Images You Find Unacceptable

[cacian]

I find images of undernourished poor children displayed in public,internet,books, magasines, unacceptable in this day and age.

[smerdyakov]

I find images of undernourished poor children displayed in public,internet,books, magasines, unacceptable in this day and age.

What about famines? Do you find them acceptable is this day and age?

[PoeticPassions]

What about famines? Do you find them acceptable is this day and age?

Terrible really. They are not acceptable, and there is no reason that anyone should starve on this planet. Even with a large population, we have the means and ability to feed everyone...



As for the thread question.... I find that most images produced in fashion magazines, or teen magazines, Cosmo, etc are unacceptable, as they provide a completely false picture and influence girls to hate their bodies and sometimes even develop eating disorders...
In fact, an unacceptable image was that one of a model for a Ralph Lauren ad... she looks barely human... so disproportionate.

http://main.stylelist.com/2009/10/14/ralph-lauren-distorted-ad-skinny-model-fired-for-being-fat/?icid=main|welcome|dl3|link4|http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2009/10/14/ralph-lauren-distorted-ad-skinny-model-fired-for-being-fat/

[MarkBastable]

I find images of undernourished poor children displayed in public,internet,books, magasines, unacceptable in this day and age.

What aspect of it do you find unacceptable - that there are undernourished children in the world, or that pictures of them are published?

If it's the former, then I'd say it isn't the pictures that are the problem - it's the fact of the children being undernourished. And if it's the latter, then it'd be informative to know what you find unacceptable about it.

[Lokasenna]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, there is more than a slight degree of emotional blackmail to the printing of images of human (or sometimes not human) suffering. And I'll admit that I find it rather objectionable sometimes - there is a very fine line between encouraging people to give charitably in the spirit of human brotherhood, and foisting unwarranted misery on an innoccent and often finanically troubled public.

You know what I mean. The advert will come on, and a voice will say "Poor Dobbin the mule was going to be tortured, killed, and boiled down for glue and dog food. But then the R. J. Critchley Centre for Useless Animals rescued him. Now Dobbin is free to live out his twilight years in peace and dignity. For only £50 a week, you too can help save poor knackered animals, and give them the joy the deserve. Call 0800-UTTER-TWADDLE now to..."

All this will be over-layed with sad violin music, and we'll see stock footage of donkeys suffering in a glue factory juxtaposed with images of the gormless Dobbin prancing around a meadow of wildflowers. If you're an idiot, you'll reach for your wallet. If you're me, a little bit of your respect for humanity drops off and dies.

Of course I'm unhappy that there is suffering in the world. But thanks to being a British tax-payer (a large amount of which goes into aid), I'm also a member of the most charitable collective of people in the world. And to be honest, if I gave up every penny I own, it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the world; it'd be like throwing a snowball into hell. As a result, I do somewhat dislike having images of horror repeatedly thrown at me in an attempt to make me yet again open my not-particularly-well-filled wallet.

[cacian]

What about famines? Do you find them acceptable is this day and age?

did you understand what I meant?
how would advertise famine?
and why would advertise it using children is my question.
do you think it is right to use children in this way?

[cacian]

What aspect of it do you find unacceptable - that there are undernourished children in the world, or that pictures of them are published?

If it's the former, then I'd say it isn't the pictures that are the problem - it's the fact of the children being undernourished. And if it's the latter, then it'd be informative to know what you find unacceptable about it.

It is everything.
To use children in advertising to sell a product is perhaps acceptable to some but to use children who are suffering from hunger, malnourishement, depravity in order to spread awarness is totally wrong.
Those children are not being asked wether it is Ok for their pictures to appear in such desolate state for the world to look at.
These children are not being asked wether it is On or not.
They do not have a say and yet their pictures and names are being advertised without their consents.
Just because they are children does not make them individuals with feelings.
I am sure that lotso you here, and myslef,would not want to be stared at wihout our knowledge especially when we are at our lowest points,hence privacy.
I can think of millions of adults who would ensure that they look their best before thinking of having their photos taken.
Children are vulnerable and to indulge and showing them off at their worst and in this way is unacceptable.
Adults must take better care of how children are portaryed around the world. It is their responsiblity to do so because children have no say in an adult driven world.

