Beginner Controversial Subjects.

Beetnik said:
they may not be independent, sovereign countries but they are still countries, both beingn constituent nations within the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...
Maybe I don't understand the difference between a country, a nation, and a sovereign state. I will need to look it up :-(

Edit: It seems I have incorrectly thought that legally, country and sovereign state were the same thing, and we have just continued to refer to Scotland, England and Wales as countries out of historical nostalgia. Which turns out to be wrong, and countries don't need to be sovereign states; they only need to be defined by history and geographical boundaries.
 
Last edited:
benc98 said:
There were 100+ comments when I looked at it all saying the photographer was a creep, you shouldn't post it, 'privacy laws'.
Click to expand...
It is possible that, one day, we shall finally remove the truth of the old saying that: "the poor you will always have with you".

However, I can't imagine that we will ever get rid of the stupid, the arrogant or the downright nasty, at least so long as "farcebook" exists. :(
 
Working on the incorrect assumption that o/p was referring to N.I.
  • June 2026 Riots: During widespread disorder in Belfast, members of the press were specifically targeted . Aris Roussinos, a journalist, was told he would be "kneecapped" by men in east Belfast who searched his phone . A Sky News crew was frog-marched out of the area, while other photographers were assaulted or had their cameras destroyed .
  • Scarva Demonstrations: Photographers covering protests near Scarva were subjected to threats, shoves, and insults from masked individuals .
  • Prior Flashpoints: During earlier riots in Belfast, multiple photographers had their equipment smashed or stolen, and were forced to abandon areas for their safety
Click to expand...
 
Many years ago some amazing pictures taken in republican pubs and Orange pubs in Belfast were published. The photographer was blind so he was not opposed. He may have lost his sight due to the troubles but he was able to take gritty images with real character.

Dave
 
When I look at the news, there are many scenes shown (and some they wont) where there is a warning that they may be upsetting.
I often wonder at what point will we have to realize that the tenderness of society's is actually creating a very false projection of the world.
Even when they issue a warning that softens the impact of the news in question.

A small child in Africa breathing its last and covered in flies, while the mother watches on with helplessness in her eyes is shown, but with a warning that it may be upsetting.
I don't understand but, that must be one of the most upsetting things to see, while I sit in comfort with a full belly.

There are many many things that perhaps they should show, so why is the media distancing us from the reality.
Is it because some will be upset and complain, would some complain because they are not being told or shown the reality of the given situation.

Now I don't think that they should show show blood and gore and so on, but depending on what and where it is in the world they do.
For example an attack on somewhere in the world (bomb blast) and we are shown the aftermath, sometimes children being carried in to the hospital with blood all over them.

Where do we decide what is informative and what is going beyond the threshold to the point of hurting people.

Its strange, they show and record all sorts.
If people are being very upset, would that be a good thing and lead to improvements in the long run on not?
What is of more value, reality or comfort depending on peoples outlook on the world?
Could there be a case for don't show that because it will upset as opposed to showing that because its what happened and it should be known?
 
What some people call distressing images are sometimes a spur and elevate a situation to a wider audience,

Have a look at some of the images by Kevin Carter, his photos highlighted the atrocities in South Africa and the famine in Sudan, he changed the worlds view of these far off lands.

Sadly the things he saw and documented for the benefit of those peoples took there toll.

The haunting image of the vulture waiting for the starving boy to die just stays forever, it cant be unseen.

The line is blurred between a photograph being informative and celebrating the gore and depends much on the target audience, which is more informative and to whom ?

A photo of blind woman outside her bombed out home trying to cook on a makeshift fire, or drone footage of a soldier being targeted and blown to smithereens.
 
Last edited:
I have been and looked, I have seen that before, it was in the news at the time on publishing.
So what I am thinking is I should go out with my camera and take photographs.
If they are good that will be fine and if they tell a story even better.
Sometimes bad is better when telling stories, forgive me for saying but it appears that way to me. Its unfortunate I think.

My wife told a couple of family members that I went to see the march, individually I may add.
Both had the same reaction, look of concern and asked why did you go there, then a negative generic comment about the event.
They were just repeating what they had heard or read on the local chat web sites.
Although they do not know anything substantial about what they are disgusted about.

I asked them if they could tell me about the participants of the march and why, they themselves are against it
They could not tell me anything, but said everyone was against it. Who is everyone I asked.
Asked them why are they not informed and aware about something they are so strongly against.
Of course it all boiled down to lack of factual knowledge leading to being unable to converse about the event.

What lesson did I learn from all of this.
People have already formed opinions about controversial things, some have had their opinions created for them by their contact with the media streams they take part in.
Sadly for some or perhaps many, they have not done it for themselves.
But that is lessons in life, we have all been there, me included.

Which now makes me fully understand how dangerous the world we live in actually is.
If people can be convinced by others to be for or against an issue because they are told, and without really knowing about it or how it ever came into existence.

History is littered with events that have taken place because people were convinced by others.
Could it be a photograph can work in good or bad ways depending on peoples already formed opinions.
This is a hard situation, I am learning that if I do any controversial photography I should read up on the situation as much as I can. After I take the photograph but before I publish it.
If even to help myself.
 
Oldbones said:
People have already formed opinions about controversial things, some have had their opinions created for them by their contact with the media streams they take part in.
Sadly for some or perhaps many, they have not done it for themselves.
But that is lessons in life, we have all been there, me included.

Which now makes me fully understand how dangerous the world we live in actually is.
If people can be convinced by others to be for or against an issue because they are told, and without really knowing about it or how it ever came into existence.
Click to expand...

I think many will have seen via news media footage the trouble that has been caused at some of these events in the past (and of course not just these events) and will have made a judgement about them accordingly. Some things do not have to be experienced personally in order to form an opinion and some matters are so controversial that for fear of retaliation there are those who decline to vocalise their opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top