Operation Save America -

Photos tell the unvarnished truth. That's a popular notion. It's the argument used by anti-abortion protesters who showed up at two area high schools last week, carrying signs displaying grisly photos of aborted fetuses.

As an Opinion Line contributor said, echoing a common argument, "What the signs showed was the honest truth."

Photos never lie, right?

Well... the truth is more complicated.

Photos are immediate and emotional -- that's their undeniable power.

People often uncritically accept the "truth" of photos because, as Susan Sontag once observed, we see them not as shaped human artifacts but as captured bits of reality itself.

True, photos do capture a moment of reality.

But only a moment, a snapshot. As such, they often don't tell the whole truth. Much is left outside the frame of reference.

No one argues with the fact that a dismembered fetus is a horrible sight.

But what is not being shown? Is there hidden context, missing information, that might at least temper the visceral revulsion or outrage that we feel?

Was the abortion performed as the result of a vicious rape?

Was the mother's life threatened by delivery?

Was the fetus severely, hopelessly deformed?

Was the mother a 13-year-old?

What's the rest of the story?

Any of these or other mitigating factors might change the larger "truth" of the photo, and our response to it.

I say "might." Because, knowing all the backstory, you might still feel that the gory visual record outweighs any evidence offered to justify it.

For most people, however, context at least complicates the picture and the judgment.

I don't deny that photos can powerfully reveal a hidden reality. Sometimes we need to see a problem or event to fully understand it.

Think of the Hurricane Katrina images.

I won't deny the visual and moral ugliness of abortion.

But flashing gory photos is the crudest form of argument possible, one that cynically degrades and inflames civil discourse on a deeply divisive and complicated topic.

The sign-wavers' attempt to shock and to short-circuit argument is manipulative and, finally, unpersuasive.

This is not an argument; it's an assault.

People need to be careful about their response to photos, precisely because of the explosive emotional power of images.

Of course, often the context of a photo is in dispute, and with it, the interpretation.

Robert Davis, the retired African-American man whose beating last week by New Orleans cops was captured on videotape, says he didn't know why police suddenly began pummeling him.

Police union officials insist that the shocking footage is misleading. They say Davis was staggering drunk and belligerent.

Davis says he hasn't had a drink in 25 years.

"I see an incident of a man trying to be brought under control who doesn't want to be brought under control," said a lawyer for the police officers.

I've seen the video clip. So now have hundreds of thousands of people. And I think the three New Orleans cops under fire have a lot of explaining to do.

But I'm willing to wait for more context and information, which clearly is all-important to how we view what happened.

The Bush administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to control photographic images, partly because it understands the power of visuals, and partly because it has had more damning images to suppress than most administrations.

The White House tried to withhold images of U.S. soldiers' coffins coming home from Iraq . And of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. It failed on both counts -- and properly so.

The Bush administration does not own those photos. They should be available to Americans who want to see them.

At the same time, let the viewer beware. Both liberals and conservatives can be guilty of seeing what they want to see.

Often, we expect photos to do too much work -- to take the place of argument and reason.

Photos can be pieces of evidence. But they're not a complete argument. We still have to do the heavy lifting of providing context and meaning. Some assembly is required.

No, photos don't lie -- not usually. But neither do they always tell the whole truth.

Life is often more complicated than a snapshot. There is more there than meets the eye.

That's what the anti-abortion protesters waving grisly images don't want you to see.

Following is Pastor Mark Holick response to “Photos show only part of the truth” – Randy Scholfield, Oct. 14

To date the Wichita Eagle has published eight different articles about us most of them quite negative revealing the Eagle's pro abortion agenda. Of the eight articles this one is the most revealing of just how far the moral compass of our nation has fallen. A better title would be, “Please don't look at the picture, even though it's true.” In this article Mr. Scholfield says that pictures don't matter. That murder of the innocent is OK if we just know the murderer's motive or extenuating circumstances. He argues the Abu Ghraib pictures should be shown but that the child sacrifice photos, should not . I'm confused?

When I was in high school at Wichita South our history teacher showed us a number of pictures of holocaust victims. Naked Jewish people piled like wood, their ribs showing. I'm sure you have seen them Mr. Scholfied. When you saw them did you think, “This is only part of the truth?” Did you ask, “What were the mitigating factors, this is only a snapshot of a moment, the truth can be complicated, maybe Hitler had a good reason?” Or did you become outraged that humanity could do this to other humans. Mr. Scholfied you wrote this article out of fear, fear of the truth. You said, “The truth is complicated.” Moral truth is not complicated. The Lord's moral laws (10 commandments) says, “Thou shalt not kill or more literally, Thou shalt do no murder.” It is complicated to you because you do not believe in moral absolutes. This is not complicated, it is very direct. It becomes complicated when we want exceptions. You actually said, “People need to be careful about their response to photos – such as the grisly ones that accompany abortion protests – precisely because of the explosive emotional power of images.” Was that your thought about holocaust or Abu Ghraib pictures? Shouldn't the bloody dismemberment of another human produce an emotional response? Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that how a moral people who believe in ‘justice for all' should respond?

You end your article with, “that's what the anti-abortion protesters waving grisly images don't want you to see.” Mr. Scholfield, it is you who spent 1/3 of a page (over 700) words attempting to censor the truth. Even the photograph you had accompanying your article was censored. It showed us at WSU talking to a student holding our sign of Malachi, an aborted boy found frozen in a jar in an abortion clinic in Dallas, TX The photo is cropped. You purposefully eliminated the picture and kept the word ‘abortion.' Even though you admit through your title that picture is at least ‘part of the truth.' If it, according to you, is part of the truth, then why do you censor it?

Pastor Mark E. Holick
Spirit One Christian Center

*COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
[ Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ]