The scene was ghastly. Four people lay sprawled on the pavement in the immediate aftermath of a mortar strike on civilians fleeing a Ukrainian town Sunday morning. A mother and two children were already dead as soldiers knelt over a man who had been with the family, frantically trying to save him as he took his last breaths.
A New York Times photographer approached from behind a nearby building and aimed her camera.
Like many war images, Lynsey Addario’s photo of the dead and dying was never guaranteed to be published. Newsrooms have for decades been cautious when it comes to displaying such graphic images, weighing the journ*listic benefits of chronicling the horror against the distress it might cause readers and the victims’ families.
They also use it as an excuse to publish shit this AIDs ridden nonsense from the times where they make a bunch of big claims and give literally nothing to back it up with. Not a single picture from the event they're talking about, just a header one take days before.
Is it real? Who knows? And who cares?
But, as their colleagues around the world have done with many other disturbing images from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Times’s photo editors decided that, in this case, exposing the war’s brutality outweighed decorum. Addario’s photo led the Times’s website Sunday, and was splashed across the top of the front page of the print newspaper on Monday, spanning five of its six columns.
And by doing that they gave me the reader, the person you're trying to influence, to believe them. I think that event happened because they showed the evidence they claim existed
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Snapshots:
this AIDs ridden nonsense from the times:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context