It's been a while since anyone posted here, so... - National Geographic
Aug. 2nd, 2007
03:19 pm - It's been a while since anyone posted here, so...
A couple of months ago, National Geographic did a story on ivory (March 2007). A later issue featuring feedback from the March issue (I think it was the May issue, but I'm not sure) had several letters to the editor criticizing the magazine for very graphic photographs, one of which showed an elephant essentially with its face cut off. The writers of those letters said that the images were unnecessarily violent and without merit for being published.
I'm curious to see how people here feel about those pictures, or others like them (National Geographic has published other graphic shots on other subjects many times before). If you read the ivory article and saw them, did you feel they belonged in the story?
Personally, I didn't think there was anything wrong with them. The real world is not always a pretty place full of flowers and butterflies. Violence exists in this world and sometimes the best way to end it is to expose it. No reader of National Geographic should have been surprised to find such pictures in that story, since I believe it is widely known that taking a tusk from an elephant is not clinical procedure (like getting a tooth pulled at the dentist). It's not like National Geographic fabricated these pictures, or used real pictures out of context. They were directly related to the story being told.