A powerful message without words

Images and videos used by the media can send powerful messages to the viewing public. I think they are essential in capturing reality that truly can’t be described in words. Take for example this picture which has been made into a statue in Washington D.C.

It can be a very powerful tool in evoking a certain emotion. The question is to what extent do photographs evoke a change in public opinion? Should certain images be withheld from the public? 

The Times article “The Pentagon and Pictures of Soilders Coffin’s” talks about the ban (which has been lifted) that the Pentagon had issued on media images of solder’s cofins as they returned from Iraq or Afganistan. http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2009/02/27/the-pentagon-and-pictures-of-soldiers-coffins/ The author claims that “pictures don’t makeup our minds for us. They don’t tell us the answers and we don’t expect them to. What they tell us is why the questions are important”. 

Pictures themselves may not change public opinon but the context in which they are presented can. Images are used to convey a certain message and this can be used to affirm or discredit certain views and arguments. 

I think images taken of war is important and should be shown but it is also the media’s responsibility of discussing the issue throughly. The media today focuses on details of a story but does not discuss the whole picture. The media does not do it’s watchdog role; it doesn’t ask the tough questions.

It is very crucial to understand the different sides of an issue and how the images are being interpreted. It also goes without saying that it is also equally important to verify the  veracity of an image. Here is a site that highlights a few examples of images that had been altered. http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/ 

Gaddafi Supposedly ordered Lockerbie Bombing

After stepping down from his position, Libya’s ex-justice minister (Abdel-Jalil) last week claimed that Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. The Lockerbie Bombing occurred in 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland killing all passengers on board and 11 on the ground. Abdel-Jalil stated that Gaddafi personally gave the order for the attack to Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted in the bombing. Though Gaddafi paid reparations to the families of the victims, he has not taken personal responsibility for the attack.

Al-Megrahi, who is still alive today, was released from Scottish prison in 2009 because he was suffering from prostate cancer and would not live much longer.

Gaddafi who is known for his oppressive and violent regime, had renounced terrorism and has been trying to get Libya to be part of the international community. It is also known that Gaddafi’s regime have been tied to international terrorism in the past. What will be the repercussions if the allegations can be proven true? It will also be interesting to see the media coverage on this issue. 

Also, how can the scottish government let a convicted man, one of those responsible for killing over 250 people walk free, even if he is suffering from a fatal illness? I wonder if the same leniency would have been granted if it was an American. Eventhough there are those that believe that al-Megrahi was not involved and it was really an Iranian backed terrorist organization responsible for the bombing, the scottish government should not have let al-Megrahi walk free.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022302133_2.html