[MarkBastable]

It is everything.
To use children in advertising to sell a product is perhaps acceptable to some but to use children who are suffering from hunger, malnourishement, depravity in order to spread awarness is totally wrong.
Those children are not being asked wether it is Ok for their pictures to appear in such desolate state for the world to look at.
These children are not being asked wether it is On or not.
They do not have a say and yet their pictures and names are being advertised without their consents.
Just because they are children does not make them individuals with feelings.
I am sure that lots here, and myslef,would not want to stare at me without my consent especially in such desolate state.
I can think of millions of adults who would ensure that they look their best before thinking of having their photos taken.
Children are vulnerable and to indulge and showing them off at their worst and in this way is unacceptable.
Adults must take better care of how children are portaryed around the world. It is their responsiblity to do so because children have no say in an adult driven world.


So how would you raise awareness of famine in order to get people to cough up?

(I mean, for the sake of argument, let's agree that it's a good idea to get people to donate money in times of humanitarian crisis.)

[cafolini]

So how would you raise awareness of famine in order to get people to cough up?

(I mean, for the sake of argument, let's agree that it's a good idea to get people to donate money in times of humanitarian crisis.)

I agree with both of you regarding this. Cacian added an inference regarding hypocrecy in some way. I think it leads to knowledge of this being a marvellous, hypocritical world.
You on the other hand are entirely correct. There is no way to ask for help without showing it as it is. Pragmatic.

[OrphanPip]

Adults must take better care of how children are portaryed around the world. It is their responsiblity to do so because children have no say in an adult driven world.

So, we have no responsibility to ensure that these children do not have to live in those conditions? Just not to show the way they live. After all, the child dying of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa wouldn't want to be seen without his hair done.

It would all be much better if we had absolutely no documentation of those conditions at all.

[cacian]

So how would you raise awareness of famine in order to get people to cough up?

(I mean, for the sake of argument, let's agree that it's a good idea to get people to donate money in times of humanitarian crisis.)

Well there is the News for a start.
Books to read about these things
Documentaries are made to report on such disasters.
I don't need to stare or look at a desolate child, especially if they are from another culture, to be able to understand what an issue is about.
Surely the whole point of being an adult is to have enought understanding and maturity to figure out for themselves that poverty and disasters is bad.
Why use children in this way?

[cacian]

So, we have no responsibility to ensure that these children do not have to live in those conditions? Just not to show the way they live. After all, the child dying of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa wouldn't want to be seen without his hair done.

It would all be much better if we had absolutely no documentation of those conditions at all.

You don't need or rely on children's visuals in this way to understand that poverty and famine is what it is.
what is the point of journalism and Media if it is now saying less and portraying more?
I do not agree that children are to be portrayed in such a way to prove or make a point.
Adults have no rights nor the permission from these children to plaster and advertised their desolate pictures in this way.

[Hurricane]

Images hit people in a way that words can't. While you might objectively understand that there's hunger in the world and that it sucks for the people suffering from famine, that's different than looking at a picture of a kid starving to death. Considering how uncomfortable this makes you, clearly the ads are doing the trick.
Think of it this way. There's a famous quote by Stalin that "a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." Looking at a picture, it's easier to put the suffering in context and connect yourself to that person and not just see them as a statistic.

[Varenne Rodin]

I agree with Lokasenna.

I couldn't endure my ridiculous Facebook friends. Every day there was another post of a beaten, abused, or neglected adult, infant, or animal; many of them dead. They often came with captions saying "Raise awareness of domestic violence! Many people will be afraid to repost this! Don't let them get away with it!" I don't have the first clue how me seeing dead mutilated babies helps me to protect them from abusive, murderous parents.

Another time I was flipping through a Rolling Stone magazine and happened upon grizzly pictures of soldiers with prideful grins on their faces holding half blown up heads and body parts like trophies. I couldn't erase the images from my mind. War is disgusting. It's important for people to know how horrible it is, but at what point do these pictures become exploitation? If I want to know the horrors of war, without viewing snuff pictures or films, I'll watch "The Thin Red Line." I don't want to see real lives ended. I've seen enough of that.

The other images I could do without contain excrement. Luckily, those are usually easy to avoid.

[OrphanPip]

You don't need or rely on children's visuals in this way to understand that poverty and famine is what it is.
what is the point of journalism and Media if it is now saying less and portraying more?
I do not agree that children are to be portrayed in such a way to prove or make a point.
Adults have no rights nor the permission from these children to plaster and advertised their desolate pictures in this way.

The fact that children are still surviving suggests otherwise, clearly people are not getting informed on their own and are not doing enough to combat the problem. Why use images? Because they are effective, as the cliche says, they say a thousand words. Charities deploy the images because they are effective for motivating action. They are not being shown to prove a point, they are being shown in the conditions they are in because that drives home the point of why money is needed.

