Bush Administration Tries to Hide the Truth (Again)

Now trying to prevent the media from taking pictures of the results of their criminal incompetence in New Orleans.

Exemplary article here. (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050907/2005-09-07T202716Z_01_SPI773106_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CENSORSHIP-DC.html) Key quote:

"But on Tuesday, FEMA refused to take reporters and photographers along on boats seeking victims in flooded areas, saying they would take up valuable space need in the recovery effort and asked them not to take pictures of the dead.

In an e-mail explaining the decision, a FEMA spokeswoman wrote: "The recovery of victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect and we have requested that no photographs of the deceased by made by the media.""

Yeah, right.

[vulturesrow]

What the hell is your problem? Do you not think it might be bad that the first time someone sees their missing relative or friend is when they are pulled out of the flood waters on television? What exactly dont you get about photographers and their equipment taking up space on the boats? Keep stretching.

[CCovington]

How would you feel if you were stuck on a rooftop, awaiting help, and some reporter cruised by in a boat taking pictures?

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
How would you feel if you were stuck on a rooftop, awaiting help, and some reporter cruised by in a boat taking pictures?

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you feel if you were stuck on a rooftop, the government didn't come to save you in time and there were no reporters to tell anyone?

[STLantny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How would you feel if you were stuck on a rooftop, awaiting help, and some reporter cruised by in a boat taking pictures?

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you feel if you were stuck on a rooftop, the government didn't come to save you in time and there were no reporters to tell anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

The original argument is flawed. The article said nothing to little abotu someone stuck on a rooftop. Its a totally different situatino between taking a picture of the deceased and someone that is still alive. Not being able to take pictures of someone on a rooftop is blatant censorship, not being able to take pictures of the deceased is respect for families, and the deceased.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Now trying to prevent the media from taking pictures of the results of their criminal incompetence in New Orleans.

Exemplary article here. (http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050907/2005-09-07T202716Z_01_SPI773106_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-CENSORSHIP-DC.html) Key quote:

"But on Tuesday, FEMA refused to take reporters and photographers along on boats seeking victims in flooded areas, saying they would take up valuable space need in the recovery effort and asked them not to take pictures of the dead.

In an e-mail explaining the decision, a FEMA spokeswoman wrote: "The recovery of victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect and we have requested that no photographs of the deceased by made by the media.""

Yeah, right.

[/ QUOTE ]

The media sucks.

I think it's criminal that the media would even suggest they be brought along, they have no need to be there, rescue personel on the other hand, do.

You are right about one thing though, there was some criminal incompetence. The Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana should be thrown out of office in my opinion.

[touchfaith]

Narrow minds.

The media is a necessary evil sometimes. Nobody said they should be allowed to print recognizable images of bodies.

So should they have been banned from Iraq also?

Limit the number of media? Sure.
Limit the amount of equipment when sharing a ride? Sure.
Limit the media? [censored] you, move to Cuba

[FishHooks]

I beleive the media is banned from showing coffins of bodies from fallen soilders in Iraq. If I'm not mistaken a buch of people sued the media over this a year ago.

Do you guys understand how "un-safe" it is in the flooded areas. If the media was allowed to do ride-alongs... it could endanger themselves and the people actually trying to do some good.

[britspin]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys understand how "un-safe" it is in the flooded areas. If the media was allowed to do ride-alongs... it could endanger themselves and the people actually trying to do some good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right... so that's why there were media present with the Army during the war with Iraq. Because Wars are all safe and having journalists around would never get in the way of like, fighting.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
I beleive the media is banned from showing coffins of bodies from fallen soilders in Iraq. If I'm not mistaken a buch of people sued the media over this a year ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct.

[cadillac1234]

This is a tough situation with both sides being partially right.

Victims have suffered enough without having to be shown on TV a thousand times. OTHO, seeing 5000 dead bodies has a lot more impact than hearing about 5000 dead bodies.

I think if Americans got to see the devastation of war first hand, opinions would rapidly change on warfare.

Katrina is a seperate case but the principle is the same. By only hearing about the dead and not actually seeing the amount of corpses, it ends up sanitizing the situation and may lead to less positive changes in the future.

Showing close-ups of the dead is going overboard , IMHO, but seeing a morgue setting and seeing the amount of lives lost will really drice the point home how f'd up the situation really is.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]

Right... so that's why there were media present with the Army during the war with Iraq...

[/ QUOTE ]

Journalist were almost always keep far from dangerous fighting during the invasion, allied forces would not simply allow the media close to the enemy lines per say. Journalists at times did find themselves in dangerous fighting situations; this was often the result of their ignorance to warnings and not following military orders.

[pankwindu]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a tough situation with both sides being partially right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those defending FEMA are absolutely right regarding respect for the dead. However, this has nothing to do with the issue. It is simply not the government's decision, end of story. You know, first amendment, fourth estate, etc.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right... so that's why there were media present with the Army during the war with Iraq...

[/ QUOTE ]

Journalist were almost always keep far from dangerous fighting during the invasion, allied forces would not simply allow the media close to the enemy lines per say. Journalists at times did find themselves in dangerous fighting situations; this was often the result of their ignorance to warnings and not following military orders.

[/ QUOTE ]

66 Journalists have been killed in Iraq since March, 2003, which is even more than were killed in Vietnam over a much larger time frame.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right... so that's why there were media present with the Army during the war with Iraq...

[/ QUOTE ]

Journalist were almost always keep far from dangerous fighting during the invasion, allied forces would not simply allow the media close to the enemy lines per say. Journalists at times did find themselves in dangerous fighting situations; this was often the result of their ignorance to warnings and not following military orders.

[/ QUOTE ]

66 Journalists have been killed in Iraq since March, 2003, which is even more than were killed in Vietnam over a much larger time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there are far more journalist in Iraq and I think they are far closer to the action than those that were in Vietnam. I could be wrong on both counts though.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Right... so that's why there were media present with the Army during the war with Iraq...

[/ QUOTE ]

Journalist were almost always keep far from dangerous fighting during the invasion, allied forces would not simply allow the media close to the enemy lines per say. Journalists at times did find themselves in dangerous fighting situations; this was often the result of their ignorance to warnings and not following military orders.

[/ QUOTE ]

66 Journalists have been killed in Iraq since March, 2003, which is even more than were killed in Vietnam over a much larger time frame.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there are far more journalist in Iraq and I think they are far closer to the action than those that were in Vietnam. I could be wrong on both counts though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're probably right (I don't have any knowledge myself). I just posted it to show that wars are extremely dangerous for journalists, and in this war they are not being kept out of the way in safe locations. It is possible that most of these journalists have been killed due to their ignorance of warnings, but it would take a lot to convince me of that.

[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is your problem? Do you not think it might be bad that the first time someone sees their missing relative or friend is when they are pulled out of the flood waters on television? What exactly dont you get about photographers and their equipment taking up space on the boats? Keep stretching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ability to unquestioningly accept the proffered party line may serve you well in the military, but it ill suits an informed citizen. Faces of the dead -- to the extent they are even still recognizable -- can be blurred. And the "room on the boats" excuse is no excuse at all for keeping reporters out of the area altogether.

[Wes ManTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is your problem? Do you not think it might be bad that the first time someone sees their missing relative or friend is when they are pulled out of the flood waters on television? What exactly dont you get about photographers and their equipment taking up space on the boats? Keep stretching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ability to unquestioningly accept the proffered party line may serve you well in the military....

[/ QUOTE ]

accepting party lines has nothing to do with it. It was his "ability" to use common sense to understand that it this action was taken to be respectful to those that pasted away.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What the hell is your problem? Do you not think it might be bad that the first time someone sees their missing relative or friend is when they are pulled out of the flood waters on television? What exactly dont you get about photographers and their equipment taking up space on the boats? Keep stretching.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your ability to unquestioningly accept the proffered party line may serve you well in the military, but it ill suits an informed citizen. Faces of the dead -- to the extent they are even still recognizable -- can be blurred. And the "room on the boats" excuse is no excuse at all for keeping reporters out of the area altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether? I see two items of note:

1) FEMA refused ride-alongs in rescue boats. Their reasoning is so that maximum space is available for rescue. You say this is no reason at all? Why? These boats probably hold 6 passengers max. There will like be two crew, so that leaves 4 slots for victims. A photo ride along will thus reduce the efficiency of this rescue operation by 25%! Why can't the reporters get their own boats and go? Nowhere in this article says they can't.

2) FEMA requested that they not take pictures of the bodies. This is a REQUEST, not some federal dictate! There is no jail time, no fine, not nothing related -- just a request. They are still perfectly free to take pictures, the newspapers and new shows are still free to print them.

Be logical. There is soooo much wrong with our ruling class, and our government. But being reactionary and dumb won't help fix it.

They can ride with Sean Penn and get all the nasty footage they want.

Then they can clearly blame it on Bush... and/or whichever Republican is highest on the food chain.

[pankwindu]

It was much more than an inocuous request, according to Brian Williams (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9216831/#050907c). Weapons aimed at media members armed only with notepads.

The good news is that it appears word is getting out (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_04.php#006461) not to deny the press.

[ QUOTE ]
Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was exemplary. Keeping reporters out has been reported elsewhere, including here (http://www.operationflashlight.com/?p=25).

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Your ability to unquestioningly accept the proffered party line may serve you well in the military, but it ill suits an informed citizen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then get informed, and try again. I have little doubt that these deaths will fall on the actions of the local government -- if Bush was trying to be political he should request pictures.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
It was much more than an inocuous request, according to Brian Williams (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9216831/#050907c). Weapons aimed at media members armed only with notepads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the fight needs people with better reading skills -- or those that don't stoop to misrepresentation in an attempt to win a point.

First, I never used the word "inocuos"; I never judged the validity or strength of the request in any way.

Second, reading the report it was one out-of-town police officer with one "weapon". Notice the distinct lack of a plural. Also, it was likely a pistol that was aimed but it makes better "news" if Mr. Williams characterizes it as "the muzzle of her weapon"; which is of course a likely accurate description but easily invokes an entirely different sense of the occurance and is not an effect overlooked by a person who works with words for a living ( a journalist, not me ).

Third, this incident has no relation to the FEMA representative making the request. This is a different occurance in a different place at a different time. So using it to imply the weapon was aimed at the media members while the request was being made is typical, expected, misleading and detrimental to the real fight.

You complain that the Bush administration is covering the truth then you color and misrepresent the truth to attack -- you see why this gets no one anywhere?

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was exemplary. Keeping reporters out has been reported elsewhere, including here (http://www.operationflashlight.com/?p=25).

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is not "exemplary", it is fairly common. It is perhaps an example. Nitwork done....

Ah, here there is mention of keeping the reporters out; this is a representation of the actual paragrah and a half. I looked elsewhere via reference of this article and there did seem to be a period where media were being turned away. However, it is unclear that the Bush administration made such an order. Do you believe every order acted upon by the National Guard comes directly from the Bush Administration? So we do have evidence of an order, but no evidence it came from Bush himself or the Bush administration.

I do notice that you neglected to include the follow-on notes that this stance has been changed --

"I talked to Bob a few minutes ago. And he said that there seemed to be a sea change in the treatment of reporters trying to get access to the city from yesterday to today. Today he reported that he and his colleagues were able to get through without any problem."

Directly from your the other misleading individual in this conversation.

See his second link.

So the massive governmental cover-up was for 1 day of restricting media entrance. It is good to question why, perhaps looking for the answer to why they choose to limit access? It certainly did not succeed in preventing the people from knowing that New Orleans was in terrible shape, that thousands have died and thousand upon thousands more are hungry.

Personally, I am very thankful to the media for managing to get their vans there with all their equipment and people so they can broadcast; I mean what would they do with a disater to get viewership. Any reports of a single reporter stocking their van with food and water to deliver?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was exemplary. Keeping reporters out has been reported elsewhere, including here (http://www.operationflashlight.com/?p=25).

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is not "exemplary", it is fairly common. It is perhaps an example. Nitwork done....


[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking. This is what you lead with? This you believed was such an error on my part that you felt comfortable with this smarmy, juvenile display?

Please.

Next time, please do yourself a favor and check a reference (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exemplary) before you embarass yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, here there is mention of keeping the reporters out; this is a representation of the actual paragrah and a half. I looked elsewhere via reference of this article and there did seem to be a period where media were being turned away. However, it is unclear that the Bush administration made such an order. Do you believe every order acted upon by the National Guard comes directly from the Bush Administration? So we do have evidence of an order, but no evidence it came from Bush himself or the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the military by itself decided to do this, with no civilian input whatsoever? Is that your theory? Ok. Any evidence to back that up?


[ QUOTE ]
I do notice that you neglected to include the follow-on notes that this stance has been changed --

"I talked to Bob a few minutes ago. And he said that there seemed to be a sea change in the treatment of reporters trying to get access to the city from yesterday to today. Today he reported that he and his colleagues were able to get through without any problem."

