(This is a photo of Shell Fish. If you are allergic to Shell Fish, you may not want to read this)
Maybe I am seeing this all wrong. Perhaps there is a reason. It could be that it has been proven to be a requirement. I am talking about "warnings".
There is now what is called a "Trigger Warning" in some articles / videos. Which is "a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc. alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content)"
Such trigger warnings can now be found in articles dealing with mass shootings or rapes. (Do note that I am not trying to make fun of either and that this is not about the crimes, the victims or the police work...). USUALLY! the headline already reveals it all. One I came across reads "Okla. Man Sentenced to Life for Holding Stepdaughter Captive for 19 Years, Fathering Her 9 Children"
The Trigger warning came under a picture, saying: "Trigger Warning: This article contains information and details about alleged sexual assault and/or violence, which may be upsetting to some readers. "
What do you think I have already envisioned from reading the headline? You think I would not expect details of a certain nature to be detailed in the article after reading THAT headline?
Same with documentaries about wars warning me that there will be "Scenes of graphic violence." In a documentary about a war. Who would have thought that there could be violence.
Might as well give me a trigger warning that a book contains words.
No comments:
Post a Comment