The Dead Roo

Comment from David Bath
Time: May 22, 2007, 3:04 pm

Yep, the graphic was over the top and also unnecessary to the argument. I think it was grossly irresponsible, especially as the photo was at the top of the post and thus included on the OzPolitics blog feed.

And I’m not overly sensitive to such images: I’ve spent considerable time cutting up dead humans, been up to past my elbows in vats of body parts, and seen other extremely graphic images in textbooks, dealt with disturbing specimens in path and anatomy labs, and vivisected (properly anaesthetized of course). So if I find the image offensive, it’s offensive.

Comment from David Bath
Time: May 22, 2007, 3:06 pm

Oops, that’s vivisected non-primates! I’d never vivisect a primate.

Comment from Mr Wggl
Time: May 22, 2007, 5:23 pm

The bloggist’s right to publish the picture is not disputed. Their lack of the wisdom to not make a disclaimer and hide it behind a cut or jump: that is the issue.

Sadly, I find I cannot read that particular blog any longer.

Comment from Kieran
Time: May 22, 2007, 5:35 pm

hear hear.

Comment from Bruce
Time: May 22, 2007, 6:32 pm

Amazing.

We (Arthur of Five Public Opinions, and Ninglun amongst others) has this same discussion last year when the picture of a dead Lebanese girl was depicted.

In the same way, we thought that the picture didn’t help the case and further we questioned the logical validity of an appeal to disgust.

Bruce

Comment from Deke Writin
Time: May 23, 2007, 3:50 am

The image in question is actually that of an unborn baby undergoing spina-bifida surgery in the States in ‘99, taken by Michael Clancy (rather than a murdered Palestinian child). The image is very popular with anti-abortion crusaders, who term it “The Hand of Hope” and claim the baby reached out and grabbed the doctor’s hand. Interestingly, this version of events is supported only by the photographer - the Doctor says he was asked to lift the child’s hand out for a posed photo and did so ( and that the child was anesthetised, and unable to move at that point).

Comment from gandhi
Time: May 23, 2007, 12:12 pm

I find it very sad (if not rather suspicious) that you did not even read the article in question, and that you choose to make an issue of the photo, which clearly had a direct correlation to the story (if you had bothered to read it).

I have already acknowledged on my blog that the photo was not the same one described in the article I posted about (which is seemingly not available online, otherwise I would have posted it).

OTOH, since you did not even bother to even read the article, you can hardly complain about the photo not matching!

Over half a million Iraqis are dead, and Australia as a nation bears some serious blame for that. What do you think such violent deaths looks like? Bodies in the river Tigris routinely have holes drilled in their kneecaps due to torture. The US government is closely involved with the death squads that mete out such horror. Australian gtovernment representatives stand in the corner of the cell while such atrocities occur. How on earth are we ever going to come to realise the full horrror of what our government has done, if prissy little uni student f-ckweeds* like yourself cannot even bring yourself to look at a photo and read the accompanying text?

Palestinians are treated like animals in the Israeli state which our government strongly supports. What do you think of that?

Or would you rather just ignore it and concentrate on your career?

* Editor’s note: We censor profanity in order to avoid being blocked by corporate and school firewalls.

Comment from David Bath
Time: May 23, 2007, 12:39 pm

gandi:
1) I said the photo was unnecessary and irresponsible, not irrelevant. I also see your point about the Oz electorate’s collective responsibility given the 2004 Fed Election.

2) I strongly urge you to put warnings before such images in the future, and use the “more/next page” constructs to stop the photo being reflected in feeds.

Comment from gandhi
Time: May 23, 2007, 2:03 pm

WHY?

Comment from Deke Writin
Time: May 23, 2007, 2:04 pm

Gandhi, you have a radically different understanding of what constitutes “direct correlation” than I.

Comment from MorningDude
Time: May 23, 2007, 2:52 pm

That picture in higher quality has been doing the email rounds as one slide of a PowerPoint presentation on “Hope” for a while now. You know pass this on and give hope to the world. There were also pictures of cute marmosets hugging, a kitten snuggling up to an german shepherd etc.

I saw nothing wrong with it in the PowerPoint and there was no warning in the email as to its content either. I suppose it is just the context of the article it is posted in that makes the difference?

Comment from Kieran
Time: May 23, 2007, 4:11 pm

WHY?

Why walk around with clothing on? Agree with it or not, your audience would like you too.

I find it very sad (if not rather suspicious) that you did not even read the article in question, and that you choose to make an issue of the photo, which clearly had a direct correlation to the story (if you had bothered to read it).

Suspicious? Of what, dare I ask?

I firmly believe in the rights to freedom of expression, and the right of an informed adult audience to view whatever it wants to in experiencing such expression.

