10-04-2017, 02:12 PM
(10-04-2017, 11:43 AM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I almost feel like we need explicit photos of the carnage plastered on our TV screens to get people to understand what's happened.
But, we cover up the images, because they're so grotesque, hideous and scary that we can't do that.
So, when a story breaks of 58 slaughtered and 500+ injured, without images, it doesn't really register.
What if we had to see pictures of 20+ 6-year olds shredded to pieces in their classrooms?
Do you think America would just *yawn* and move on so easily?
Doubt it.
I get your point and prefer unedited reality myself, even when it's painful.
Personally, I could view such photos. But, I don't need to see the carnage with my own two eyes to imagine it, feel deeply for the loved ones of the victims, be incensed about it, and feel compelled to engage in discussion about how to minimize the problem and number of incidents.
However, I don't know the answer to your question about how the whole of the country would react if such photos were released. I'm not sure whether many of the deceased victims' loved ones would want those images in the public realm. But assuming some of them consented, I imagine the impact would be mixed.
Some people respond much more strongly to visuals than anything else. So, it might stimulate more empathy, longer lasting impact, and engagement from some Americans.
On the other hand, ................I believe there's some credible research suggesting that people can tend to become more desensitized with increased exposure to shocking images; it kind of normalizes the horrific.