Bush Administration Tries to Hide the Truth (Again)

[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.