It's 100% acceptable to splash the mug shot of Pat Tillman all over the news media. Why? Because he's the hero figure that the government wants to present to us. He gave up millions of dollars playing in the NFL to answer a higher calling and defend his country. Noble indeed, and I applaud him for it.
But why in turn do we not want the caskets of soldiers photographed? I mean is the death of a soldier so sacred that we should not even show the instrument that carries his now lifeless body in it? If so, why have I seen Pat Tillman's photo all day long? Why was the government willing to video the rescue of Jessica Lynch? I would argue it was far more detrimental to do that, particularly for her. But again it's okay because we can attach some higher nobility to her situation, as we can Pat Tillman's. It makes good TV, good press, so it's allowed to be presented visually.
But what doesn't make good TV or good press? Perhaps the presentation of the far more numerous caskets arriving home, caskets which we can't find the time to turn into stories? Of course not...
The real story here is not that the photos made the light of day, it's that they are being suppressed. I understand the desire to twist that argument backwards and make it seem like it's good for this group or good for that group, but ultimately what you get is a reality being knowingly kept from the public at large. That is calling covering up the truth. It is actively preventing people from their right to see and know what the hell is going on in Iraq, and what those goings on are costing us. Not in dollar amounts, but in something much more understandable: Human toll.
The real story here is not that the photos made the light of day, it's that they are being suppressed. I understand the desire to twist that argument backwards and make it seem like it's good for this group or good for that group, but ultimately what you get is a reality being knowingly kept from the public at large. That is calling covering up the truth. It is actively preventing people from their right to see and know what the hell is going on in Iraq, and what those goings on are costing us. Not in dollar amounts, but in something much more understandable: Human toll.
Its true, the whole point I was trying to make is that I don't want to see them and I think its a pretty safe bet that they will be used as propaganda. I never said I thought they should be banned or support the ban in any way.
Now that I read it I don't think that sentence really makes sense the way I want it to. Maybe I should just refrain from posting in AO when I am this tired.
It's 100% acceptable to splash the mug shot of Pat Tillman all over the news media. Why? Because he's the hero figure that the government wants to present to us. He gave up millions of dollars playing in the NFL to answer a higher calling and defend his country. Noble indeed, and I applaud him for it.
A hero story makes a good news story. Do you honestly think that in some way boosts perceptions of Bush? Those soldiers are heroes on their own accord. Similarly, there are daily reports of soldiers killed. So your argument that the word is not getting out that there are casulties involved in this war is pretty weak. People know about it.
What you are upset over is not being able to exploit images of draped coffins to elicit greater emotional lashback. Those persons can no longer speak for themselves, so you would like to opportune in by speaking for them? How do you know the soldier in the coffin to the left was not proud to die for his country or was completely invested into liberating Iraq? How do you know he would like a picture of his coffin to be used in a politicized agenda or an antiwar statement?
You Don't.
So that only leaves you with the prudent decision to leave pictures of said soldiers in privacy- privacy with their respective families. You want further introspection upon these fallen soldiers- track those families down. See how well you are received. Don't expect the government to assist you on that goal. It's not their place to do so, whether or not that incidentally assists Bush and friends.
What you are upset over is not being able to exploit images of draped coffins to elicit greater emotional lashback. Those persons can no longer speak for themselves, so you would like to opportune in by speaking for them? How do you know the soldier in the coffin to the left was not proud to die for his country or was completely invested into liberating Iraq? How do you know he would like a picture of his coffin to be used in a politicized agenda or an antiwar statement?
You Don't.
So that only leaves you with the prudent decision to leave pictures of said soldiers in privacy- privacy with their respective families. You want further introspection upon these fallen soldiers- track those families down. See how well you are received. Don't expect the government to assist you on that goal. It's not their place to do so, whether or not that incidentally assists Bush and friends.
Let's take that and change the image of teh coffin into teh number in the statistics of casualties:
Quote:
What you are upset over is not being able to exploit the Numeral in a casualty report to elicit greater emotional lashback. Those persons can no longer speak for themselves, so you would like to opportune in by speaking for them? How do you know the soldier behind the Numeral in a casualty report above the previouse number was not proud to die for his country or was completely invested into liberating Iraq? How do you know he would like the Numeral in a casualty report to be used in a politicized agenda or an antiwar statement?
You Don't.
So that only leaves you with the prudent decision to leave number relating to said soldiers in privacy- privacy with their respective families. You want further introspection upon these fallen soldiers- track those families down. See how well you are received. Don't expect the government to assist you on that goal. It's not their place to do so, whether or not that incidentally assists Bush and friends.
Numbers stand for the dead; they replace them . . .if we don't want to hurt anyone then we shouldn't report on them . . . if images of the coffins are too truthful to be shown then perhaps numbers that are abstractions of the dead soldiers should also not be reported . . . in fact perhaps any reporting on the war should not be allowed as it might disturb someone . . .
The story immediately following was about the White House scooping the Pentagon in publicly announcing the death of ex-NFL player Tillman, which seemed to belie any claims of 'privacy', or 'not sensationalizing'.
As suggested already- track down those families if you desire deeper introspection for these soldiers. It's worthwhile for your cause, right? It's worthwhile for you to bring this to the people, right? So put your own effort in to make it happen. Don't expect the government to hand you over an easy snapshot. That is not their place to do so.
But why in turn do we not want the caskets of soldiers photographed?
Because the family members of the victims requested that photographs not be taken. This has been a policy for over a decade at the Pentagon since the family members requested that, so this isn't Bush trying to cover up anything.
Let's take that and change the image of teh coffin into teh number in the statistics of casualties: Numbers stand for the dead; they replace them . . .if we don't want to hurt anyone then we shouldn't report on them . . . if images of the coffins are too truthful to be shown then perhaps numbers that are abstractions of the dead soldiers should also not be reported . . . in fact perhaps any reporting on the war should not be allowed as it might disturb someone . . .
I think you mean "fatalities" and not "casualties".
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".
There is no "newfound striving for absolute consistency". There is a perfectly reasonable observation that notions about the potential for exploiting images of death have broad implications beyond the proximate example.
You can declare yourself against these photographs and these alone, but there is no coherent case to be made as for why these images of death should have some sort of special status as agents of disruption, when so many lives are taken in so many circumstances.
Hands on buzzers kids, it sounds like the photos being circulated are those of the dead astronauts from the crashed Space Shuttle. I just saw it on Drudge and am flipping around for more confirmation.
Let's take that and change the image of teh coffin into teh number in the statistics of casualties:
Quote:
Numbers stand for the dead; they replace them . . .if we don't want to hurt anyone then we shouldn't report on them . . . if images of the coffins are too truthful to be shown then perhaps numbers that are abstractions of the dead soldiers should also not be reported . . . in fact perhaps any reporting on the war should not be allowed as it might disturb someone . . .
Yep, that link looks to have their facts straight about these photographs...pretty sloppy reporting. Doesn't take away from the debate about acknowledging the dead returning from the field, but it paints a big old black eye on the "accuracy" meter.
Hands on buzzers kids, it sounds like the photos being circulated are those of the dead astronauts from the crashed Space Shuttle. I just saw it on Drudge and am flipping around for more confirmation.
The ones in the Drudge link above are clearly not of Columbia's crew because there are more than seven sets of remains. The only possible Columbia photo in that link is the one with the white hearse and honor guard.
Which makes it even worse in a way - the coffins in the cargo plane are definitely not astronauts as there are too many so if the only photos of a 'traditional military funeral' are of astronauts then the following must be true:
There were no military funeral photographs so the astronauts funerals and the cargo plane coffins represent ALL the photos from the time frame as requested
or
Some photos have been deliberately witheld from release under the FOIA which is why there are no photos of the Iraq soldier's funerals.
or
There has been a 'mistake' which resulted in the wrong photos.
Looks like whichever it is the story just got more legs though.
Er, what are you trying to say?
