Christobel

I'm currently watching Correspondent ("Beyond Words") on Newsworld and for this ep, it's about photographers of war and how they deal with what they see. For those with a weak stomach, I strongly suggest you don't watch this episode. Anyway, several of them talked about not showing pictures that they took to the public because it was too graphic. But then my question is why did they take those pictures to begin with, if they knew it wouldn't be used? One or two brought up the point that the pictures are at the expense of the victims, especially those who have died since they cannot defend against the picture/photographer. However, others have mentioned that everything should be shown, that it is our duty to know what is going on. Both of these points are valid, and quite frankly I'm not sure what to make of it. I'm quite sure there are people who'll say well, they can write about the situation and inform us that way without the need for those pictures. Sadly, I have to admit that for me, looking at the pictures definitely had a much bigger impact on me than just learning about it. I've talked about this before, that we (well, me) are desensitized. Scary thought... But perhaps it is a good thing they don't show everything - if we get used to what we see, then what else is left to wake us up?