If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On 1/30/11 2:21 PM, in article 2011013012211397157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" wrote: On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby said: On 1/30/11 1:35 PM, in article , "peter" wrote: On 1/30/2011 9:22 AM, tony cooper wrote: David is correct in one sense, but he's not very good at critical thinking. A 20 year-old unemployed motorcyclist was killed this weekend in a road accident. The local television station devoted a segment to the story and the local newspaper gave it two column-inches. Dozens of Iraqis died this weekend from various acts of violence. They were not named in the newspaper here and the local television stations made only a general reference to violence in Iraq. Would David's Martian conclude that one Orlando resident has more worth than a few dozen Iraqis, or would the Martian understand that newspapers and television news programs give space and time to what is of local interest? When a soldier from Orlando is killed in action in one of the Mideast conflict areas, that individual's death - and the family he/she leaves behind - is given somewhat extensive coverage in the Orlando media outlets. The dozens of deaths in the same time period of residents of that area rates coverage only if they all go at once or in some noted incident. Is this valuing an American higher than an Afghani or an Iraqi? Or is it just the media doing what is supposed to do in reporting to the public that the media serves? the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get in the Iraqi and Afghan press? BINGO! Ta! Da! ...and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might have a slight oiliness.) A virtual Whitman Sampler, indeed! |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On 2011-01-30 17:40:41 -0800, "Bill Graham" said:
Savageduck wrote: On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby said: the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get in the Iraqi and Afghan press? BINGO! Ta! Da! ...and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might have a slight oiliness.) But, as the cook said to the cannibal who complained about the excessive price of "hippie" on the menue: "Did you ever try to clean one of those things?" Bill, you of all people should know better. Just like any rough skinned fruit, you have to peel them first. ....and the "hippie" has been pre-seasoned with secret herbs & spices. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On 2011-01-30 18:03:29 -0800, George Kerby said:
On 1/30/11 2:21 PM, in article 2011013012211397157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" wrote: On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby said: the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get in the Iraqi and Afghan press? BINGO! Ta! Da! ...and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might have a slight oiliness.) A virtual Whitman Sampler, indeed! Sooner or later the old farts among us are going to get the Rod Serling reference. http://thurly.net/0ruh -- Regards, Savageduck |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On 1/30/2011 3:32 PM Savageduck spake thus:
On 2011-01-30 14:11:14 -0800, David Nebenzahl said: I believe my example proves otherwise. Either we're hypocrites, in which case you can apply the 13:1 ratio of the relative worth of human life, or ... I don't know what the alternative is here. Yup! We are for the most part hypocrites, blind to the other side of the fence. OK. I will accept that as at least partial agreement with the point I was trying to make about the (perceived, not actual) relative value of human life ... -- Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet: To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign that he is not going to hear any rebuttals. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On 1/30/2011 3:03 PM tony cooper spake thus:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:11:14 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: Let me use the example of the Vietnam War (esp. since "savageduck" seems sorta fixated on this "conflict"): I offer proof of the relative worth of human life by way of how the wrong number is always used to describe this conflict. I'm talking, of course, about 55,000. As opposed to that other number, somewhere in the vicinity of 1 to 3 million. (It's actually not known just how many Vietnamese were killed during this war.) Taking the average estimate of Vietnamese killed (1.5 million), I get a ratio of 27:1. Factoring out the "local vs. distant" bias, let's divide this by two. That still leaves a ratio of 13:1. Of course, even this could be dismissed as simply a matter of local vs. distant interest, except for the implicit assumption (mostly honored in the breach) that "all men are created equal"--not just nationally, but globally. In other words, we (the U.S.) always take great pains to claim how much we believe in the Rights of Man everywhere, not just in our Homeland. I believe my example proves otherwise. Either we're hypocrites, in which case you can apply the 13:1 ratio of the relative worth of human life, or ... I don't know what the alternative is here. I'm not at all sure what you attempted to prove. The US government kept track of how many and fatalities suffered by the US troops. Evidently, neither the US government or the Vietnamese governments (North and South) kept track of how many Vietnamese were killed. It was not known by either government how many Vietnamese combat participants there were. The North Vietnamese were really not into sharing information, or - perhaps - even in gathering information. The structure of the US military allowed the government to keep track. The structure of the Vietnamese system did not. Is this somehow a failing of the US? You say the wrong number is used. From what perspective? If a number is used by an American author, an American media organization, or the American government, is not the number of Americans killed the number of interest? I think you're being excessively dense here, almost wilfully obtuse, but I'll play along anyhow. The point I was trying to make is that when discussing the Vietnam War with an American audience, the number of dead is inevitably given as 50-something thousand. (Savageduck pointed out that the actual number is close to 58K.) Never a *mention* of the far greater losses on the other side. To me, this is an unconscionable omission. Even if it is written by an American author in an American media organization to an American audience. Either human life is worth exactly the same everywhere around the world or it isn't. Or, as Savageduck seems to agree, we're hypocrites. -- Comment on quaint Usenet customs, from Usenet: To me, the *plonk...* reminds me of the old man at the public hearing who stands to make his point, then removes his hearing aid as a sign that he is not going to hear any rebuttals. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On 2011-01-30 19:33:43 -0800, John A. said:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:30:38 -0800, Savageduck wrote: On 2011-01-30 18:03:29 -0800, George Kerby said: On 1/30/11 2:21 PM, in article 2011013012211397157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" wrote: On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby said: the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get in the Iraqi and Afghan press? BINGO! Ta! Da! ...and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might have a slight oiliness.) A virtual Whitman Sampler, indeed! Sooner or later the old farts among us are going to get the Rod Serling reference. http://thurly.net/0ruh I think you mean Damon Knight. I actually read the story before ever seeing the TV adaptation. Yes, however, the mainstream of the 60's were more likely to have seen the "Twilight Zone" episode than to have read Knight. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 18:41:01 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote: On 1/30/2011 3:03 PM tony cooper spake thus: On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:11:14 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: Let me use the example of the Vietnam War (esp. since "savageduck" seems sorta fixated on this "conflict"): I offer proof of the relative worth of human life by way of how the wrong number is always used to describe this conflict. I'm talking, of course, about 55,000. As opposed to that other number, somewhere in the vicinity of 1 to 3 million. (It's actually not known just how many Vietnamese were killed during this war.) Taking the average estimate of Vietnamese killed (1.5 million), I get a ratio of 27:1. Factoring out the "local vs. distant" bias, let's divide this by two. That still leaves a ratio of 13:1. Of course, even this could be dismissed as simply a matter of local vs. distant interest, except for the implicit assumption (mostly honored in the breach) that "all men are created equal"--not just nationally, but globally. In other words, we (the U.S.) always take great pains to claim how much we believe in the Rights of Man everywhere, not just in our Homeland. I believe my example proves otherwise. Either we're hypocrites, in which case you can apply the 13:1 ratio of the relative worth of human life, or ... I don't know what the alternative is here. I'm not at all sure what you attempted to prove. The US government kept track of how many and fatalities suffered by the US troops. Evidently, neither the US government or the Vietnamese governments (North and South) kept track of how many Vietnamese were killed. It was not known by either government how many Vietnamese combat participants there were. The North Vietnamese were really not into sharing information, or - perhaps - even in gathering information. The structure of the US military allowed the government to keep track. The structure of the Vietnamese system did not. Is this somehow a failing of the US? You say the wrong number is used. From what perspective? If a number is used by an American author, an American media organization, or the American government, is not the number of Americans killed the number of interest? I think you're being excessively dense here, almost wilfully obtuse, but I'll play along anyhow. The point I was trying to make is that when discussing the Vietnam War with an American audience, the number of dead is inevitably given as 50-something thousand. (Savageduck pointed out that the actual number is close to 58K.) Never a *mention* of the far greater losses on the other side. To me, this is an unconscionable omission. Even if it is written by an American author in an American media organization to an American audience. For your point to make any sense at all, you would have to provide some context where both figures would be required to provide a fair and useful comparison, and then you would have to defend your claim that there is "never" a mention of the other side's losses. That is beyond your reach and smacks of no more than hand-waving. Most books or instances of media coverage present an analysis from a particular perspective. If that perspective is that of the US, then an emphasis on US losses is eminently fair. Either human life is worth exactly the same everywhere around the world or it isn't. That, in this context, is a non sequitur of nonpareil dimension. An accounting of lives lost has nothing whatsoever to do with a valuation of human life. It's a quantitative statement, not a qualitative statement. To conform to that rather absurd premise, the death of each individual would have to be reported with equal space (print media) or equal time (visual/audio media). -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On 1/30/11 8:30 PM, in article 2011013018303851816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" wrote: On 2011-01-30 18:03:29 -0800, George Kerby said: On 1/30/11 2:21 PM, in article 2011013012211397157-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" wrote: On 2011-01-30 12:10:07 -0800, George Kerby said: the flip side of that is how much coverage did the motorcyclist get in the Iraqi and Afghan press? BINGO! Ta! Da! ...and the Martian is still able to snack on Kansan, Texan, Iraqi, or Tunisian, without any discernible change in favor. (Though some might have a slight oiliness.) A virtual Whitman Sampler, indeed! Sooner or later the old farts among us are going to get the Rod Serling reference. http://thurly.net/0ruh I liked the "From Dust to Dessert" reference. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor.
On 2011-01-28 13:39:40 -0800, Savageduck said:
French photo-journalist Lucas Mebrouk Dolega 32, dies after being hit in the head by a police fired tear gas grenade in Tunis while covering the disturbances in Tunis for Paris Match. http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...ouk-dolega-32/ What a shame. Still, of him it can also be said that he lived. Coverage of Tunis and Egypt in the US has been abominable, as usual. Only Fox News has given it any air time at all. The other major networks are more interested in doing news stories about the lives of their talking heads, how much they get paid, etc. Have any of them actually sent correspondents to the area? -- Waddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another Photo-Journalist added to the roll of honor. | Savageduck[_3_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 53 | February 1st 11 02:30 AM |
Still professional journalist photography dead? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 21 | December 31st 06 12:39 AM |
New Photo Tips Added | baument | Digital Photography | 1 | August 5th 06 06:58 PM |
Freelance Journalist Arrested After Photographing Voting Lines | Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº³ | Digital Photography | 13 | November 4th 04 07:15 PM |