A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on
a site that asks you to "rate this image?"

I'm sure it's not JUST you, but I suspect your reaction may be shared by a
minority of those that viewed the disturbing image.

I admit that I was SLIGHTLY disgusted that the image was accompanied by an
invitation to RATE the photo. I quickly dismissed that fact by my assumption
that the "rating" thing accompanies all images on that site.

I read only a few replies prior to adding my own, so who knows what I'll read
next. I do, however, take exception to the insensitive clod that proudly
announced he'd "killfiled" you for your VERY understandable reaction - some of
which I share.

JR

"Mike Jacoubowsky" writes:

I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
[WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]

http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img1...uumiita4ft.jpg
[WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]


Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one,
posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I
understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on
its technical and artistic merits, but just because you *can* do
that doesn't mean you *should.*

Doesn't mean anything; in particular, it just means that that's the
photo hosting service the photographer uses. You can't turn those
features off on any of the systems I've known. He probably has
nowhere else to post the picture.

I find many people, including you based on only a small amount of
information, to be weirdly over-sensitive on this issue.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

William Graham wrote:
Yes.....The main excuse of all censurers throughout history was,
"It's just for the good of the people." It's amazing that, in this
late day and age, they are still using that excuse........

Well, truth be told, they use that tired old excuse for one reason
only... it still works. There are enough people who still believe it.

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption (an added level of freedom that
I could never get for any business I might operate), there is a public
trust and public interest involved. Basically, they owe me... and every
other responsible taxpayer and citizen. If they want complete freedom
to maximize profits as they wish, that's fine, but only if they finance
their own stadiums, and operate under the same rules and laws that the
rest of us have to.

Big Bill wrote:
Good point, asking for a aesthetic rating on something so awful
is pretty tasteless.

I have to wonder if the rating thing isn't something added to all
pics? I'm not familiar with ImageShack, so I don't know.

It is added to all pictures.

Which sort of means that the complaints about it are kinda pointless.

I agree that it is tasteless in this case, and when I noticed I rolled
my eyes when I saw it, then went back to the picture itself. But, I
also understood that it was probably loaded up to an automatic website
of some kind that has that on every picture, and no person reviews them
for this kind of thing. Tasteless, yes, but not intentionally so, in
my eyes.

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption (an added level of freedom that
I could never get for any business I might operate), there is a public
trust and public interest involved. Basically, they owe me... and every
other responsible taxpayer and citizen. If they want complete freedom
to maximize profits as they wish, that's fine, but only if they finance
their own stadiums, and operate under the same rules and laws that the
rest of us have to.

Mxsmanic wrote:
You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed
the death toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by
tens of thousands and yet any video that is shown only shows some
resort area where video cameras were running as people watch the
waves in awe.

Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are only
so many to go around, so you see the same images over and over. Dead
people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't as exciting as
showing images of a moving wave.

I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my mind)
sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of pictures of
people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the US didn't see
that. Even afterward, it's rare to see the imigaes of the planes
flying into the buildings anymore. It's a value-judgement on the part
of the media, and this situation was probably similar.

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption (an added level of freedom that
I could never get for any business I might operate), there is a public
trust and public interest involved. Basically, they owe me... and every
other responsible taxpayer and citizen. If they want complete freedom
to maximize profits as they wish, that's fine, but only if they finance
their own stadiums, and operate under the same rules and laws that the
rest of us have to.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one,
posted on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I
understand that, regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on
its technical and artistic merits, but just because you can do that
doesn't mean you *should.*

I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was
posted) just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so
close on the heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the
Internet. No time to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before
somebody else does. No ethics involved, because ethics are to be
decided by the viewer, and to not post would imply censorship.

But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After
all, I apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the
link and see what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the
newsgroup. But to display the photo on a page with advertising, and
with this caption underneath the photo-

"Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average
rating is 3.88."...

Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would
have taken to get a higher rating.

Are you blaming the site, or the OP?

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption (an added level of freedom that
I could never get for any business I might operate), there is a public
trust and public interest involved. Basically, they owe me... and every
other responsible taxpayer and citizen. If they want complete freedom
to maximize profits as they wish, that's fine, but only if they finance
their own stadiums, and operate under the same rules and laws that the
rest of us have to.

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:
You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed
the death toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by
tens of thousands and yet any video that is shown only shows some
resort area where video cameras were running as people watch the
waves in awe.

Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are only
so many to go around, so you see the same images over and over. Dead
people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't as exciting as
showing images of a moving wave.

I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my mind)
sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of pictures of
people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the US didn't see
that.

We didn't? I still have the NY Times from 9-12 that showed people
jumping/falling.

Cynicor wrote:
Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are
only so many to go around, so you see the same images over and
over. Dead people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't
as exciting as showing images of a moving wave.

I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my
mind) sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of
pictures of people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the
US didn't see that.

We didn't? I still have the NY Times from 9-12 that showed people
jumping/falling.

Ok, fine, *MOST* people in the US didn't see that. It was not on any
of the network broadcasts that I watched, for example, nor was it in
any of the west coast papers that I'm aware of. Many Europeans,
especially in this newsgroup, commented on how those shots were shown
over and over on television in their countries. If you choose to lose
the point of the comment over an isolated exception, that's your
choice, but the intent of the point still stands.

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy an added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption, then there is a public trust
and public interest involved. IOW, they owe me.

Cynicor wrote:
Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are
only so many to go around, so you see the same images over and
over. Dead people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't
as exciting as showing images of a moving wave.

I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my
mind) sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of
pictures of people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the
US didn't see that.

We didn't? I still have the NY Times from 9-12 that showed people
jumping/falling.

Ok, fine, *MOST* people in the US didn't see that. It was not on any
of the network broadcasts that I watched, for example, nor was it in
any of the west coast papers that I'm aware of. Many Europeans,
especially in this newsgroup, commented on how those shots were shown
over and over on television in their countries. If you choose to lose
the point of the comment over an isolated exception, that's your
choice, but the intent of the point still stands.

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy an added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption, then there is a public trust
and public interest involved. IOW, they owe me.

Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum
and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough
that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention.

EXACTLY!!!!!!
He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely
ignored
the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed
"sensitivities"
on total irrelevant BS.
I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my
kill-file.
Thank you for posting this image.

You fail to understand my point. I will try again (but now that I'm
kill-filed...).

My point wasn't that the photo shouldn't be shown. I think the opposite in
fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the context of
being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too hard to to find
offending examples of censorship & political correctness that you're missing
my point. Context *is* relevant.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com