The caskets being transferred to hearses are not on their way to funeral services. In fact, I'm not sure why you've brought up funerals and photographs of funerals at all since that represents a tangent. The only photographs Bush and the Pentagon have barred are the ones of the dead arriving at Dover AFB, AFAIK. A silly decision if you ask me, considering we've already been exposed to photos of charred remains strung up on a bridge. The SF Chronicle ran such a photo on its front page. It was a half-page spread with a captioned warning that ended up printed beneath the fold.
I'm guessing whoever at the DoD in charge of dealing with the media just wired Kick a whole bunch of photos without sorting them. Since the astronaut photos were undated, they were sent too and Kick mistakenly posted them along with the others.
I have to suggest that there's a strong possibility that this story just lost its legs because of the mixup. As soon as the retractions start running in USA Today and the network news programs the populace is likely to move on to graze on the next topic....that's the "magic" of modern reporting: new stuff keeps rolling off the production line - "consumers" don't have to be stuck on one topic for very long.
Because the family members of the victims requested that photographs not be taken. This has been a policy for over a decade at the Pentagon since the family members requested that, so this isn't Bush trying to cover up anything.
Um, no.
I'm willing to bet that not every single family of a dead soldier has said they don't want photos. AGain, that's the line being fed because it's a difficult one to argue with (who would go against the wishes of the family?) but it's certainly not the reality of the situation.
The dead are being used by the government when it serves their purpose, and when it does not, they don't want people to see it.
I have to suggest that there's a strong possibility that this story just lost its legs because of the mixup. As soon as the retractions start running in USA Today and the network news programs the populace is likely to move on to graze on the next topic....that's the "magic" of modern reporting: new stuff keeps rolling off the production line - "consumers" don't have to be stuck on one topic for very long.
How did the story lose its legs because an activist posted photos of both the dead arriving at Dover AFB and the Columbia crew? The government is still barring certain photographs, aren't they?
--
And regarding rageous' point about families' wishes. A couple of people who lost loved ones in Iraq were interviewed on CNN yesterday saying they are not offended at all. In fact, the photos elicit the opposite feeling.
I'm sure there are people who wouldn't want to see those photos, but I'd guess about an equal number of people who would want to see them.
Comments
It's 100% acceptable to splash the mug shot of Pat Tillman all over the news media. Why? Because he's the hero figure that the government wants to present to us. He gave up millions of dollars playing in the NFL to answer a higher calling and defend his country. Noble indeed, and I applaud him for it.
But why in turn do we not want the caskets of soldiers photographed? I mean is the death of a soldier so sacred that we should not even show the instrument that carries his now lifeless body in it? If so, why have I seen Pat Tillman's photo all day long? Why was the government willing to video the rescue of Jessica Lynch? I would argue it was far more detrimental to do that, particularly for her. But again it's okay because we can attach some higher nobility to her situation, as we can Pat Tillman's. It makes good TV, good press, so it's allowed to be presented visually.
But what doesn't make good TV or good press? Perhaps the presentation of the far more numerous caskets arriving home, caskets which we can't find the time to turn into stories? Of course not...
The real story here is not that the photos made the light of day, it's that they are being suppressed. I understand the desire to twist that argument backwards and make it seem like it's good for this group or good for that group, but ultimately what you get is a reality being knowingly kept from the public at large. That is calling covering up the truth. It is actively preventing people from their right to see and know what the hell is going on in Iraq, and what those goings on are costing us. Not in dollar amounts, but in something much more understandable: Human toll.
Originally posted by rageous
The real story here is not that the photos made the light of day, it's that they are being suppressed. I understand the desire to twist that argument backwards and make it seem like it's good for this group or good for that group, but ultimately what you get is a reality being knowingly kept from the public at large. That is calling covering up the truth. It is actively preventing people from their right to see and know what the hell is going on in Iraq, and what those goings on are costing us. Not in dollar amounts, but in something much more understandable: Human toll.
