Focusing on grief, misery
To the editor:
The "honors" for photo of the year ("Review-Journal wins 14 first-place awards," Sept. 30) epitomizes what's wrong with today's media. I hate the fact that someone collapsing upon the realization of her worst nightmare -- that her daughter had died in a fire -- becomes food for contest winnings.
The media is always on the lookout for expressions of grief and misery. The horror of families facing devastating loss simply should not even be considered subject matter for prizes. I can only imagine the pain the family is feeling at having their grief celebrated by photographers and media publicists.
Notice how many grieving families are interviewed for newscasts on TV. Questions such as, "What was your first thought when you found out your daughter was killed in an accident?" should be banned on the basis of heartlessness. I suppose the media moguls are motivated by the idea that such stories will pull in larger advertising dollars, but the cost to the individuals being showcased isn't considered.
I suppose the picture has several qualities photographers might seek to capture. The lines of the fence, hose and police car lead the eyes to notice the people framed in the center of the photo. The background isn't distracting and the focus is clear. But the focus is on a woman who is overcome with absolute distress, not something pleasant like children playing in a park.
I've often found myself depressed on my way to work after reading the morning newspaper. The focus is on everything wrong in our world. Rather than awarding photographers and journalists for capturing grief and misery, let's shift our celebrations to success and achievement.
I would like to see our media express more sympathy and understanding for the people they feature rather than mercilessly seek to increase readership at the expense of those who are already hurting.
BRENT BANDHAUER
LAS VEGAS
Human cancer
To the editor:
In response to the Tuesday letter from UNLV geology professor Stephen M. Rowland, "We must take global warming seriously":
No person is disputing naturally caused global warming, as history has shown it has occurred in the past and the data shows that the effects are occurring now. At issue, though, is whether human activities are a significant cause of that change today.
To date, the only evidence that supports the idea of human-caused global warming are computer models. But just as the computer models for Yucca Mountain proved un-auditable -- and thus invalid -- and the human-caused ozone hole theories (models) were later found to be wrong, we still have scientists who simply know and believe that our reckless human activities must be a significant cause of the current world warming trend. And as the end justifies the means, for many it does not matter if it is in fact true -- as long as the result is to change the way human society conducts its self on Earth.
Thus we have environmentalists who view humans as a cancer on this planet; we have politicians who want to expand their powers to regulate human activity worldwide; and we have scientists who have been brought up in a environment in which they need government grant money to survive.
Our UNLV professor is simply repeating the party line with regard to human-caused global warming. No professor at UNLV will ever be able to verify the data, or check the programmed assumptions in the models. Our professor is simply reading the journals and accepting what could at best be called the pseudo-scientific consensus of our day.
If this were Galileo's time, our professor would be claiming that the Earth was the center of the universe and that Galileo was a heretic. Today, we see the same types of religious zealots putting down any and all who disagree with the consensus of our pseudo-scientific community on human-caused global warming.
How sad that history repeats itself ... again.
Jon Hamel
LAS VEGAS
