Dangerous Dan Thoughts and musings on the world

5/26/2005

Media Responsibility

Filed under: Media,Society,World — Dangerous Dan @ 1:13 am

Via Moonbattery comes this story about media outlets complaining about the limitations on them when it comes to showing pictures of dead American soldiers. Why? Because not having pictures reduces the impact of their reporting. Let's take an extended quote and come back to this.

”There can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that," veteran war photographer Chris Hondros told the Times. "I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war.

Pim Van Hemmen, assistant managing editor for photography at the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., agreed, telling the Times:

"Writing in a headline that 1,500 Americans have died doesn't give you nearly the impact of showing one serviceman who is dead.

By censoring the photos of GIs as they lay dying, Van Hemmen said, "We in the news business are not doing a very good job of showing our readers what has really happened over there."

Steve Stroud, deputy director of photography at the Los Angeles Times, also thinks the public needs to see more photos of dead American soldiers.

"I feel we still aren't seeing the kind of pictures we need to see to tell the American people about this war and the costs of the war," he explained.

Michele McNally, New York Times director of photography, concurred, observing: "War kills men, women and children, and we would be remiss if we couldn't in some way show that this is what happens in war. … It's our responsibility to bear witness to these events."

There are two motivations in effect here and both are poor. The first is commercial. Let's not kid ourselves, the MSM is an enterprise composed of competing entities and bad news is good news. Second, much of the media don't like the war and want to damage it in any way they can. When the greed of the first is combined with the dislike of the second, you get the MSM wanting to publish photos of dead GIs. I have little doubt that the publishing of such pictures would wind up working against the media. I imagine the public backlash would be such that you'd only see the pictures in the most self-righteous of news outlets that think their publication is some kind of moral duty.

Ideally, of course, such pictures should incite anger at the soldiers' killers and a commitment to crush the enemy. If this were universally the case, though, it's doubtful the reporters would be pleading to publish them. They want to play on people's feelings of despair and fear. They certainly don't want to make the American public anti-enemy because that, in all their confidence in the public, could turn into anti-Arab or anti-Muslim bias. Recall that this was the MSM reasoning for not showing graphic images of people jumping from the twin towers on 9/11 or showing the destruction of the day since then.

So if they want to show pictures of dead American soldiers that will demoralize the public, let them also show pictures and video footage that will show Americans what kinds of bastards those soldiers were fighting. Show the videos of terrorists beheading hostages. Show the body parts of Iraqi civilians who were purposely targeted and blown up by car bombs. Show the mass graves of women and children who were executed by Saddam and his lackies. Show video of civilians who made suicide runs at checkpoints for the express purpose of being killed by U.S. soldiers because the insurgents said they'd kill his family if he didn't and they wanted the bad PR his death at American hands would get. Speak of the accounts of terrorists trying to use the mentally handicapped to carry out suicide bombings. These are evil people we're talking about. Why doesn't the MSM desire to talk about and display these deeds?

It’s interesting, actually. One of the facts about violent crimes committed by blacks is that the vast majority of the victims of those crimes are also black. Black-on-black crime is far, far greater than black-on-white crime or white-on-black crime. Whenever police forces act harshly against, say, black gangs, there’s always an uproar about police brutality and the media happily plays along with it. They neglect to mention that acting against the gangs is to benefit of the larger black community. That is, instead of wailing that the police are acting poorly towards minorities, they might consider that not acting forcefully against criminals would be the greater sin towards them

In the same way, the MSM is concentrating on the acts of U.S. soldiers against Iraqi insurgents, even though the Arab-on-Arab terrorism is so great and the destruction of the insurgents would be to the benefit of the Iraqi community. Why be so willing to side with the criminals? Why be so narrow-minded as to think that the criminals are somehow representative of the community?

1 Comment »

  1. Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement
    account it. Look advanced to more added agreeable from
    you! However, how can we communicate?

    Comment by steroid abuse research paper — 7/29/2013 @ 1:17 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress