COMMENTARY THREE FOR LILY

I thought that you bring up some good points for increasing censorship in the media and the evidence is well thought out. I feel that you could make your thesis more specific to the paragraphs that follow. I think it should include: something about the families to tell about the first paragraph, something about pictures remaining in history for the second paragraph, and something about the type of audience which includes children in the next paragraph. Your thesis only states that media publishings only do more harm than good so I believe you can definitely benefit from making it more elaborate. This would bring the paper together and make it flow better. All your criteria would then fit with the thesis. 

In one part of your essay I would suggest to avoid using the second person. I know it seems like a good idea to use the second person, but maybe it was just really ingrained in my brain not to use the second person. Maybe you could ask the teacher if it would or would not be appropriate. I actually like how you use “you.” It makes me really think of how I would feel if a loved one of mine had died and was all over the news. I think you could also benefit from saying what kinds of photos of loved ones are shown because if it was a nice picture, maybe taken during school, I wouldn’t have the same reaction as that of a picture where they may have been tortured or of them in their moment of death. 

In the second paragraph I thought you would talk about grief because of the quote you used. However, I think you are relying on the principle of invasion of privacy so I think you should connect the two in way, if possible or even use a different quote or place it somewhere else. Your third paragraph gives a lot of detail and elaboration of the principle used although I think you could benefit from elaborating more on how the pictures dehumanize the people other than what ancestors will think of them. I like the way you compare it to pigs though! Your third criteria, that of the children, is a good principle I think you would benefit from say something like how it is immoral to corrupt the children of the future (obviously not that way because it sounds weird). I think many people would accept this view especially if they have their own children. Your counter argument seems to be well thought out and you are very fair to the other side. However, I might would raise the question of can the media really show both sides fairly during wartime? I mean if the United State was in fact doing something wrong I don’t think the government would allow that to be shown.