Its true, the whole point I was trying to make is that I don't want to see them and I think its a pretty safe bet that they will be used as propaganda. I never said I thought they should be banned or support the ban in any way.
Now that I read it I don't think that sentence really makes sense the way I want it to. Maybe I should just refrain from posting in AO when I am this tired.
Originally posted by rageous
Here's your answer:
It's 100% acceptable to splash the mug shot of Pat Tillman all over the news media. Why? Because he's the hero figure that the government wants to present to us. He gave up millions of dollars playing in the NFL to answer a higher calling and defend his country. Noble indeed, and I applaud him for it.
A hero story makes a good news story. Do you honestly think that in some way boosts perceptions of Bush? Those soldiers are heroes on their own accord. Similarly, there are daily reports of soldiers killed. So your argument that the word is not getting out that there are casulties involved in this war is pretty weak. People know about it.
What you are upset over is not being able to exploit images of draped coffins to elicit greater emotional lashback. Those persons can no longer speak for themselves, so you would like to opportune in by speaking for them? How do you know the soldier in the coffin to the left was not proud to die for his country or was completely invested into liberating Iraq? How do you know he would like a picture of his coffin to be used in a politicized agenda or an antiwar statement?
You Don't.
So that only leaves you with the prudent decision to leave pictures of said soldiers in privacy- privacy with their respective families. You want further introspection upon these fallen soldiers- track those families down. See how well you are received. Don't expect the government to assist you on that goal. It's not their place to do so, whether or not that incidentally assists Bush and friends.
Originally posted by Randycat99
What you are upset over is not being able to exploit images of draped coffins to elicit greater emotional lashback. Those persons can no longer speak for themselves, so you would like to opportune in by speaking for them? How do you know the soldier in the coffin to the left was not proud to die for his country or was completely invested into liberating Iraq? How do you know he would like a picture of his coffin to be used in a politicized agenda or an antiwar statement?
You Don't.
So that only leaves you with the prudent decision to leave pictures of said soldiers in privacy- privacy with their respective families. You want further introspection upon these fallen soldiers- track those families down. See how well you are received. Don't expect the government to assist you on that goal. It's not their place to do so, whether or not that incidentally assists Bush and friends.
Let's take that and change the image of teh coffin into teh number in the statistics of casualties:
What you are upset over is not being able to exploit the Numeral in a casualty report to elicit greater emotional lashback. Those persons can no longer speak for themselves, so you would like to opportune in by speaking for them? How do you know the soldier behind the Numeral in a casualty report above the previouse number was not proud to die for his country or was completely invested into liberating Iraq? How do you know he would like the Numeral in a casualty report to be used in a politicized agenda or an antiwar statement?
You Don't.
So that only leaves you with the prudent decision to leave number relating to said soldiers in privacy- privacy with their respective families. You want further introspection upon these fallen soldiers- track those families down. See how well you are received. Don't expect the government to assist you on that goal. It's not their place to do so, whether or not that incidentally assists Bush and friends.
Numbers stand for the dead; they replace them . . .if we don't want to hurt anyone then we shouldn't report on them . . . if images of the coffins are too truthful to be shown then perhaps numbers that are abstractions of the dead soldiers should also not be reported . . . in fact perhaps any reporting on the war should not be allowed as it might disturb someone . . .
Web story (and link to RealVideo version) here
The story immediately following was about the White House scooping the Pentagon in publicly announcing the death of ex-NFL player Tillman, which seemed to belie any claims of 'privacy', or 'not sensationalizing'.
Originally posted by Randycat99
That is not their place to do so.
Unless they find it suitable to do so, of course.
Originally posted by rageous
But why in turn do we not want the caskets of soldiers photographed?
Because the family members of the victims requested that photographs not be taken. This has been a policy for over a decade at the Pentagon since the family members requested that, so this isn't Bush trying to cover up anything.
