I personally think that the cover is too strong, and that perhaps the photo might be better inside the magazine, because of the possibility of young children seeing it and being traumatized. I note the editor makes a case for that, saying that he showed it to his two children 9 and 13, or something who were concerned for the poor woman, but there are homes with magazines whose children are younger than 9 who might be horrified and traumatized (as most adults would be) to see such a thing and the explanation of man's inhumanity to man might make it worse.
I tore the cover off because of my 3 year old grandson. Young children often don't understand the "why, " all they see is the result. I don't think a 3 year old would understand the Taliban. I'm not sure I understand the Taliban, what a perfectly awful thing to see and hear about.
I recall my mother, born in 1908, saying she had accompanied her father, a doctor, on his rounds once up in the mountains by horse and buggy, and there was a man with no nose and she actually never got over it, and it was a natural thing, caused by disease, for that person, not the result of cruelty. It actually affected her response to medical care all her life.
I think it was irresponsible of the editor to put it on the cover. I may be the only person who thinks so, but I think it panders to an increasingly voyeuristic society which we seem to be more and more a part of.
Maybe we need to see it. Maybe we need to know. I would have preferred to see it inside the magazine, and know about it there, read about it in words a 3 year old can't read. I do read beyond the cover, not just the cover, but young children can't.
and any purchase you make from Amazon will contribute to SeniorLearn's website.
