for it, I though the meaning was pretty obvious. Don´t take popular sentences literaly.

Sergio I wasn't taking it literally just raising my metaphoric eyebrows! but from your original use of it you seemed to be inferring that it was the reasoning behind why your country was more liberal in showing images of death. I apologise if you think I misunderstood you though the question I raised does challenge the validity of such a "popular" & metaphoric proverb.

I don't get it - the choice to see Haiti images (to stay ontopic) or not? If they want to see them, I'd let them see. I don't believe that sheltering them from reality works on the long term, it's better to let them confront with bad things - and use it as a teaching opportunity, preparing them for the case should they ever be in such a situation.



On the contrary - it is all but an excuse. Just think about the controversy about gory video games. Let's be honest here, kids were always capable of the most cruel things, long before today's media and video games. The group dynamism of kids cannot be regulated by adult means, and those freaking cellphones with camera and youtube & co offer an excellent platform to share all the dastardly things they find "funny" and "cool", even encouraging them to do it. I'm happy there was no such thing when I was a kid. I was mean enough without the option to share it wth the world. But if one's character is right, regret will come at a later age which can lead to a more compassionate attitude as an adult.



Now I see your point. I don't want to impose my views of others: if you don't want to see gory images from Haiti (etc) then don't look at them. I don't think everyone and their kids should be forced to look at them. They will keep coming anyway, and they don't come because they want to impress or scare us but because they show the things how they are. That's so tragic about Haiti - the photos I've seen so far were not made to satisfy my daily need for adrenalin but the'yre just documenting what's going on overthere. And it makes me sad and to reflect on the goodness of those who rushed to help them, even though I'm a cynical and amoral person. Good job.

Hey Balazs its funny me too seeing these images always provokes in me a wish to help & then I stopped & thought. I thought what could I contribute taking in the cost of the airfare the needs I would put on an already strained economy surely there are enough there to resolve this. And then I thought again what about all those people in the country who aren't affected by this earthquake who can still walk still have a roof over their heads what are they doing & then I thought well I could just as easily contribute the airfare that would get me there & anyway when I was there I would be tempted to do nothing but record what I saw through my lens & I then I thought I couldn't take images like that so its the airfare that gets donated!

Yes. My wife broke out in tears when she first saw those images and wanted to collect and send cloths. I could barely dissuade her (because they need food and water and medcines, not cloths). I don't know if I could go if I could - one more amateur would just add to the chaos I guess. And probably being photographed is the last thing they need right now.

i think for children it is important that they can talk about things like this. i remember watching james bond and the news (the news show far more shocking pictures then movies) with 5 years old, but i could talk with my parents about what i saw. if young children hang around in front of the tv or the internet and they get confronted with pictures like the ones from haiti and they can not discuss with their parents or adult people about it i think its not good.

Indeed Remo, sheltered children are at risk as they need to know what the real world is like. When we turn our eyes from views like this we are the problem. We have friends who run an orphanage near the epicenter and it was 6 days before any thing was heard that, though all buildings were destroyed all were safe. Every one was watching TV in hopes of seeing one of the loved ones. will

Will you sound like a compassionate man & it must be heart wrenching waiting for news of loved ones. Why do you then suggest that people who avert their eyes are the problem?

Gerard, to me it is like burying your head in the sand and pretending it did not happen. Yes I understand that you may after seeing the horror turn your eyes away and that i understand. Some just refuse to look as it may soften their hearts and that would go against what they are. will

I am pleased about this debate. This is exactly what I was looking for. You all made very good point and it helps me indeed to read your perspectives.
Thanks everybody for contributing =)

I think I could not judge any photographer in those situations of horror and desperation from the commodity of my living with my healthy daughters and my wife. The world they are showing us is tootally diferent, where the life have no value, where all is horror, destruction, death.... Photogs are doing his/her jobs. I am wondering why some stuff is published and where is the limit.

I really do not know. But this video touch very well the essence of the problem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYBduqKl2yA

Not completely heart of the topic but interesting thoughts anyhow.
http://www.foto8.com/new/online/blog/1076-does-haitis-crisis-call-for-a-new-photojournalism

what an excellent article Jacques

I'm left with this reflection from the writer

"If the global community truly cares about Haiti, its people, and the country?s future, shouldn?t we be telling a deeper story than flooding the wires with pictures of looting, scrambling, fighting, and begging?"

this relates 100% to the feeling i had in my initial post.

thanks for posting it :)

It is a matter of where you find and get your news. If you are truly wanting to see the kind of storytelling and eye witness account you are speakin of I would suggest listening/watching Amy Goodman. She is on the TV, Radio and the Internet. Now I do not know if this site is available in China, but you can try. The reason why her program called Democracy Now is such a valuable source is because they are not beholden to anyone. They take no money from corporations etc...only from the public and supported by Grants. Now at first you might find her left leaning..however if you watch listen over time, what you learn is that she just covers the stories. For example, she would never protect Obama or any elected official. Instead, she holds them accountable.

She is fearless I believe. She came from close to being killed when she and a camera assistant marched with the people of East Timor protesting for Independence. She was nearly beaten to death. She is the real McCoy as we say here.. :) She was in Haiti for two days, and now is back in NYC..you can look at her most current program..but if you want to see her in action..:) look from a couple of days ago when she was there. By the way, she has guests on that have a good understanding of the history of Haiti. During the last coup she interviewed Aristide.

Now she may not be your cup of tea, :) but for sure she is a strong cup...and she would not show bodies without good cause. During her broadcasts she was very upset about those indicating that there was so much looting happening. Many people are upset by the large scale of American Military presence..there..they want food not the guns..Now as I type this..things are getting more desperate and people have started to do some looting..but as you can imagine over a week as passed and some are very hungry.

Look for Amy here..
http://www.democracynow.org/

One other thing..you may hear things on this show that are not being discussed on ANY OTHER news program..at least in the US..and you cannot believe it at first. However inevitably, the truth comes out, and eventually what she has presented on her show you will then hear on the other mainstream shows months later.
Phyllis