If you object more to the fact that the children are being seen, rather than to the fact that they are in that condition in the first place, your priorities are all wrong.

[Varenne Rodin]

I want to add that I'm not trying to ignore famine and genocide. It was effective for me to watch a documentary of living conditions for seven to eleven year olds living alone in mud dwellings in Africa. I'm not saying there is a tasteful way to present something so distasteful, but without seeing the dead bodies of the children, I was devastated by their deaths. I think in some ways pictures can be so traumatic that they may be counterproductive to a cause.

[cacian]

Terrible really. They are not acceptable, and there is no reason that anyone should starve on this planet. Even with a large population, we have the means and ability to feed everyone...



As for the thread question.... I find that most images produced in fashion magazines, or teen magazines, Cosmo, etc are unacceptable, as they provide a completely false picture and influence girls to hate their bodies and sometimes even develop eating disorders...
In fact, an unacceptable image was that one of a model for a Ralph Lauren ad... she looks barely human... so disproportionate.

http://main.stylelist.com/2009/10/14/ralph-lauren-distorted-ad-skinny-model-fired-for-being-fat/?icid=main|welcome|dl3|link4|http://www.stylelist.com/blog/2009/10/14/ralph-lauren-distorted-ad-skinny-model-fired-for-being-fat/

I absolutely agree that the Media has or is responsible for such misleading and deceiving ideal that is almost started to resemble malnourishement itself.
I have not seen the Ralph Lauren ad...It is pretty bad that this is allowed to go on when there are so many unhappy troubled youth out there.
It is in fact despicable because yet again this involving children.

[cacian]

I want to add that I'm not trying to ignore famine and genocide. It was effective for me to watch a documentary of living conditions for seven to eleven year olds living alone in mud dwellings in Africa. I'm not saying there is a tasteful way to present something so distasteful, but without seeing the dead bodies of the children, I was devastated by their deaths. I think in some ways pictures can be so traumatic that they may be counterproductive to a cause.

The traumatic is the clue.
I think you would be surprised that after a while one becomes desensitised with images, be it herrific or glamourous.
I think to watch such herrific human tragedies behing our big screen in the comfort ofour own home makes ironic.
Yes you might feel traumatised but remembered you have seen it once then you will see it again then it becomes routine,just like a film you learn to accept it and move on.
Nothing has changed ever since the TV has been invented , famine is sitll there and human tragedies are still unfolding.
What is the role of these graphic images?
I know I can't possibly indulge in watching so many of them because I know I am not able to do anything about it right now.
I might donate, which I have done, but then I notice it is always the same.
Nothing ever changes and no progress whatsover is being either aired or advertised in the same way that herrific images are.
where is progress and where is better conditions?
Why aren't images of such ever portrayed?
I can't understand a world that goes around in cirlce about FAMINE and we are still at the same point to when we started.
It is always the same.
Are we unable to work out other ways of dealingand ending these suffering after so many years.
One would start to wonder what are we not doing right?
Because what we are doing year in year out if sitting on a sofa watching famines and looking at children's pictures.
Are we really that stupid that we cannot possibly put an end to Famine when the West is overloaded with food to the point of wastage.
The amount fo Food thrown out day in day out is simply despicable and yet there are people on the other side of the planet who cannot even get themseves a decent glass of water let alone food.

[cafolini]

People seem to be talking about three different approaches here. If I am in charge of a charitable organization, I would want to show people the conditions in pictures to motivate them regarding the need for the money.
On the other hand, we have the selling of images by the media to get money from sponsors.
Then there is the people gossiping with the images to get attention. Some even so resentful as to laugh sarcastically.
It's complicated.

[MarkBastable]

Well there is the News for a start.
Books to read about these things
Documentaries are made to report on such disasters.
I don't need to stare or look at a desolate child, especially if they are from another culture, to be able to understand what an issue is about.
Surely the whole point of being an adult is to have enought understanding and maturity to figure out for themselves that poverty and disasters is bad.
Why use children in this way?

Do you object to the images of starving children being used in documentaries, books and in TV news?

[cacian]

Do you object to the images of starving children being used in documentaries, books and in TV news?

