4 ms·
"The coverage in question was to include images of injured civilians, which were allegedly removed by Khanfar." When was the last time that the major media in t
by noarchy 15y ago
"The coverage in question was to include images of injured civilians, which were allegedly removed by Khanfar."
When was the last time that the major media in the US showed injured or dead civilians? The tendency to sanitize the effects of war is hardly limited to Al-Jazeera.
- krschultz 15y agoIt's not a tendency to sanitize the effects of war, it is an effort to simply keep death off of TV. The US media doesn't play most of the images from 9/11. Period. They are too graphic. The US media barely played anything from the recent Reno airshow crash, the images are far too graphic. I'm not rooting for gore by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it is a general rule. They don't show murder victims, they don't show crash victims, they don't show war casulities, etc etc etc. I'm not sure there politics is at play.
- noarchy 15y agoI think that some politics are definitely in play. American news will often feature photographs of fallen US soldiers, though this is as far is it will usually go. You end up knowing how many soldiers have been injured or killed, down to the last man or woman. Meanwhile, you're lucky to hear even a wild guess as to how many "others" have died in the same war. Part of this is obviously going to be due to better record-keeping by the US where its own casualties are concerned, but the part about showing photos of recently-killed American soldiers is unapologetically nationalistic. Mind you, I'm not saying that the fallen should not be remembered, but I am advocating a more complete approach to the matter of the effects of war.