Originally posted by bohemka:
Derek, I appreciate your angle on this and would normally support a similar position, but my opinion is that you're misreading this scenario.
I don't see any public cognitive dissonance and discomfort over what a terrorist is supposed to be. In fact, sadly, this is exactly what most Americans expect a terrorist to be: Muslim. Robert's link doesn't support your point ΓΆ€” it provides another perspective of the same exact guy, bloody, confused, hopeless, future and family destroyed. And many think this is the face of terrorism that should receive the limelight, not Tsarnaev's hand-picked, self-promoting image (what else is a FB pic, right?). |
I see your point, but the article quite obviously portrays a seemingly everyday kid, one which nobody would have pictured doing this. As such, the picture is a fitting, if provocative, example. I don't think putting our head in the sand and putting up a strong propagandist face is really productive, so I object to the "bloodied terrorist" being the face.
To me, I think part of the reason why I'm not seeing eye to eye on this with others is that I'm considering the photo as it relates to the article and the issue and nothing else, whereas others are considering the images on the cover separate from the accompanying articles as a historical narrative. Neither is more or less correct, just different ways of viewing it. There have been other covers that were provocative that I think were fitting of the article, and I feel that now as then.
In the end, I will routinely favor provocative journalism, if for no other reason than the fact that it promotes a dialogue. I've considered the issue in far more varying ways as a result of such discord, and I find that beneficial, so I rarely support outright status-quo portrayals. |
