Words: 591
Media pertaining to war should be allowed in moms since one piece of film or photography would benefit the effort to build support for the war and at the same time the effort to end the war. Those who feel that wartime media should not be broadcasted into homes, reason that photographers can essentially stage their pictures and videos to wield the reality of the situation. In his column “Photography View’, located in the New York Times, Andy Greenberg stated, “… The camera’s status as a mechanical recording instrument does not mean that its images are necessarily… Innocent of bias… ” Often people assume that technology is not capable of perspective, but they tend to forget that behind every piece of technology is a human operating it. This ideology is what Greenberg speaks to in his column about photography. While this point of view does make sense in terms of the general media, we have to realize that it is nearly impossible for a single photographer to incorrectly film or photograph war and death. Because action shots were not yet available during the Civil War, it was the prerogative of the photographer to film the outcome of the fighting. … Graphic exults tended to highlight the grim toll of the war, and many people eventually took umbrage at this emphasis” (the Camera in War Time’ 13). The people in essence shied away from what they saw because of how lurid and ghastly the pictures were. One cannot simply stage that level of fighting and death – it is impossible, even in modern times. Therefore, war media has to be and is depicted truthfully. Media depicting the war would help to build support for the conflict on the home front by boosting nationalistic feelings in the common people.
Showing the soldiers’ rage in the fights would heighten pride for the country and result in support for the cause. The author of “The Camera in War Time” specified, “… War photographs have depicted the harsh realities endured by ordinary soldiers and helped build support for the war effort on the home front”. Fundamentally, the brutality shown in the media concerning the war would cause many people to sustain and upkeep the war due to their patriotic pride in seeing their soldiers.
The same media that propelled the war effort would also serve as a means for some to try and put an end to the war. During war, relentless amounts of carnage transpire, which are shown in the media. According to “The Camera in War Time”, “The courage of the soldiers was moving, but the unrelenting carnage was difficult to view’. Therefore, the same broadcasting that led to support for the war was the War Media in the Living Room By Misusing suffering AIDS patients, Greenberg also questions, “What better way to bring home the devastating toll of the disease than to particularize its victims? To relate Grubbers philosophy to allowing war media in homes ask yourself, “What better ay to bring home the devastating toll of the war than to particularize its victims [the fallen soldiers]? ” Showing the faces of individual soldiers, who have fallen protecting their country, would cause people to want to put an end to the war to prevent further deaths. War-time media should be allowed in homes because it allows for both the support and opposition to the conflict, itself. Furthermore, the argument that the media stages the photographs and videos is an invalid one because it is, quite frankly, impossible to do so.