To Feel utterly devastated *Warning* *Distressing Content*

[TooMuchToTake]

Link is here.....Warning - the link is distressing

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-idlib-airstrike-civilians-russia-a9020611.html

That father’s distress and horror.

That amazing little girl’s courage - clinging onto her baby sister despite having a building collapse on top of her.

I am really upset. I cannot stop crying. I cannot shake it off. Where is humanity? Somebody’s babies are dead. Why? Why has this got to me so badly? Is it because I have children? I am angry that a father had to witness this.

Those poor little babies. That brave little girl. Her little hand reaching out clinging to her sister despite what her little body and mind has experienced. I am in bits. When is this pointless gut wrenching bloodshed going to end? Sorry, just needed to put this out there. The horror of it has really got to me.

Moragen sadly the picture is not a fake, there are pictures and videos of these children in their hospital beds, they were saved but are not in a great condition, they have already lost other family members (their mother and siblings I believe).

I have mixed feelings about seeing these photos, a part of me think they should not be published due to respect for the people involved and the people who lost their lives but then again if it’s not shown then many of us are oblivious to what is going on in Syria, people need to see it with their own eyes to see how bad the situation is.

It is a heartbreaking photo. There's a media studies quote somewhere that suggests that the image of one suffering person, better a child, or even a dog, moves us, due to empathy, but enormous suffering leaves us cold.
So many press photos of the year or times most influential 100 photos have a suffering/dying or dead child or grieving parent at their core.
You then have the argument as to whether that intrusion of grief or moment of death is justifiable or whether it should be kept private. Some see it as a necessity to incite a global reaction, others see it as exploitative akin to torture porn.
Then there's the question of how photographs are used for propaganda - I don't believe that is the case here but there are probably examples out there that others more versed on the subject know about.
So no YANBU, it is merely a question of whether the photo will effect change or stay in people's memories or whether, like many, it becomes yesterday's snow. I think I read somewhere that 85 000 people had died since the Alan Kurdi photo. Our grief/shock/anger in general tends to be fleeting.

Teacher 22 - I don't disagree with you summary of the Middle East in general, but it's very naive to believe that we have true democracy in the West.

We may have some largely meaningless shams of democratic political processes in place (such as voting for who will be our next lib/lab/con puppet of the banks, the corporations and the establishment)... but essentially the West operates under a system of Corporatocracy and/or Oligarchy.

I think it was more to do with patriarchal, misogynistic, theocratic, or semi theocratic cultures where religion is used to brainwash and repress the populace.

Bullshit Syria was secular not a theocracy. Perhaps learn a bit more about the region.

I think it's exploitative as well. The papers have even published their names. I assume they had no choice in this (but I could be wrong). This would never happend if this was a UK "incident" (house fire, car accident or similar).

This would never happened if this was a UK "incident" (house fire, car accident or similar)
I'm not sure about that - certainly in the US, such photos have been documented. The famous 1975 photo led to action within 24 hours to improve fire escapes in Boston.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Escape_Collapse
Times have changed since and personal privacy/not exploiting a scene have become matters for debate but photographs can be the catalyst for change. I would only be angry if a photograph was heavily manipulated for effect eg adding a child's teddy bear

This picture really upset me. I teach in a school that has a number of refugee children, some of whom have PTSD and heartbreaking backgrounds, but at least they are alive. One of the children I teach fled from Aleppo and I can’t imagine the things she saw.

But it frustrates me that it takes photos like this to garner emotion from westerners.

I completely agree.
What do people imagine actually happens in countries in the middle of a conflict whatever it is?

What do you think happens and what life looks like to kids in extreme poverty in countries that are not even at war?

www.newyorker.com/books/second-read/how-we-should-respond-to-photographs-of-suffering

I think the photo is exploitative. It shows no respect for the family and their loss.

I disagree. We need to see the true horror of war, to bear witness and to understand, so that war is not entered into lightly.

Lovemusic33 the article says the little girl holding onto the baby died in hospital later

I don't think it exploitative. I don't think our press publishes enough of these pictures of what is happening around the world.

theconversation.com/images-of-suffering-can-bring-about-change-but-are-they-ethical-100809

it frustrates me that it takes photos like this to garner emotion from westerners
It's linked to ''the western gaze'' allegedly, how we prioritise deaths.

I don't think this photo is exploitive either, it is a reminder of a truth. A hard truth that a lot of people rather deny rather than accept. Yes, after reaching safety, people might get angry for their photo being used. But if a photo of them helps bring peace or immediate help to get to safety, people will agree to it. After this event that family might now get extra help and be flown over to a safe country or killed for embarrassing their country. Large public interest has double edge sword. I hope his family is taken to a safe place soon.

I agree, we need these photos, and not ignore any of these any more than we already are.

still a shame that we pick and chose what is distressing.

I saw this already this morning. And I actually thought it was bizzarre how the war in Syria had just disappeared from mainstream media for so long.

How pliable we are, that if it's not directed to us, alot of us just don't actively know.

I've prayed for those involved. Prayed for peace. Unfortunately humans are really bleak. Kill each other & killing off a whole planet too.

When I worked in the field, we had a code of conduct for photos for publication. This photo wouldn't have met it. People don't need to serve up their tragedies in emotive chunks for the West.

There is no way that our media would publish a similar photo from a terrorist attack in the UK with a child who later died. Why not? Because we would respect the family's grief and the child's privacy, we would adhere to the principles of respecting the dignity of the individual, because 'emotive' photos can be viewed as a success by the perpetrators. And, frankly, if you need to see a photo of a child dying to appreciate the horrors of war, that's a lacking in your humanity.

LillithsFamiliar I don't agree. How else will people know about this horror?

we would adhere to the principles of respecting the dignity of the individual

HAHAHA

sorry, but come on. We all know it's not true, you just have to open a paper to see it.
YOU might do, but as a general rule, the press doesn't.

We need wars in far away places so we can flog our weapons to countries to fight them. That's why we suck up to the Saudis, for example.

That's the country we live in, headed by the government we voted in.

81 you don't have to agree. It's a fact that photos from the scene of the Manchester bombing were removed from online outlets almost as soon as people involved posted them. We can all understand the horror of children going to a concert and being killed. We don't need to see photos of it.
There is a double standard that says Western victims deserve privacy and respect but non-Westerns have to serve their grief up for public consumption, to prove they deserve help or funding or to prove their humanity.
Not only is that racist but it also means you're swayed by whichever photo is put in front of you that day. You can ignore the families who have fled their homes because of violence and are living in refugee camps in Sudan. You can ignore the women raped during wars and on and on and on. You can ignore all the inconvenient truths that can't be packaged into one photo.

It never ceases to amaze me that there is always someone on hand to photograph these distressing images. You have to be a special sort of person when your reaction to these scenes is to whip out your camera or phone.
And to win awards for recording these gross acts of inhumanity is just wrong. I know all the arguments regarding the “need” to report but my first reaction would be to try and preserve life not take a photo.
Hopefully the money these images will attract will be given to the victims and not line the pockets of the business they support.

Our governments dont put a stop to it because they fund it and make a profit from it. That's why

as much as the press sometimes pisses me off, you NEED someone to witness and report.

A pp up thread mentioned refugees:- I have this argument many times about refugees with people when they complain about them coming over, and I say ‘Hold on, so if you were in a country that’s at war, would you try and do everything in your power to get your family away to a safe country?’ And every single person says ‘of course I would!’ And I’m like 🤷🏻‍♀️🤦‍♀️ because it’s as though they don’t see the connection.