As you may know, I am a fan of the Saturday edition of The New York Times. Saturday's read is so much more manageable than Sunday's mammoth wordspray.
Picture this.
On page A3, a thoroughly wrenching story of holocaust, Khmer Rouge edition.
It tells the story of Mr. Nhem En, who was forced to photograh the inmates of Tuol Sleng prison.
Just before they died (at least 14,000 were murdered). Only six or so are known to have survived.
The story is almost impossible to fathom, to assimilate, to process.
Try, if you can.
What can we say about the context of evil, its placement, its milieu, its backdrop?
The story is surrounded by these sizable advertisements:
Tiffany & Co.: diamond engagement rings in patinum. $4,220 to $1,000,000.
Saks Fifth Avenue: Ermenegildo Zegna shoes. No price.
The Balvenie scotch whisky. No price.
Tourneau watches: Bedat & Co., $2,950.
Rothmans Union Square clothier: no prices.
Incidentally, some of Mr. Nhem En's portraits have found their way to art galleries in the United States.
Why do we hear so little about this?
Is it not palatable enough for the palaver of television news?
In the eyes of news executives (remember, news is typically entertainment these days, even if macabre entertainment), does this horror involve the "wrong" people? Is the story, from the 1970s too "old"? It doesn't have "legs"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think your news is rather different to ours - ours is a catalogue of misery and whingeing and hyperbole that is just as unpalatable as the chipper entertainment you get over there.
Post a Comment