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this available when I posted this morning and this afternoon? Why, no. Thank you for noticing.

[ QUOTE ]
Directly from your the other misleading individual in this conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ QUOTE ]
So the massive governmental cover-up was for 1 day of restricting media entrance. It is good to question why, perhaps looking for the answer to why they choose to limit access? It certainly did not succeed in preventing the people from knowing that New Orleans was in terrible shape, that thousands have died and thousand upon thousands more are hungry.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, thanks to word getting out the administration changed its stance. Sounds good to me. Are you still defending a policy your ideological allies have abandoned?

[pankwindu]

You are correct, my link is not related to the OP's incident. The OP's link was meant as an example, and mine was another example of a pattern of behavior among local police, National Guard, and FEMA officials. There were numerous scattered stories about this yesterday, not just these two links.

I interpreted the pattern of behavior to mean there was a coordinated order from above to keep out the media. I didn't specficially blame it on the Bush administration, but I plead guilty by association given the subject of the thread.

I also provided additional anecdotal evidence of the opposite pattern of behavior. I interpreted this to mean that either clear orders have been issued to let the media perform their jobs, or there was no anti-media order in the first place. Either way, I consider the issue resolved with the correct outcome.

I apologize for not being clear the first time around.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was exemplary. Keeping reporters out has been reported elsewhere, including here (http://www.operationflashlight.com/?p=25).

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is not "exemplary", it is fairly common. It is perhaps an example. Nitwork done....


[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking. This is what you lead with? This you believed was such an error on my part that you felt comfortable with this smarmy, juvenile display?

Please.

Next time, please do yourself a favor and check a reference (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exemplary) before you embarass yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny I did check that exact reference. The word "exemplary" is ( as seen in definition one ) generally used to refer to something as not only an average example but an example that is exceptional, worthy of commendation, or in some other way exceptional and should be seen as a model for , in this case, how to write an article. The article itself is common, average, and fairly uninformative.

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, here there is mention of keeping the reporters out; this is a representation of the actual paragrah and a half. I looked elsewhere via reference of this article and there did seem to be a period where media were being turned away. However, it is unclear that the Bush administration made such an order. Do you believe every order acted upon by the National Guard comes directly from the Bush Administration? So we do have evidence of an order, but no evidence it came from Bush himself or the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the military by itself decided to do this, with no civilian input whatsoever? Is that your theory? Ok. Any evidence to back that up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um. I am not following you here. The military almost always acts on short notice without civilian input. Perhaps you meant without the federal executive branch's input? In that case -- yes I entirely believe such a decision is abundantly possible without that branches input. But here we are walking into the area of assumptions; and that is your core problem. You have started screaming very large accusations on the basis of reading between the lines and assumptions. That is exactly what I was pointing out. Do you have any actual facts to support your case? No, assumptions are what you are operating on; assumptions built upon an already existing set of prejudices. Those prejudices would find any way of pointing the finger.

This way of operating does no good to the cause of showing the government for what it is. Instead it demeans your cause. Fight with facts, not assumptions or misrepresentations.


[ QUOTE ]
I do notice that you neglected to include the follow-on notes that this stance has been changed --

"I talked to Bob a few minutes ago. And he said that there seemed to be a sea change in the treatment of reporters trying to get access to the city from yesterday to today. Today he reported that he and his colleagues were able to get through without any problem."

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this available when I posted this morning and this afternoon? Why, no. Thank you for noticing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the post with the link was posted 30 minutes before your second post indicating the cover-up was happening.

[ QUOTE ]
Directly from your the other misleading individual in this conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I was refering to fink.


[ QUOTE ]
So the massive governmental cover-up was for 1 day of restricting media entrance. It is good to question why, perhaps looking for the answer to why they choose to limit access? It certainly did not succeed in preventing the people from knowing that New Orleans was in terrible shape, that thousands have died and thousand upon thousands more are hungry.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, thanks to word getting out the administration changed its stance. Sounds good to me. Are you still defending a policy your ideological allies have abandoned?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, misrepresentation. This is why you can never be taken seriously. I never defended the stance, do you see anywhere I defended the stance? I questioned whether the stance came from the Bush administration -- a legitimate question. I questioned whether was a reason given for the stance, again legitimate and leads to actual understanding. If there was no reason given, or the reason does not stand up to scrutiny THEN we have something to fire with. Right now such posts as yours are just hysterical.

