>I have been reading with interest the various posts on this topic. I have
>leaned one way then the other as both sides have presented reasonable
>arguments. Now I am square in the middle. If it wasn't for the graphic
>and unsettling photographs of Vietnam for instance, the public would
>probably have allowed things to continue status quo. It is only as an
>image gets through the viewers callous that we evoke the strong emotion we,
>as photographers, want the viewer to have. That is what photojournalism is
>about.
>
Here is what I see as the issue: If those astronauts were still alive in the
capsule as it was plunging to Earth, then it makes for a compelling argument
that NASA should have done more to enable them to survive an accident like
that. This would happen *only* if the evidence of thier survival was
published. The public outcry for greater safety and escape features in the
shuttle would have forced NASA to redesign the craft. Exposing the public to
such horrors is the *only* way to get a "real" Congressional investigation
that would have lead to the redesign. When the public gets upset around here,
they let thier Senators and Congressmen know it. It is only now that I read
somewhere the NASA is doing a little "study" on ways to make the shuttle
safer, but the report also said that any redesign would be too expensive and
held out little hope that anything would get changed. They are clearly
playing games with the public and giving mere lip service to the study so
that NASA looks like it's being "responsible."
So, it is one function of the news photographer to get people upset in order
to initiate change. Change does not happen on its own, people make it happen.
--
Be Seeing You.
Dirk Wright
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|