So I would like to know what people think about the photo shown in the article about the death of Jeffrey Babbitt, where the police are aiding him but he is bleeding onto the pavement while a crowd stands by.
There is a conversation in the comments basically saying that Gawker is irresponsible for showing this because the person didn't give consent. And that's a fine conversation to have in terms of exploitation of tragedy for profit.
However, there seems to be an undercurrent to this from other posters to the effect of: why show the bleeding man at all?
My opinion: you show that man so people can get a glimpse of the real situation. That photo should illicit feelings. It should make you uncomfortable. It should make you feel sympathy, anger, shock: something about that event. Something about it to grab you. Something about an image can do that better than words.
But instead it seems that our societal need for surrogacy has gotten to the point where we would like the balderized effect for real-life stories. And its at the point where the effects of gun violence, gangs, assaults, wars, car crashes, and all manner of violence are talked about but never really shown. No dead bodies. No blood. Just words and a few photos not taken from the scene for the story.
I know that we already live in a society which glorifies violence but don't we need to counter that glorification with the real? The physical effects and emotions that happen because of these events? Shouldn't we be shocked by real violence? And if not, why shouldn't we see it?