[Malthaussen]

In response to what Ronn_Bman said above, I'll offer this response: I agree wholeheartedly that showing explicit footage of accident victims, homicide victims, and other random violence/fatal misfortune is sensationalism in very bad taste indeed. I do not, however, wholeheartedly agree with the comparison to images of the "price of war." War, you see, is an act of choice, undertaken by a nation's government and implemented by a nation's people -- possibly you or me. Some understanding that it is not a sporting event and has real, painful consequences might, ideally, cause enough disgust with the action that it would be generate enough protest to make undertaking it a politically risky business. This is, of course, pie-in-the-sky idealism, but you can hardly blame the newsies for trying -- if, indeed, that is what motivates them.

Regrettably, much of what I have seen and heard throughout several televised wars dating back to Vietnam suggests that American viewers in particular, and particularly in the recent wars where our casualties have been negligable (except to the families and loved ones of the casualties)see the television wars as the best thing since Duke Nukem -- all the better, perhaps, because of the explicit blood and gore. After all, both WWI and WWII generated some horrible images that have been forever preserved in photographs -- yet war remains man's favorite pasttime, edging out football by a fairish bit.

-- Mal

[ 04-05-2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Malthaussen ]