Yes. I object to children being used and displayed in this way by the Media.
the reasons are clear
1) these children have not been asked either by their parents/carers or Media wether they could use them to incite a feeling.
2) These children will one day grow up and realise that their images have been used without their consents.
That is a breach of human rights.
Just in the same way that you would not want your privacy ro your images to be displayed for the sake of anyhting this children have exact equal rights.]
Children's rights to privacy is most important because they are too young to voice an opinion. Therefore any images of them being used by the media, in any way shape or form should be made illegal because none of us will know how these will react 10 myears down the line realising that the Media has shown up to the world at their worst and most vulnerable time.
3) Children are humans and individuals, they are vulnerabel and are unable to defend themselves against a world run and controlled by adults.
If children are to respect, show considerationg and look up to their adults counterparts and do whatever logical thing an adult wish them to do or achieve then the adult is to reciprocate these very same feelings to them.
Otherwise children will not listen or respect adults because the adult have not shared or paid them the same respect they expect from them.
It works both ways.
Adults know and children know that too.
It all boils down to mutual respect and understanding.

[MarkBastable]

.
2) These children will one day grow up and realise that their images have been used without their consents.

The idea of using their images is to try to ensure they grow up at all. If they do, and they then resent the use of those images, I'd say that that was a success.

So, let me explain my take on this.

I imagine myself crouched in some arid desert, as I have for months, desperate and sick, watching my daughters starving to death and knowing there's nothing I can do about it. A photographer appears from some far-off affluent country, and takes photographs of my emaciated, hopeless children. He asks if he can use those pictures in a campaign to raise money to alleviate the famine.

I say, "Yes - do. Please do. I don't give a damn about anything except the faint possbility that someone somewhere might be persuaded - through guilt or sympathy or simple disgust - to help us. Offend those people. Repulse them. Provoke them into debates about the exploitation of these photos. I don't care - just manipulate them into sending money."

And as the photographer walks aways, I call him after him.

"Please come back to this place in a few days," I say, "when my girls have died, as we both know they will. Take more photographs, and use them too. Show the readers of magazines and the buyers of books and the watchers of documentaries what's really unacceptable."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In all the time I've been here at LitNet, and despite getting into some pretty fervent arguments, I have never, to my knowledge, incurred any infraction points for overstepping the line of civility in my correspondence with anyone.

I'm going to stop talking to you now, cacian, because I'm pretty sure that if I continue this dialogue, I shall quite soon be moved to express my opinion of you, which would rack up my full quota of infraction points in about three posts.

[JuniperWoolf]

That commercial with the very overweight, very white guy from the Christian Children's Fund always makes me roll my eyes. They play footage of a village in black-and-white with sad violin music to represent what it was like before the Christian Children's Fund came along even though this is clearly post-aid and the children are pretty healthy, then they show the exact same village in color with happy music and little black boys rolling all over the fat white dude. Fin. Very effective commercial you jackasses, I totally want to give you money now. Someone actually expressed that idea, and then other people said "yes, good idea, that will convince people to alleviate suffering in Africa." Mind blowing.

[Varenne Rodin]

Haha. That's hilarious, Juniper. It reminds me of an episode of Southpark in which Sally Struthers has turned into some kind of Jabba the Hutt creature from eating so much, using the funds she ripped off from starving children.

I always wonder how much money goes into all of the advertising.

Don Imus is the most ridiculous. He gets all of this publicity for having a camp for children with cancer. A kind of fun zone on a giant ranch with sprawling mansions and a golf course and etc. His foundation rakes in millions a year and he claims the money is used to manage and maintain the cancer camp. He and his wife invite a group of these kids to stay at the place for 2 weeks each summer. Mr. and Mrs. Imus live there 52 weeks a year. They keep the place staffed on the charity's dime. That's some sweet gig.

[tonywalt]

That commercial with the very overweight, very white guy from the Christian Children's Fund always makes me roll my eyes. They play footage of a village in black-and-white with sad violin music to represent what it was like before the Christian Children's Fund came along even though this is clearly post-aid and the children are pretty healthy, then they show the exact same village in color with happy music and little black boys rolling all over the fat white dude. Fin. Very effective commercial you jackasses, I totally want to give you money now. Someone actually expressed that idea, and then other people said "yes, good idea, that will convince people to alleviate suffering in Africa." Mind blowing.

I believe that is Alan Sader and actor (also in Dawson's Creek). The CCF is his main acting gig in the last 20 years.

[cacian]

That commercial with the very overweight, very white guy from the Christian Children's Fund always makes me roll my eyes. They play footage of a village in black-and-white with sad violin music to represent what it was like before the Christian Children's Fund came along even though this is clearly post-aid and the children are pretty healthy, then they show the exact same village in color with happy music and little black boys rolling all over the fat white dude. Fin. Very effective commercial you jackasses, I totally want to give you money now. Someone actually expressed that idea, and then other people said "yes, good idea, that will convince people to alleviate suffering in Africa." Mind blowing.

LOl
Sorry this way too stupid I agree.
Lol

[cacian]

The idea of using their images is to try to ensure they grow up at all. If they do, and they then resent the use of those images, I'd say that that was a success.

So, let me explain my take on this.

I imagine myself crouched in some arid desert, as I have for months, desperate and sick, watching my daughters starving to death and knowing there's nothing I can do about it. A photographer appears from some far-off affluent country, and takes photographs of my emaciated, hopeless children. He asks if he can use those pictures in a campaign to raise money to alleviate the famine.

I say, "Yes - do. Please do. I don't give a damn about anything except the faint possbility that someone somewhere might be persuaded - through guilt or sympathy or simple disgust - to help us. Offend those people. Repulse them. Provoke them into debates about the exploitation of these photos. I don't care - just manipulate them into sending money."

And as the photographer walks aways, I call him after him.

"Please come back to this place in a few days," I say, "when my girls have died, as we both know they will. Take more photographs, and use them too. Show the readers of magazines and the buyers of books and the watchers of documentaries what's really unacceptable."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In all the time I've been here at LitNet, and despite getting into some pretty fervent arguments, I have never, to my knowledge, incurred any infraction points for overstepping the line of civility in my correspondence with anyone.

I'm going to stop talking to you now, cacian, because I'm pretty sure that if I continue this dialogue, I shall quite soon be moved to express my opinion of you, which would rack up my full quota of infraction points in about three posts.

You have your points and I have mine.
Express not your opinion of me for you do not quite know me, if at all, and the same applies to me.
Express your opinions on what I say or have said, would be more appropriate.
I am still without a shadow of a doubt disagreeing with the media using children images in this way.
Civility obliges that ones asks before one takes.
Decency requires that one asks persmission from another when or if they wish to use their intellect property, ie their pictures, their livelihood or anyhting remotely to do with them, to use on TV, Internet or in any other public way.
Enough said.

[kensington]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, there is more than a slight degree of emotional blackmail to the printing of images of human (or sometimes not human) suffering. And I'll admit that I find it rather objectionable sometimes - there is a very fine line between encouraging people to give charitably in the spirit of human brotherhood, and foisting unwarranted misery on an innoccent and often finanically troubled public.

You know what I mean. The advert will come on, and a voice will say "Poor Dobbin the mule was going to be tortured, killed, and boiled down for glue and dog food. But then the R. J. Critchley Centre for Useless Animals rescued him. Now Dobbin is free to live out his twilight years in peace and dignity. For only £50 a week, you too can help save poor knackered animals, and give them the joy the deserve. Call 0800-UTTER-TWADDLE now to..."

All this will be over-layed with sad violin music, and we'll see stock footage of donkeys suffering in a glue factory juxtaposed with images of the gormless Dobbin prancing around a meadow of wildflowers. If you're an idiot, you'll reach for your wallet. If you're me, a little bit of your respect for humanity drops off and dies.

Of course I'm unhappy that there is suffering in the world. But thanks to being a British tax-payer (a large amount of which goes into aid), I'm also a member of the most charitable collective of people in the world. And to be honest, if I gave up every penny I own, it wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference to the world; it'd be like throwing a snowball into hell. As a result, I do somewhat dislike having images of horror repeatedly thrown at me in an attempt to make me yet again open my not-particularly-well-filled wallet.


And I find that glue is indispensible. The hood started to fall off my raincoat last year. Instead of replacing it, I just bought some super glue and repaired it - good as new!

[JuniperWoolf]

Duct tape works well too, I use duct tape for everything.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I once stumbled on to an image of three quite elderly gentlemen engaging in some shocking sexual activity. I found it to be quite unacceptable.

[kensington]

I once stumbled on to an image of three quite elderly gentlemen engaging in some shocking sexual activity. I found it to be quite unacceptable.


"quite unacceptable"? Why do I get the idea that you're putting that mildly? :shocked:

[JuniperWoolf]

He's being sarcastic, he thought it was hot.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

He's being sarcastic, he thought it was hot.
:lol: You see right through me, Juniper.

[OrphanPip]

I'm intrigued, were the elderly men engaged with each other or was someone else present?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Each other. It was a lemon party.

[PoeticPassions]

lemon party? ha, I think it's the first time I have seen that term... great imagery though. haha