Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by MAGAorMIGA, Jun 17, 2018.
Why don't you try to find out? The info is available.
You could have just said it's not unfortunately (for example)
Actually the photographer and the article it was in never said they were separated. The image was used to convey the emotions in the zero tolerance policy.
The fact that children were routinely separated from family isn't fake.
Then it has no place in a news report.
Yeah what @Caoimhseach said.
Why not? The article describes what happened in the exchange at the border. The picture went with the article and shows how upset the girl was when the guards made the mum put her down whilst they searched her.
You are expecting their to be a picture of mum, daughter and border guards all smiling together?
Not sure what you're having trouble with there? You know the expression a picture paints a thousand words. Sometimes articles use real images of situations to help the reader better understand what is being described in the words. The situation was very distressing for the child and the image illustrates how much.
"Convey emotions"? Usually when they get caught lying they say the lie speaks to a "larger truth". Try that one next time.
But I get your point. Screw honest journalism. It's all about the feelz, baby...
RIGHT: One plus one equals two
LEFT: That makes me sad.
RIGHT: One plus one still equals two
LEFT: I feel making people sad is wrong. I feel the answer should be three. I demand you change it.
RIGHT: No way. One plus one still equals two
LEFT: I hate you! You're a Nazi!
You'd be distressed too if your mum had bailed on your dad and your siblings and dragged you across the desert as her personal little get out of deportation card.
No time for a tutorial on semiotics but let's just recognize that meaning is not inherent within an image. Meaning is created in the mind of the viewer by presentation and context.
The context and presentation of that photo, and others, was such as to make viewers assume that this was a child being separated etc...when it was correctly pointed out that the photo did not in fact represent what people had been led to assume it represented, those purveying the imagery and their enablers could say "Tut tut we never said it was specifically what you assumed, you're being too literal, you Nazi scum you".
Nice little racket. No way to lose, two ways to win. Sweet
I see you read the article then.
No. In that article it really wasn't.
The first attempt, alone, ended in deportation. Taking the youngest child and dumping the rest with Dad seems to be working better.
Surely the main points are that:
a) many children, some VERY young, have been separated from their parents and kept in a variety of detention places which have caused them great distress;
b) some have now been taken thousands of miles from their parents, and the reports indicate little likelihood or them being reunited soon, and possibly not at all;
c) Trump's new executive order, although appearing to prevent such separations, actually only pushes them further down the line.
If this is what is happening (and I'm sure I will soon be corrected if I am wrong) then it is inhumane.
Because I'm a free thinking adult who is able to come to a conclusion about my emotional response to a story without it being manipulated by a media conglomerate to achieve an agenda.
Was it manipulated?
You don't think news articles should contain images, or that things can be just as easily manipulated by words?
At least it was a real image from the event as it actually happened, that readers could draw their conclusions from, and not a mockup purposly drawn to manipulate the reader
Oh no! Not more feelz! Will people please stop taking pictures which play on emotions!
The pictures are a 'problem' because they remind us that these are human beings. The pictures interfere with the process of dehumanising the victims.