As an informed adult, I don’t want to stumble across such images, without warning, in my feedreader. Whether you like it or not, and whatever you think of my low tolerance for gore, that’s just how it is.

People who want such material, can seek it out at their liesure, but they wont stumble upon it without warning from my blog.

So in answer to your question, “WHY?” make an issue of the lack of a warning, because unless others can expect you to be wearing your clothes, when your lack of clothes causes them such upset, expect them to avoid you.

How on earth are we ever going to come to realise the full horrror of what our government has done, if prissy little uni student fuckweeds like yourself cannot even bring yourself to look at a photo and read the accompanying text?

Dare I say it’s all relative?

On one level, I have a much deeper understanding than most citizens of this country of what the Iraq war means.

Your photo is much more real than some text. But it is inself totally unreal and totally removed from the reality of say, having your hands covered in the tattered remnants of someones brains. Which in turn pales in comparison to the situation you’d be in if they were your brains.

Perhaps we should all go out and get shot in order to better understand the Iraq war?

I disagree with your argument on this point, I do not believe foisting such images upon the unwilling is in this particular case justified.

But then I’m being a little hypocritical in this respect. I was once involved in a campaign to wake people up to the realities of Israels invasion of Lebanon.

Images I designed, such as this, were plastered around my university campus:

I had my qualms about some of the posters, but I felt that on the whole they were justified.

Whether or not violating social norms is justified is a relative propisition.

On the whole I feel, and judging from the public and private responce I’ve recieved from fellow participants in this project I think we all feel, that on balance we would prefer people had the choice not to see images such as the one that accompanied your post, relevant to the article’s content or not.

Comment from David Bath
Time: May 23, 2007, 7:52 pm

I won’t give a direct link, but I just saw the top of a HowardOut post on the feed at ozpolitics.info, with half a dozen photos - a couple of them pretty graphic - a couple acceptable - and a statement that it was specially for Kieran with a pointer to this post.

Bec and Kieran: You did exactly the right thing taking the site from the blogroll. I would not be surprised if (and hope that) ozpolitics.info does the same thing, given that their site is also a good resource for kids learning about the Australian system.

If the blogger responds as he did, he is not showing the least care or respect for his potential audience (direct or via feeds), and it’s an immature response when he could have given (in text) a rationale for his actions to rebut your statements.

This is just the sort of thing that could be used by repressive politicians with the review of the Content Services amendment to communications legislation. I’d almost expect a “tut, tut, look what those insensitive lefties are up to” from Andrew Bolt.

Comment from David Bath
Time: May 23, 2007, 8:00 pm

gandi.

if prissy little uni student [censored]weeds

I, for one, am a grandfather, and as I said, have dealt with the reality, not just photos, of body parts many would find more disturbing than the images you posted, so “prissy little uni student” is inaccurate, as it is about other DeadRoo contributors.

As for your language, I hope Kieran edits it. It’s not exactly the language of a mature adult in the context. Dead Roo is a pretty civilized community, and pretty much PG (adult concepts). I think our discussions are suitable fodder for secondary students, and would like it to be available to them.

Comment from gandhi
Time: May 26, 2007, 9:59 pm

Listen, I take your points, and you do sound like good people, and I shouldn’t have called you a ****weed, but I think your outrage is verging on ridiculous.

For god’s sake, people: heaps of secondary kids these days see every kind of hardcore porn before they are 16! Sure it’s good to protect them if you can, but I doubt many are reading the OzBlogs feed (I could be wrong: there are some pretty immature voices out there). Even so, I think they can handle such a pic better than you can.

We’ve already established that this was not a war image, but a photo of a surgical operation that was actually beneficial. Secondary kids see more graphic things in medical documentary programs. You can see worse in ABC, or ER, or a host of PG-rated programs. What about “Alien”?

Given where we as a nation stand right now, I think people need to be shocked out of their complacency and see the full horror of what we are contributing to. If you really care about secondary school kids, give them a future. Tell them what is really going on. Show them.

If and when a 9/11-scale act of violence ever occurs here in Australia, don’t let those kids be left wondering “Why do they hate us?”, as so many dumb Americans were.

You know, countries like Spain and many Third World countries routinely show more violent images on the TV news than we Aussies ever see. There is something to be said for that policy. Instead, our government spends millions on horrific images for drink-driving and anti-smoking campaigns. Know what I mean? And you don’t mind your kids watching that, right?

As a gesture of goodwill, I have removed the follow-up photos, which I admit were posted in anger (which, as we all know, leads to the Dark Side). But this post stays as is. If you don’t like it, don’t read my blog.

‘Nuff said.