8 Kasım 2010 Pazartesi
The case of press in difficult situations
There is a big debate about the situations where a photographer takes a picture of a tragedic event but does not intervene or try to prevent it from happening. This occured to me while we were reading the story of Azucena. I think that the discussion is focusing on the wrong subject. Why are we limiting this situation only to the press? They are just part of the society we live in, so they same values and way of thinking with ourselves. Our current paradigm tells us not to put us in danger no matter what. Most people somewhat witness a crime but nobody takes a step to the front and do nothing, because it is illogical for us. What we do is addressing the situation to the legal parties or cops or whatever. If you overhear someone being robbed and do nothing about it, why do you flutter when a photographer does the same?
Kaydol:
Kayıt Yorumları (Atom)
what you pointed out is true - people in general do not feel the need to do anything to help someone in danger- what the media does is just an extension of this in that sense, but what they do that is different from the rest of the society is that they don't just witness and turn a blind eye, but report the misery and whatnot to the rest of the people... maybe another question worth asking would be whether the fact that the world becomes (more) aware about a certain situation does lead to any changes / improvements or not? And if not what's the use of it all? do people wantto know what's going on somewhere just for the sake of it?
YanıtlaSil