Quickly avert your eyes

April 17, 2013

I don’t agree with calls to not show the pictures of the gory aftermath of the explosions in Boston this week. It’s hard to look at and it shocks some people. If your kids run across it you might have some nightmares or some explaining to do.

So what?

This is what happened. And there were people in horrific pain, people horribly maimed and some people killed. Why should we be afraid to see this? We who gobble up violent video games and teevee shows and movies with glee.

Nobody is actually forcing you to look at it and to mull it over. You have the option of quickly looking away.

I think we should be viewing the graphic depictions of carnage from the wars we engage in too.

And also, capital crime executions should be on the nightly news.

Maybe, just maybe, we’d take our actions and inactions as a society a little more seriously if we all grappled intensely with the consequences.

10 Responses to “Quickly avert your eyes”

  1. The Other dave Says:

    Yea, and there should be more photos of slaughterhouses in the meat aisle of supermarkets, and migrant workers in the vegetable aisle, rabbits with crusty swollen eyes in the cosmetics aisle, and fat people with diabetes photos on bags of chips and candy and soda pop. And at the checkout counter there should be giant posters of turds in toilets.

    And (more relevant to this blog), when you get notice of your grant being funded, you should have to call the 20 other unfunded applicants and explain to them why your research is better. And maybe offer them a job if possible.


  2. becca Says:

    I’m with The Other dave.
    Also, on every bottle of prescription or OTC drugs, there should be a picture of the entire mound of animals used to test that compound.


  3. AcademicLurker Says:

    And (more relevant to this blog), when you get notice of your grant being funded, you should have to call the 20 other unfunded applicants and explain to them why your research is better.

    Not good enough. You should have to visit them at their institutions and explain the superiority of your research in person. Or maybe in a departmental seminar: “Why I’m Awesome and Assistant Professor X Sucks”.


  4. Pinko Punko Says:

    Considering what is on an average episode of CSI (practically a snuff film as deaths are recreated over and over as gorily as possible on reg TV), I find it odd that this is now an issue. I do appreciate some level of warning so I can choose to view or not, but it is weird.


  5. SaV Says:

    I find it interesting that images were blurred to cover graphic wounds but not the injured person’s face.

    So it is wrong somehow to show gaping bloody fractures but not wrong to plaster someone’s face all over the news at a vulnerable and horrific moment?


  6. Lee Says:

    I personally don’t actively consume images or depictions of death, via media, video games or otherwise. I also personally dislike the constant replay of the images while the commentators are relaying the most recent news. I felt the same way after 9/11, the death of Dale Earnhardt, etc. I think there should be some moratorium after a couple of days on showing the images and video. I think it desensitizes everyone to the overall horror.

    @becca, while I’m opposed to media sensationalization of death, the general public should be aware of things like where there food comes from, what it takes to get a drug approved, and consequences of overindulgence.


  7. gri Says:

    My 5 year old daughter still wants to get a rainbow colored unicorn for her birthday. And as long as I can I want her to remain in that world and slowly grasp reality. She will soon enough (starting school later this year).


  8. Isabel Says:

    Newtown also? Maybe it is a mistake to not show those…the concern is usually for the families, so as not to re-traumatize them.


  9. DrugMonkey Says:

    I understand that but this is a large country Isabel.


  10. Isabel Says:

    A “large country”? Not sure what you are trying to say, DM.

    Maybe the people speaking in Washington should be the 1st responders, rather than the parents of the victims, like the ones who were so traumatized in Sandy Hook that they haven’t returned to their jobs. They could describe the scene minutes later when they arrived. I wonder how they feel about protecting the 2nd amendment at all costs?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: