At the end of the Black Hawk Down film, there is a scene similar to what is depicted in the photographs. Is one more acceptable than the other just because it's a dramatization and not the real thing (even though it was based on actual events)?
At the end of the Black Hawk Down film, there is a scene similar to what is depicted in the photographs. Is one more acceptable than the other just because it's a dramatization and not the real thing (even though it was based on actual events)?
It was a film. They can show whatever they please, at their own risk. If it strays too far into the realm of bad taste, it will pay at the box office.
This film, however, made the effort to demonstrate the comraderie and bravery of the soldiers in action and gives respect to their deaths at the end of the movie. That is the example of a dignified use of such images.
They could have done the complete opposite and used such imagery in a very indignant, even politicized, manner. There is no obligation for the government to share such liability by giving them such photo material, however. If they want to do such a thing, they are free to come up with their own imagery.
They could have done the complete opposite and used such imagery in a very indignant, even politicized, manner. There is no obligation for the government to share such liability by giving them such photo material, however. If they want to do such a thing, they are free to come up with their own imagery.
Fiction and politics aren't mutally exclusive. The photos are out and they aren't going away. Better to admire them than to loathe the circumstances surrounding them, don't you think?
To everyone who thinks the government is protecting us and the families of the dead by not allowing photos:
Congratulations. You've once again been suckered by your government into believing they are looking out for you. All the while you willingly submit to having your rights and the rights of those who will come after you get yanked back another foot on the ever shorter leash we call freedom.
To everyone who thinks the government is protecting us and the families of the dead by not allowing photos
In fact, I think most families would be proud of their siblings/parents/sons/daughters, not outraged. They don't need to be shielded from the facts which they already know. These aren't images of desecrated bodies, but rather images of the fallen coming home.
I'm also unhappy with the firing of the photographer who took the photos. She was doing her job. If a PJ has to stop and think about what she can and cannot photograph, she might as well leave the lens cap on.
Personal opinion: I personally would not want to see these photos on TV if my son or what ever had lost their life. Even if you can't tell if your son is in that particular picture or this picture or what ever I know for a fact that they would be used as a tool to bash Bush on TV and I would not stand there and allow my son or daughter to be caught up in some political game when they risked their life for this country and you freedoms Bush in charge or not.
You can argue this one way or another but I think its boils down to opinions. You found the pictures did'nt you? You didnt need them to be plastered all over the media to see them, Now they are going to be part of debate just like they are now. Its sick and sadistic. Personally I find this no better than CNN showing clips of people jumping out of the trade center. Thats something I love to watch, some one that might be my dad jumping out of a building. And I am sorry but I don't think you need to see a dead body to grieve over it.
Quote:
To everyone who thinks the government is protecting us and the families of the dead by not allowing photos:
Congratulations. You've once again been suckered by your government into believing they are looking out for you. All the while you willingly submit to having your rights and the rights of those who will come after you get yanked back another foot on the ever shorter leash we call freedom.
Go ahead and insult my intelligence by telling me I don't know when I am being duped and when I am not, what ever makes you sleep better at night.
And Don't give me this BS about lack of freedom, tell me what freedom have you personally lost, The ability to see dead people on TV? Why don't you go over to North korea and tell Kim what you think of him, I am sure you will realize quite quickly how much freedom you have.
And Don't give me this BS about lack of freedom, tell me what freedom have you personally lost, The ability to see dead people on TV? Why don't you go over to North korea and tell Kim what you think of him, I am sure you will realize quite quickly how much freedom you have.
two points here:
1) I don't recall seeing any dead bodies in any of the photos in question. perhaps you've seen some that I have not. If so, please direct me to them and I will recant my statement. If not, your argument makes no sense.
2) Let's see, so as long as the stripping of freedoms from country A isn't as bad as country B, that means the people of A have no right to be upset because they have it so much better? I hope you never run for any office...
To everyone who thinks the government is protecting us and the families of the dead by not allowing photos:
Congratulations. You've once again been suckered by your government into believing they are looking out for you.
Who is saying they are doing it to protect "us"? They are doing it to protect the dignity of the dead from those in the media (including certain websites) who would abuse the use of such material. That is the foremost priority. It may or may not also be of benefit to the administration to not have said material easily accessible, but that is a side issue. It is a stretch to campaign that that is the primary motive. Making a fuss over it only reveals the particular agenda of some to, indeed, place a politicized context on it. That is most certainly the cheapest aspect behind this whole matter.
If you desire to pay respects to the dead, there are certainly more appropriate avenues to accomplish that than demanding overt public display of flag-draped coffins.
Who is saying they are doing it to protect "us"? They are doing it to protect the dignity of the dead from those in the media (including certain websites) who would abuse the use of such material. That is the foremost priority. It may or may not also be of benefit to the administration to not have said material easily accessible, but that is a side issue. It is a stretch to campaign that that is the primary motive. Making a fuss over it only reveals the particular agenda of some to, indeed, place a politicized context on it. That is most certainly the cheapest aspect behind this whole matter.
If you desire to pay respects to the dead, there are certainly more appropriate avenues to accomplish that than demanding overt public display of flag-draped coffins.
As has been mentioned, this line of reasoning would seem to preclude almost anything being shown anywhere, since every image is open to context and interpretation.
Photographs are one of the primary means by which currently apprehend our world. If the dissemination of photographs depicting unpleasant realities were to be curtailed because "someone" might use them for an "agenda" then we would be limited to snapshots of sunny days and dogs, if that.
Pictures of the aftermath of natural disasters, the plight of the indigent, the horror of epidemics, innocents in the line of fire, all of these would have to be repressed because they are powerful images of disturbing circumstances that could be exploited.
But the pictures aren't the problem, the machinations that created the scene are. After the obscenity of the political expediency that got these men and women killed, worrying about the parents seeing some pictures is so very misplaced.
When freedom, the freedom to see the truth is taken away for something as abstract and complex and easy to universalize as "dignity of the dead" and you don't care then you have given up.
Coming from a Conservative that should especially be a realization that the state is controlling more than they should.
Photograpic Imagery is harsh: the camera is cold and uncaring and pictures leave a trace behind (the photograph) that can betray the moment they document.
That is the nature of photography.
Death is not private, the ceremonial processes are collective and part of what it is to be a culture, private ceremonies are fine, and all privacy should be accorded there.
But the process of soldiers being returned to their country should be collective and shared by the very culture for which they gave their lives. . . .it is part of the tie that binds us as citizens to the soldiers that die for us.
Your outrage at our demand to see the coffins is fine drama but it is also misplaced . . . should we be barred from photographing military cemetaries?!
National military cemetaries are our heritage, this homecoming should be our collective ceremonial process in the same way.
I wonder too, how 'outraged' you would be if Clinton dissallowed cameras from returning bodies . . . I think you might call him a Commy tyrant . . .
2) Let's see, so as long as the stripping of freedoms from country A isn't as bad as country B, that means the people of A have no right to be upset because they have it so much better? I hope you never run for any office...
Nope thats not what I said, and you pulled the typical democrat move and avoided my question brining up trivial points in the way I worded my sentences, Why don't you tell me what rights we are getting taken away from us, Because I have not noticed any, but I guess thats what I get for being a republican..
Nope thats not what I said, and you pulled the typical democrat move and avoided my question brining up trivial points in the way I worded my sentences, Why don't you tell me what rights we are getting taken away from us, Because I have not noticed any, but I guess thats what I get for being a republican..
I wonder too, how 'outraged' you would be if Clinton dissallowed cameras from returning bodies . . . I think you might call him a Commy tyrant . . .
No no, I said at the beginning of my post that it was personal opinion, I never said that I was outraged at all at seeing them or not, I said I would be outraged if the press used them as tools for manipulation. I personally don't want to see this stuff in the media. I never said that I supported banning them though. Read my post again, everything in it was personal opinion.
Believe it or not, unlike a few people on this forum, I will support something or not support it regardless of which side does it.
Nope thats not what I said, and you pulled the typical democrat move and avoided my question brining up trivial points in the way I worded my sentences, Why don't you tell me what rights we are getting taken away from us, Because I have not noticed any, but I guess thats what I get for being a republican..
Oh Lord, now playing rhetorical games on an internet discussion site is a "typical democrat move".
What else might be a "democrat move"? Cutting in line? Underestimating the cost of car repair? Reading the sports page first?
Oh . . you ean you weren't assuming that he was being a typical Democrat by demanding that rights not be taken away?
*sigh* Yeah your right, thats not what I was referring to, Thank you for once again taking the time to misread my post... but I do thing the one issue is a far step from our rights being stripped away. Is this the only issue that is part of our rights being stripped away or is there others? If there is some that I am not aware of feel free to correct me though.
As has been mentioned, this line of reasoning would seem to preclude almost anything being shown anywhere, since every image is open to context and interpretation.
Ah, no. No one is saying that pictures of other things should then be forbidden. As so far, it is simply the fallen soldiers- nothing more, nothing less. This newfound strive for absolute consistency and black & white perspective is completely inappropriate and straining relevance for a real life matter such as this. It is what it is.
You should consider yourself fortunate that pictures of other things are not forbidden, for that keeps your sources wide open for avenues to pay respects to the dead, as well as use as ammo to fuel political agendas. There is very little to cry over in the notion that you cannot have "these" pictures.
If you are so interested in someone speaking up on the behalf of every dead soldier that we bring back, why not speak to the families left behind? Go knock on some doors, ask for an interview, shove a videocamera in their faces...see how well that goes over... That would be about the same lack of class as demanding pictures of draped coffins being released to the public just to serve ambiguous "reasons".
Comments
Originally posted by Eugene
At the end of the Black Hawk Down film, there is a scene similar to what is depicted in the photographs. Is one more acceptable than the other just because it's a dramatization and not the real thing (even though it was based on actual events)?
It was a film. They can show whatever they please, at their own risk. If it strays too far into the realm of bad taste, it will pay at the box office.
This film, however, made the effort to demonstrate the comraderie and bravery of the soldiers in action and gives respect to their deaths at the end of the movie. That is the example of a dignified use of such images.
They could have done the complete opposite and used such imagery in a very indignant, even politicized, manner. There is no obligation for the government to share such liability by giving them such photo material, however. If they want to do such a thing, they are free to come up with their own imagery.
Originally posted by Randycat99
They could have done the complete opposite and used such imagery in a very indignant, even politicized, manner. There is no obligation for the government to share such liability by giving them such photo material, however. If they want to do such a thing, they are free to come up with their own imagery.
Fiction and politics aren't mutally exclusive. The photos are out and they aren't going away. Better to admire them than to loathe the circumstances surrounding them, don't you think?
Congratulations. You've once again been suckered by your government into believing they are looking out for you. All the while you willingly submit to having your rights and the rights of those who will come after you get yanked back another foot on the ever shorter leash we call freedom.
Originally posted by rageous
To everyone who thinks the government is protecting us and the families of the dead by not allowing photos
In fact, I think most families would be proud of their siblings/parents/sons/daughters, not outraged. They don't need to be shielded from the facts which they already know. These aren't images of desecrated bodies, but rather images of the fallen coming home.
I'm also unhappy with the firing of the photographer who took the photos. She was doing her job. If a PJ has to stop and think about what she can and cannot photograph, she might as well leave the lens cap on.
You can argue this one way or another but I think its boils down to opinions. You found the pictures did'nt you? You didnt need them to be plastered all over the media to see them, Now they are going to be part of debate just like they are now. Its sick and sadistic. Personally I find this no better than CNN showing clips of people jumping out of the trade center. Thats something I love to watch, some one that might be my dad jumping out of a building. And I am sorry but I don't think you need to see a dead body to grieve over it.
To everyone who thinks the government is protecting us and the families of the dead by not allowing photos:
Congratulations. You've once again been suckered by your government into believing they are looking out for you. All the while you willingly submit to having your rights and the rights of those who will come after you get yanked back another foot on the ever shorter leash we call freedom.
Go ahead and insult my intelligence by telling me I don't know when I am being duped and when I am not, what ever makes you sleep better at night.
And Don't give me this BS about lack of freedom, tell me what freedom have you personally lost, The ability to see dead people on TV? Why don't you go over to North korea and tell Kim what you think of him, I am sure you will realize quite quickly how much freedom you have.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
And Don't give me this BS about lack of freedom, tell me what freedom have you personally lost, The ability to see dead people on TV? Why don't you go over to North korea and tell Kim what you think of him, I am sure you will realize quite quickly how much freedom you have.
two points here:
1) I don't recall seeing any dead bodies in any of the photos in question. perhaps you've seen some that I have not. If so, please direct me to them and I will recant my statement. If not, your argument makes no sense.
2) Let's see, so as long as the stripping of freedoms from country A isn't as bad as country B, that means the people of A have no right to be upset because they have it so much better? I hope you never run for any office...
Originally posted by rageous
To everyone who thinks the government is protecting us and the families of the dead by not allowing photos:
Congratulations. You've once again been suckered by your government into believing they are looking out for you.
Who is saying they are doing it to protect "us"? They are doing it to protect the dignity of the dead from those in the media (including certain websites) who would abuse the use of such material. That is the foremost priority. It may or may not also be of benefit to the administration to not have said material easily accessible, but that is a side issue. It is a stretch to campaign that that is the primary motive. Making a fuss over it only reveals the particular agenda of some to, indeed, place a politicized context on it. That is most certainly the cheapest aspect behind this whole matter.
If you desire to pay respects to the dead, there are certainly more appropriate avenues to accomplish that than demanding overt public display of flag-draped coffins.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Who is saying they are doing it to protect "us"? They are doing it to protect the dignity of the dead from those in the media (including certain websites) who would abuse the use of such material. That is the foremost priority. It may or may not also be of benefit to the administration to not have said material easily accessible, but that is a side issue. It is a stretch to campaign that that is the primary motive. Making a fuss over it only reveals the particular agenda of some to, indeed, place a politicized context on it. That is most certainly the cheapest aspect behind this whole matter.
If you desire to pay respects to the dead, there are certainly more appropriate avenues to accomplish that than demanding overt public display of flag-draped coffins.
As has been mentioned, this line of reasoning would seem to preclude almost anything being shown anywhere, since every image is open to context and interpretation.
Photographs are one of the primary means by which currently apprehend our world. If the dissemination of photographs depicting unpleasant realities were to be curtailed because "someone" might use them for an "agenda" then we would be limited to snapshots of sunny days and dogs, if that.
Pictures of the aftermath of natural disasters, the plight of the indigent, the horror of epidemics, innocents in the line of fire, all of these would have to be repressed because they are powerful images of disturbing circumstances that could be exploited.
But the pictures aren't the problem, the machinations that created the scene are. After the obscenity of the political expediency that got these men and women killed, worrying about the parents seeing some pictures is so very misplaced.
Coming from a Conservative that should especially be a realization that the state is controlling more than they should.
Photograpic Imagery is harsh: the camera is cold and uncaring and pictures leave a trace behind (the photograph) that can betray the moment they document.
That is the nature of photography.
Death is not private, the ceremonial processes are collective and part of what it is to be a culture, private ceremonies are fine, and all privacy should be accorded there.
But the process of soldiers being returned to their country should be collective and shared by the very culture for which they gave their lives. . . .it is part of the tie that binds us as citizens to the soldiers that die for us.
Your outrage at our demand to see the coffins is fine drama but it is also misplaced . . . should we be barred from photographing military cemetaries?!
National military cemetaries are our heritage, this homecoming should be our collective ceremonial process in the same way.
I wonder too, how 'outraged' you would be if Clinton dissallowed cameras from returning bodies . . . I think you might call him a Commy tyrant . . .
2) Let's see, so as long as the stripping of freedoms from country A isn't as bad as country B, that means the people of A have no right to be upset because they have it so much better? I hope you never run for any office...
Nope thats not what I said, and you pulled the typical democrat move and avoided my question brining up trivial points in the way I worded my sentences, Why don't you tell me what rights we are getting taken away from us, Because I have not noticed any, but I guess thats what I get for being a republican..
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
Nope thats not what I said, and you pulled the typical democrat move and avoided my question brining up trivial points in the way I worded my sentences, Why don't you tell me what rights we are getting taken away from us, Because I have not noticed any, but I guess thats what I get for being a republican..
HAHA . . .he called rageous a Democrat!!
Originally posted by pfflam
I wonder too, how 'outraged' you would be if Clinton dissallowed cameras from returning bodies . . . I think you might call him a Commy tyrant . . .
No no, I said at the beginning of my post that it was personal opinion, I never said that I was outraged at all at seeing them or not, I said I would be outraged if the press used them as tools for manipulation. I personally don't want to see this stuff in the media. I never said that I supported banning them though. Read my post again, everything in it was personal opinion.
Believe it or not, unlike a few people on this forum, I will support something or not support it regardless of which side does it.
Originally posted by pfflam
HAHA . . .he called rageous a Democrat!!
What is your problem with reading? How is referring to something he did as being a democrat thing to do calling him a democrat? My god.
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
What is your problem with reading? How is referring to something he did as being a democrat thing to do calling him a democrat? My god.
Oh . . you ean you weren't assuming that he was being a typical Democrat by demanding that rights not be taken away?
Originally posted by SilentEchoes
Nope thats not what I said, and you pulled the typical democrat move and avoided my question brining up trivial points in the way I worded my sentences, Why don't you tell me what rights we are getting taken away from us, Because I have not noticed any, but I guess thats what I get for being a republican..
Oh Lord, now playing rhetorical games on an internet discussion site is a "typical democrat move".
What else might be a "democrat move"? Cutting in line? Underestimating the cost of car repair? Reading the sports page first?
Originally posted by pfflam
Oh . . you ean you weren't assuming that he was being a typical Democrat by demanding that rights not be taken away?
*sigh* Yeah your right, thats not what I was referring to, Thank you for once again taking the time to misread my post... but I do thing the one issue is a far step from our rights being stripped away. Is this the only issue that is part of our rights being stripped away or is there others? If there is some that I am not aware of feel free to correct me though.
Originally posted by addabox
Oh Lord, now playing rhetorical games on an internet discussion site is a "typical democrat move".
What else might be a "democrat move"? Cutting in line? Underestimating the cost of car repair? Reading the sports page first?
Sure if you want. What ever it takes to get some one to answer the god damn question.
Originally posted by pfflam
HAHA . . .he called rageous a Democrat!!
Yeah I thought that was pretty funny!
Originally posted by addabox
As has been mentioned, this line of reasoning would seem to preclude almost anything being shown anywhere, since every image is open to context and interpretation.
Ah, no. No one is saying that pictures of other things should then be forbidden. As so far, it is simply the fallen soldiers- nothing more, nothing less. This newfound strive for absolute consistency and black & white perspective is completely inappropriate and straining relevance for a real life matter such as this. It is what it is.
You should consider yourself fortunate that pictures of other things are not forbidden, for that keeps your sources wide open for avenues to pay respects to the dead, as well as use as ammo to fuel political agendas. There is very little to cry over in the notion that you cannot have "these" pictures.
If you are so interested in someone speaking up on the behalf of every dead soldier that we bring back, why not speak to the families left behind? Go knock on some doors, ask for an interview, shove a videocamera in their faces...see how well that goes over... That would be about the same lack of class as demanding pictures of draped coffins being released to the public just to serve ambiguous "reasons".