Photo graphic evidence

In case you're wondering why my blogging volume has gone up exponentially in the last couple weeks, it's because I'm back home with not much to do because I'm done with school. So, I need a hobby and I've chosen blogging. Also, I've started getting the NY Times everyday again.

There was a really disturbing photo on the cover of the Times today (which isn't actually that unusual, but I never get used to it). It's a photo of a dead Lebanese soldier lying in the street in a pool of blood with two other soldiers nearby that seem to be clearly still embroiled in the conflict that killed their comrade.

I'm not going to talk about the desensitization to violence and suffering caused by over saturation of stories and images of war (a friend of mine addressed that issue, though in a very different context, if your interested you should check it out). My issue is what the purpose, or agenda, is behind putting a photo like that on the front page of the paper.

You hear a lot about the liberal bias in the media. Perhaps this is a liberal ploy to disturb the populace so much that they turn against the idea of war in general. Or maybe it's the opposite. Maybe it's a ploy to rally support for wars against Islamic militants. It could be less politically motivated. Maybe it's pure capitalism, maybe a photo like this sells more papers than something less grisly. Whatever the reason for printing the photo on the front page of the Times it disturbs me. It disturbs me that people are willing to risk their lives to take pictures like this. Of course, it also disturbs me that scenes like this one even exist to be photographed. I have trouble coming to terms with a world that's at war and the truth is that the world is almost always at war. I know that. I just don't want to see it on the front page of the NY Times.