It seems counterintuitive that a single dead person can command more attention, drama, and controversy, when compared with the pile of corpses that number in the hundreds of thousands!
In 2010, a catastrophic earthquake shook the poise out of concrete buildings in Haiti with magnitude 7 shockwaves, and in the emerging chaos that ensued, shook the poise out of the public with a weight that came from viewing the dead. Much like in war times, photographers are dispersed to areas affected by tragedy. Photographers from many different groups captured candidly or artistically the ruins of concrete buildings, the chaos exploited in light of a weakened government, the thousands of dead, and the sadness and anger from the living.
Of the many photos that would circulate to the rest of the world, several photographers took photos of Fabienne Cherisma: postmortem. However, unlike many of the other photos of the dead, this body was not covered in dust or debris. Fabienne Cherisma was instead killed from a bullet that came from a police officer. What threat could a 15-year-old girl holding mirrors and a picture of flowers pose to a police officer? But that was not the only thing that grabbed attention. Fabienne Cherisma’s dead body appears to be in different positions in different photos. Unless dead bodies can move themselves, who would want to shift Fabiene Cherisma’s from (excuse the irreverent sounding description) a belly sleeping position to a side sleeping position? While this young girl was pierced by a bullet, the general public was pierced by the images of her regardless of which position they saw her in, so much so that some predicted she would become the symbol of the earthquake. In a counterintuitive way, more funds would be sent to Haiti to help support those affected by the earthquake, not entirely because we are motivated by a horrible earthquake, but more so instead motivated by the flood of emotions via disturbing pictures, thanks to police officer that shot a young girl.
Photographers are not a monolith, some are from small volunteer groups, some are from big media companies. While some may capture events without much artistic effort, what photographer would not want their work to have the impact like Marc Riboud and his photo a young woman confronting a row of soldiers with a flower? An inquiry starts: who moved the body? Was a photographer trying to get a “better angle” for a more impactful image. And a debate upon that debate about if the ends of more money (for Haiti or a media company) justify the means (“disaster pornography”).
It may seem counterintuitive but what about the other travesty here? Not investigating the suspected cut corners contributing to the collapsing structures. If the investigation proved fruitful, it could be concluded that countless lives could have been saved if the buildings were properly built to be earthquake resistant. The Haitian government estimates casualties to be around 300,000 following the earthquake, which would make it one of the worst natural disasters in history. Imagine if we could save even half; 150,000 people saved with buildings that were equipped to resist earthquakes. Why is it that the unfair death of Fabiene Cherisma could potentially become a symbol when someone mentions this earthquake, but the hundreds of thousands of unfair deaths together may not? While some claim we all lives are equal, clearly, they forgot to mention otherwise in death.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
You capture and communicate the incongruities beautifully, Bagel&Coffee. And you don’t need help from me to know when to ramp up the rhetoric.
But I can help you do a much better job with improved syntax. Syntax isn’t sexy, no, but it’s essential to seductive—I mean persuasive—arguments.
It will be hard to break longstanding habits, B&C, but pay attention to these improvements to weak spots that recur in your work. The first few sentences:
—Why does the chaos have to both emerge and ensue? Did it have to first emerge small and then build in size until it was big enough to shake the public’s poise? I shouldn’t be wondering about that.
—The beautiful half of your analogy is that an earthquake actually SHAKES the buildings.
—The less successful half is that it’s still the earthquake that’s shaking the poise, but in chaos, and with a weight, and it’s a visual weight, and the trail goes cold.
Can it be fixed?, ‘cuz it’s a good setup.
Maybe simple is good:
The 2010 earthquake in Haiti killed hundreds of thousands. Its magnitude 7 shockwaves leveled “every other building” in Port-au-Prince. It also collapsed social constraints on the survivors, who rioted and looted . . .
—These “comparison setups” get you into trouble.
—What is the comparative to “war times”?
—Our only option is “areas affected by tragedy.”
—It might seem trivial, but readers don’t readily compare TIMES to AREAS.
—Of the several possible fixes, we could compare the TIMES, the PEOPLE, or the PLACES:
—Here you make a series of objects from different categories: the RUINS, the CHAOS, the DEAD, and the SADNESS.
—Readers have an “attention budget.”
—The MORE you ask them to spend on finding the pattern in your series, the LESS they have to spend on submitting to your argument.
—So. Make series easy to follow by getting all your examples into the same SYNTACTICAL category. (See above: TIMES/PEOPLE/PLACES)
The photographers captured shots of: BUILDINGS/CHAOS/CADAVERS/SADNESS.
You see the problem. Try two solutions:
Particular and physical: Photographers from many groups captured candidly or artistically the RUINS of concrete buildings, the LOOTERS who flaunted police, the CORPSES of thousands, and the stricken FACES of the survivors.
More abstract and categorical: Photographs of the day capture the DESOLATION of the collapsed buildings, the CHAOS of rioting and looting that follows, the SHEER VOLUME of thousands of corpses, and the HELPLESSNESS of the survivors.
—Comparisons are your kryptonite, Bagel&Coffee.
—Here you make PHOTOGRAPHERS a member of the category: PHOTOS
—OF MANY PHOTOS, you say, this ONE GROUP OF PHOTOS (the PHOTOGRAPHERS) took pictures of Fabienne.
What you mean is:
Of the many photos that would circulate to the rest of the world, the postmortem shots of Fabienne Cherisma had the most impact.
Even when your comparisons (have you now noticed for the first time that ALMOST ALL of your sentences make comparisons?) are of UNLIKE things, you have trouble equalizing the two sides of the equation.
Here you compare PHOTOS with DEAD BODIES. Your sentence literally says that the body is a photo of the dead like other photos of the dead.
What you clearly mean is:
However, unlike THE BODIES of those killed by falling buildings, THIS BODY was not covered in dust or debris.
Many of these examples would apply to sentences deeper in your post, Bagel&Coffee. For those, you should not need any instruction. But I’d be happy to continue all the way through if this sort of careful reading and editing would be useful to you. Of the (obviously countless!) benefits of this course, the best for you may be access to a very picky reader who can point out every place you waste your own energy and your readers’ forbearance.