And one last final misrepresentation -- You have no idea who my idealogical allies are; but you of course attempt to paint me with the brush you feel most damages me. The people I least want as allies are those such as yourself -- you damage the cause because you don't operate by knowledge, facts, or reaons. Instead you fight by misrepresentation, straw-manning, hysteria, insinuation, and assumption.

Both of the major parties in our government use these same tactics to keep their power. And all posts like yours do is feed it. Analyze, find the truth -- attack with that and we can make a change. Remain hysterical and they remain in control.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]

Your ability to unquestioningly accept the proffered party line may serve you well in the military, but it ill suits an informed citizen. Faces of the dead -- to the extent they are even still recognizable -- can be blurred. And the "room on the boats" excuse is no excuse at all for keeping reporters out of the area altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you actually knew anything about me, other than what you think you know based on an internet discussion forum, you would know that I hardly "unquestioningly accept the party line". If that were the case, Id still be a Democrat.

Sifmole did an exemplary job in addressing your other points, so I wont dicuss this any farther.

[pankwindu]

Looks like General Honore announced a "zero access" policy Friday to prevent media coverage. CNN filed suit on First Amendment grounds and got a temporary injunction. Final ruling to come Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/10/katrina.media/index.html

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like General Honore announced a "zero access" policy Friday to prevent media coverage. CNN filed suit on First Amendment grounds and got a temporary injunction. Final ruling to come Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/10/katrina.media/index.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, that is how one summarizes an article. You had the right guy and what happened.

I wonder if the article was edited since you read it though. The article appears to say that the ban has already been lifted by Saturday morning.

[ QUOTE ]
The word "exemplary" is ( as seen in definition one ) generally used to refer to something as not only an average example but an example that is exceptional, worthy of commendation, or in some other way exceptional and should be seen as a model for , in this case, how to write an article. The article itself is common, average, and fairly uninformative.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wow, I must say I admire your chutzpa. So you are saying that your CHECKED THE DICTIONARY, saw that the word "exemplary" has multiple meanings, and then decided to LEAD YOUR POST with a usage flame based on your view my usage was "incorrect" based on one definition, withour regard to any other definition? That is now your story?

Really? Are you sure? That's your story?

You know posts stay on here a really long time, right?

Well, it looks like vulturesrow bought it, at least.

[ QUOTE ]
The military almost always acts on short notice without civilian input. Perhaps you meant without the federal executive branch's input? In that case -- yes I entirely believe such a decision is abundantly possible without that branches input.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Abundantly possible"? Sorry, that is not what I asked. I asked whether that was your theory. In other words, what did you believe was the most likely explanation at the time?

[ QUOTE ]
But here we are walking into the area of assumptions; and that is your core problem. You have started screaming very large accusations on the basis of reading between the lines and assumptions. That is exactly what I was pointing out. Do you have any actual facts to support your case? No, assumptions are what you are operating on; assumptions built upon an already existing set of prejudices. Those prejudices would find any way of pointing the finger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come now. Facts: multiple reports that the press was being kept out. Fact: an administration with a history of trying to "manage" the news -- see, e.g., the as-yet-unseen Abu Ghraib photos; the efforts to keep the war dead hidden, etc. Fact: an adminstration under fire for its bungling of the situation.

When I hear lots of low-volume tapping on my roof and someone comes through my door closing a wet umbrella and takes off wet shoes, I don't have to look out the window to conclude that it is raining. Do you?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your ability to unquestioningly accept the proffered party line may serve you well in the military, but it ill suits an informed citizen. Faces of the dead -- to the extent they are even still recognizable -- can be blurred. And the "room on the boats" excuse is no excuse at all for keeping reporters out of the area altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you actually knew anything about me, other than what you think you know based on an internet discussion forum, you would know that I hardly "unquestioningly accept the party line". If that were the case, Id still be a Democrat.

Sifmole did an exemplary job in addressing your other points, so I wont dicuss this any farther.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, your usage-happy friend did not at all address the point that the faces of the dead could be blurred. And his suggestion that the press was not really being kept out was wrong. But given that events have overtaken this issue, it is understandable that you don't wish to discuss this further. After all, it is not as if "respect for the dead" went away in 24 hours, is it?