Woah.
War is hell, I guess. And there are a lot of casualties we don't see or hear about. I stumbled upon this site while wandering through blogs...
I'm sharing it here. It's not safe for work. And it's got grisly images of the dead. You're warned.
Here it is.
Why haven't we seen these? They're not nice, but... shouldn't we be seeing this? "Civilian casualties" is a really cold word for... what's on that site. This war has lasted longer than our involvement in WWII.
If we as a country were to see these images, like the Americans saw the newsreel footage of the mounds of bodies of children and the elderly being steamshoveled into mass graves during WWII...would that motivate us to reassess the value of what's going on? And speak a little louder?
Hmm...
posted by SuperBee at 4:17 PM
13 Comments:
Oh, Superbee, if only it worked this way. The American public is never going to see these images, because the corporate-owned American media relies on corporate sponsors who do not want to be associated with bad news OR these kinds of images. Furthermore, middle America and bible-thumping America find such things terribly distasteful, as well, and have protested much milder images. And so, we will continue to be the most ignorant, uninformed, undereducated developed nation in the world.
Long live stupid Americans! Hip-hip...HOORAY!
7:24 AM
Ugh. I know, Yvette.
Still, it never ceases to amaze me how Puritannical and Victorian our society is with certain natural phenomena (i.e. sex and death.)
Unfortunately, it's very easy to support a war when it's just abstract numbers and propaganda on a piece of paper... which is what I feel we're being fed.
I once wrote a paper in college regarding the advent of the Telegraph as a news transmission device and its impact on Journalistic impartiality; and I know studies have been done lately regarding this war and supply of information v. distribution of the same. I should get my hands on those studies... you know, for some light reading.
7:44 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
7:44 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
7:45 AM
You guys are so full of shit! I love it! Ask CNN and "corporate America" why it decided to run terrorist provided video footage of them sniping American soldiers. And why not take a swipe at "bible thumping" Christians for good measure - that salient point really strengthens your argument.
To boldly proclaim that these images aren't going to be broadcast because "the media relies on corporate sponsors who do not want to be associated with bad news" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard this year. And it's December!
Let's just fight a peaceful war with daisies and lollypops!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318
8:03 AM
Dearest Sigh,
First, please do not attempt to put words in my mouth, as I quite have enough words for both of us. Second, CNN is edited for content on a regular basis. Video footage on every major network is edited specifically to minimize the quantity and degree of "disturbing images." Call and ask to speak to someone in any major network's editorial department, and let us know what you find. But, to think otherwise is sweetly idealistic.
I will not be warmongering with you. I've been around the news for long enough to know what I am talking about and -- what's more important -- I am quite entitled to my very own opinion. You are obviously free to disagree.
Plus, it sounds like you could use a hug...
8:36 AM
Oh Veeds,
My issue isn't with corporate sponsorship (although the lack of market variety in large news corporations worries me)... and I'm not saying fight a war with lollipops and crap (Although I'd ask everyone who's so gung-ho about this war why they're not out ENLISTING and growing Victory Gardens and Saving Fats).
My issue is simply with censorship of disturbing images.
I don't support this war because 1) I think it's going to have the opposite effect of its intended purpose i.e. further destabilizing an already unstable part of the world; 2) creating more terrorists of the little kids whose mutilated and bloated mothers are in those caskets; 3) financially I don't want social services or government monies that could be used on ME, going to blow up some sand hut in Iraq; lastly 4) if something catastrophic happens over there and blah blah nukes whomever, and the oil fields are cut off, I don't know how I'm going to get premium fuel for my German High-Horsepowered engine to get to work, or buy my expensive Italian clothes that were shipped over on a boat from China, if gas skyrockets to eighty bazillion dollars a gallon.
Of course those are my reasons for not wanting to engage in this conflict. They're mostly selfish. ME, ME, ME. Other people might be swayed by other results of the war, as seen in those pictures.
The issue I raised, while obviously anti-war, was more about American censorship. It was forbidden or discouraged to photograph caskets of dead troops coming off planes. We're not seeing these images of bomb-torn babies. My issue is - don't censor my news on the guise of trying not to offend my sensibilities, because it also works as propaganda.
8:41 AM
Dearest Yvette,
I don't believe that I placed words in your mouth...I inferred. I may have "inferred" improperly, but it was an inference nonetheless.
My point is as follows: to imply that network news, which typically FEEDS off of disasters and doomsday scenarios, is not broadcasting images of blown up babies because they are afraid people might turn against the war effort is ridiculous. Whatever the motivation is for editing the images, it's not because the media is supporting the war effort. I don't think CNN will be happy until it can assuage its liberal imperialistic guilt and announce "We lost the war." They can't wait!
Superbee,
I actually agree with a majority of your points - I too am against the censorship of these images. I simply disagree with the suggestion that the media is censoring these images because it is trying to support the war effort. I just don't buy it. Let's have a no censorship policy - show the decimated families, show the families being helped, show the blown up buildings, show the progress of the newly constructed infrastructure, interview the soldier's widow, interview the soldier who just re-enlisted and wants to go back.
Show it all.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-sniper21oct21,1,2127335.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/10/why-we-aired-sniper-video.html
9:30 AM
I'm not even saying that the outlets are not showing the photos to support the war effort -- I think the only News Source that actually supports it is probably Fox.
I actually think any reluctance to show the images is a result of economic ramifications of upsetting the puritanical ideologies of a certain sect of America.
I think stations aren't showing the images, because they're afraid of a religious-right/conservative backlash that would demonize any news source that dared to show the images, branding them "Not Family Friendly", and "Unpatriotic" and thus decreasing their marketshare and profitability.
It's a complex relationship based on a certain amount of brainwashing of stupid American people by Karl Rove and various neo-Con players. The same tactics that my BFF Tom Delay used to his extreme advantage.
If CNN or MSN were to show the bloated corpses, etc. there would be outrage among (and I use them as my paradigm for knee-jerk reaction and blind obedience to the current administration) the far Religious Right. Bill O'Reilly and Hannity & Colmes and Rush and the rest of the gang would seize upon how inappropriate it was to show the casualties, how Children watch the news and were exposed to such images, and how it undermines the work of the Troops, and how it's unsupportive of them. The White House would condemn it, and most elected officials would decry "exploiting" the dead in war.
Whomever would show those pictures would be rapidly and LOUDLY demonized by certain influential voices.
In turn, the Networks or papers would lose viewership, marketshare, and ultimately, profitability because advertisers would take their dollars elsewhere.
I'm guessing it's primarily an economic reason supporting censoring the images, but that, combined with the fact that fewer and fewer corporations control more and more news sources, means that there's less competition in the News Market for the outlets that reach the majority of Americans. Thus, the current strong and powerfuls, really cannot afford to piss off or disturb the viewer, because as many "news outlets" as we purport to have, they're far less, and far less independent than they were back when there was more competition from the days when there would be seven or eight dailies in a geographic newsmarket.
I fully support full disclosure of EVERYTHING. Show what they're doing to us, and what we're doing to them.
I just wish the current structure wasn't such that it's a catch-22 to be able to do so.
10:08 AM
Well said, all around.
Sigh: As far as I know, I have at no point addressed supporting or detracting from the war effort. And you will never find me supporting or attacking liberal or conservative politics. I don't give a rat's ass about which political side allegedly thinks what.
I read Superbee's post to be about the brainless censorship of American news. My responses here (to both of you) have been about my objection to this kind of perpetual prettification of the news. I want to see and hear an unbiased, unsanitized reporting of all the things you have mentioned, so that I can form my own educated opinions about the war in Iraq...and everything else.
Superbee is right on the money, I feel.
12:16 PM
Do you not think that if it would discredit GWB the mainstream media wouldn't be all over this? I think they are avoiding it because most of the carnage is caused by terrorist from neighboring countries who are killing Iraqi civilians. To display these images would actually validate our presence.
12:57 PM
It's a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation. If you do, then you're a warmonger and evil and probably a capitalist to boot. If you don't then you let a tyrant gas his people, overrun neighboring countries, and develop weaponry that will be used to destroy entire other countries. Either way, people are going to die, and neither way is completely acceptable to everyone.
Hussien was a cancer. Going in and removing him from power was chemotherapy. It's nasty, it hurts and there is alot of collateral damage. But he's out of power. I think the problem our military is having now is that we are fighting a faceless enemy, which looks exactly like the non enemy, which means everyone is an enemy, because no one wants to take chances on assuming. We are fighting people with a mentality that is foreign to us, similar to the problem we had fighting the Japanese in WW2. The idea of "fair play" just isn't there. If it were then there'd be no arming of young children, or using women as shields.
I'd like to be able to say that the best thing to do is withdraw, but that would leave a vacuum that most likely would be filled by something even worse than Hussein. That was a gamble that had to be taken, tho, even though we may very well have lost it.
1:13 PM
Okay, Hunt (is that you? You're reading my blog now?! I never would have thought a 'Publican like you would be over here in my greeny-communisty little world) I will concede one point - possibly that much of the carnage in Iraq is being caused by insurgents from other countries.
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean by extension the insurgent murders aren't indirectly our fault. While Hussein was in power, I don't remember suicide bombings routinely taking place in Iraq. Maybe they were, and I didn't know about it, but even though the country was oppressed, it wasn't in chaos.
Before deposing a dictator, we needed to have 1) the forces and 2) a plan to implement a transitional government and police force to swiftly to be able to quell violence like this. Living in SoFla during hurricanes, we of all people, can appreciate that the lack of some basic services (gas, electricity) and a non-existent police force could quickly brew trouble. It was totally foreseeable that if we took down the dictator, we had to have a "Now what" plan.
We didn't and we don't, and now, we're like the kid who shit his pants in Nursery School, and only has replacement underwear. We can remedy part of the problem (underwear), but there's still no good solution, and there's gonna be embarassment either way it's fixed: go pantsless or wear poo-pants over the clean undies.
So even if the carnage is being caused by someone else - we exchanged one evil for another. And the devil that we don't know seems to be a damn sight worse than the devil we're about to hang.
And, really, I think despite the delight that the media sometimes takes (deservedly) at pointing out what a stubborn "god-directed" asshole GWB is, I think they much more delight in distributing generous dividends to their stockholders and investors.
Money talks, after all.
1:38 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home