When Did the News Become "Faces of Death"?
Yea, it's great that Zarqawi's a goner. There'll be a lot fewer dead civilians with him off the planet. But do they really have to put his dead face all over the news? How is this different from their showing decapitated U.S. soldiers? I'm glad the mission was a success. But shouldn't we rise above the whole "show the dead guy" routine? Think of all the kids that are going to see that. How can they possibly benefit from seeing that? I'm not better for it, are you? Showing his dead head can only inspire revenge among the remaining lunatics. Next time, use a bomb that leaves only a stain.
2 Comments:
My understanding is that this is the way that news is done in the Middle East...al Jazeera style. Nobody believes it until they can see it. They want to make damn sure that the Iraqis and al Qaeda believe it.
2:37 PM
Yea, I get that.
But the loonies are just going to claim that he's been martyred. The enlightened world will sigh and roll their eyes (we can only hope) but no matter who it is and what the circumstances, I'm not sure that dead people should be so openly and constantly and graphically shown on mainstream channels. Make it available, use it as proof...but do they have to show a dead head in a pool of blood every ten minutes...all day long? It'll probably last a few days, too.
5:01 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home