Originally posted by pfflam
Let's take that and change the image of teh coffin into teh number in the statistics of casualties: Numbers stand for the dead; they replace them . . .if we don't want to hurt anyone then we shouldn't report on them . . . if images of the coffins are too truthful to be shown then perhaps numbers that are abstractions of the dead soldiers should also not be reported . . . in fact perhaps any reporting on the war should not be allowed as it might disturb someone . . .
I think you mean "fatalities" and not "casualties".
Originally posted by Randycat99
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".
There is no "newfound striving for absolute consistency". There is a perfectly reasonable observation that notions about the potential for exploiting images of death have broad implications beyond the proximate example.
You can declare yourself against these photographs and these alone, but there is no coherent case to be made as for why these images of death should have some sort of special status as agents of disruption, when so many lives are taken in so many circumstances.
link:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=947
Let's take that and change the image of teh coffin into teh number in the statistics of casualties:
Numbers stand for the dead; they replace them . . .if we don't want to hurt anyone then we shouldn't report on them . . . if images of the coffins are too truthful to be shown then perhaps numbers that are abstractions of the dead soldiers should also not be reported . . . in fact perhaps any reporting on the war should not be allowed as it might disturb someone . . .
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
War president indeed.
OT: did you make the mosaics yourself or score them somewhere?
Originally posted by drewprops
Hands on buzzers kids, it sounds like the photos being circulated are those of the dead astronauts from the crashed Space Shuttle. I just saw it on Drudge and am flipping around for more confirmation.
The ones in the Drudge link above are clearly not of Columbia's crew because there are more than seven sets of remains. The only possible Columbia photo in that link is the one with the white hearse and honor guard.
Originally posted by segovius
Which makes it even worse in a way - the coffins in the cargo plane are definitely not astronauts as there are too many so if the only photos of a 'traditional military funeral' are of astronauts then the following must be true:
There were no military funeral photographs so the astronauts funerals and the cargo plane coffins represent ALL the photos from the time frame as requested
or
Some photos have been deliberately witheld from release under the FOIA which is why there are no photos of the Iraq soldier's funerals.
or
There has been a 'mistake' which resulted in the wrong photos.
Looks like whichever it is the story just got more legs though.
Er, what are you trying to say?
The caskets being transferred to hearses are not on their way to funeral services. In fact, I'm not sure why you've brought up funerals and photographs of funerals at all since that represents a tangent. The only photographs Bush and the Pentagon have barred are the ones of the dead arriving at Dover AFB, AFAIK. A silly decision if you ask me, considering we've already been exposed to photos of charred remains strung up on a bridge. The SF Chronicle ran such a photo on its front page. It was a half-page spread with a captioned warning that ended up printed beneath the fold.
I'm guessing whoever at the DoD in charge of dealing with the media just wired Kick a whole bunch of photos without sorting them. Since the astronaut photos were undated, they were sent too and Kick mistakenly posted them along with the others.
Originally posted by X X
Because the family members of the victims requested that photographs not be taken. This has been a policy for over a decade at the Pentagon since the family members requested that, so this isn't Bush trying to cover up anything.
Um, no.
I'm willing to bet that not every single family of a dead soldier has said they don't want photos. AGain, that's the line being fed because it's a difficult one to argue with (who would go against the wishes of the family?) but it's certainly not the reality of the situation.
The dead are being used by the government when it serves their purpose, and when it does not, they don't want people to see it.
Originally posted by drewprops
I have to suggest that there's a strong possibility that this story just lost its legs because of the mixup. As soon as the retractions start running in USA Today and the network news programs the populace is likely to move on to graze on the next topic....that's the "magic" of modern reporting: new stuff keeps rolling off the production line - "consumers" don't have to be stuck on one topic for very long.
How did the story lose its legs because an activist posted photos of both the dead arriving at Dover AFB and the Columbia crew? The government is still barring certain photographs, aren't they?
--
And regarding rageous' point about families' wishes. A couple of people who lost loved ones in Iraq were interviewed on CNN yesterday saying they are not offended at all. In fact, the photos elicit the opposite feeling.
I'm sure there are people who wouldn't want to see those photos, but I'd guess about an equal number of people who would want to see them.