Excuse my poor attempt at Photoshop in the picture of “Dead Dad” a sculpture by the Australian artist Ron Mueck. The original artwork has no blood and you can see the penis.
You can read more about it here.
I’ve done this blog because I was dismayed by the distressing images in the UK press of Colonel Gaddafi covered in blood probably dead or close to it. The most disturbing image was that on the front page of The Mirror where they show the bloody corpse with gun shot wounds to the head. Australian newspaper The Sydney Morning Herald was one of the few that didn’t show Gaddafi dead or close to it. I can already sense some thinking. “Well don’t look at the images then!!!”
The thing is, I have a three year old and I don’t think it is sociable acceptable to put these images in supermarkets, petrol stations and newsagents where mothers and children can see them.
I recently wrote a blog about an article in The Sun, where they condemned an X Factor contestant for filming a 6 minute long webcam video of himself masturbating on a legal paid porn site. They describe it as “seedy”, “vile” and “disgusting” which left show bosses “horrified”. I personally wasn’t offended in the slightest. If people are willing to pay to watch a guy jerk off who am I to judge them?
However, you will NEVER see a naked person on the front page of a newspaper. Yet today we have a man covered in blood dead or pleading for his life. When did this become more acceptable that the human body?
If Gaddafi had run naked across a football pitch with his penis flapping about they would cut away so not to offend anyone watching the game and if it had made the front pages they would have censored his penis.
They even edited an image of an X Factor idiot in the US who dropped his pants. The thing was – he exposed nothing more than his underwear!
Somehow it is ok to see a guy with a bullet in his head next to the checkout in Marks and Spencer.
I understand that Gaddafi was not just any man, he was a terrible man who was responsible for 1000s of murders but does that really justify showing his bloody body on the front page of newspapers for everyone to see?
There seems to have been a macabre celebratory way our national media is reporting his death. There was an interesting piece on BBC News that I also found worrying.
David Cameron joked "Obviously Diwali being the festival of a triumph of good over evil, and also celebrating the death of a devil, perhaps there's a little resonance in what I'm saying tonight.”
Then BBC reporter Nick Robinson said of Cameron, “After his first victory in his first war some may think he will develop an appetite for military action.”
So what was a peacekeeping mission is now openly described as a war and a war that David Cameron won? Combine that with “That’s for Lockerbie” and I’m starting to see a nation getting ready for another conflict.
Our “enemies” would be best advised to strip off now.
Please read this following article it is uplifting:
I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.” Words of Jessica Dovey. Followed by Martin Luther King Junior
2 comments:
"I am glad that Gaddafi cannot hurt anyone anymore but does that mean we should rejoice in his death in such a medieval way?"
I agree Steve, and I said the same when there was the rejoicing over Osama Bin Laden.
If we condemn their actions surely we have got to be above that kind of thing.
Removing someone or soemthing for the protection of others is good.
But vengefulness harms all.
Hmmm.... I predict the number of monsters like bin Laden and Gaddafi to increase greatly over the next fifty years. That is simply because we are globally losing civility in a time of growing crisis and competition.
Post a Comment