I don’t know what it is about coffins and bodies but the some in the media seem to have an unhealthy obsession with them. First, there was the push for showing pictures of our soldiers returning home in flag-drapped coffins, now this:
FEMA accused of censorship
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When U.S. officials asked the media not to take pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, they were censoring a key part of the disaster story, free speech watchdogs said on Wednesday.
The move by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is in line with the Bush administration’s ban on images of flag-draped U.S. military coffins returning from the Iraq war, media monitors said in separate telephone interviews.
"It’s impossible for me to imagine how you report a story whose subject is death without allowing the public to see images of the subject of the story," said Larry Siems of the PEN American Center, an authors’ group that defends free expression.
It’s impossible for me to imagine how, for umpteen hundreds of years that stories have been reported about car accidents where people are killed, murders where wives and their unborn children are drowned, that we somehow managed to understand and grasp the seriousness of what happened without seeing the dead bodies. It just boggles the mind!
FEMA, in an email response to the media inquiry, had this to say:
"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."
Makes perfect sense, right? Apparently not to the death-obsessed:
Rebecca Daugherty of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press found this stance inexplicable.
"The notion that, when there’s very little information from FEMA, that they would even spend the time to be concerned about whether the reporting effort is up to its standards of taste is simply mind-boggling," Daugherty said. "You cannot report on the disaster and give the public a realistic idea of how horrible it is if you don’t see that there are bodies as well."
WOW. Is that so? I must have missed, then, all those photos displayed in newspapers and online about Nick Berg’s beheading - no, not the picture just before the beheading, but a picture *of* the beheading itself. Somehow I managed to get an idea of just how gruesome that heinous act was without (gasp!) seeing a photo of it. Don’t know how they did it, but most of America got the idea of how sick Berg’s murder was, too, without seeing a photo of his dead body. A drunk driving accident that killed young teens happened here where I live not too long ago, and I figured out how sad and tragic and unnecessary the deaths that happened because of it were without seeing the victims dead in the car.
Memo to the media: we don’t need to see a dead body to understand the graveness (no pun intended) of the circumstances surrounding their death or murder. Do your jobs and be descriptive about them if you must but please show some respect for the dead and let them rest in peace without you sensationalizing their demise in order to sell newspapers and ad time.
Related: Captain Ed points out a news network that is actually doing their homework on the fact that there actually was an emergency response plan for NO that was never implemented.
More: Here’s a photographic timeline of Katrina that proves that the federal response to Katrina was not as slow as some are asserting (hat tip: Kevin at Wizbang).
Linked up with OTB’s Traffic Jam
Thurs. a.m. update: Michelle Malkin blogs about how Moveon.Org is Sheehan-izing Katrina.
Update II: The always on-the-mark CavalierX has a must read post up today: Demanding Dictatorship in Katrina’s Wake?
Update III: Jeff Goldstein has a blistering response to the ‘pro show- the-dead’ folks. The Anchoress also has a post worth reading about this.
| Email This Post | Print This |
Why, it’s quite simple. The media can’t really rile up the people into a frenzied mob demanding Bush’s head without using the ghastly images of dead bodies, particularly dead bodies of minorities!
As obnoxious as it is, I believe that is the reason. They don’t want any limit on anything that can be used to inflame people. Now Nick Berg’s beheading, they wouldn’t show that, because it makes the “freedom fighters” in Iraq look like the barbarians they are, and that isn’t beneficial the “cause.”
The MSM never ceases to descend to new levels of disgusting behavior.
Comment by Severian @ 9/7/2005 - 9:17 pm
It seems the people calling to see the dead bodies are mentally disconnected. Are they just not getting it? Like ST said, there is no reason to see dead bodies to understand the severity and gruesomeness of the events (i.e. Nick Berg’s beheading - rest his soul). It is a fact that people have died under horrendous conditions. That is all I need to know in order to emotionally, sincerely and factually feel the impact of this deadly event. God bless those who have lost their lives.
Comment by Denise @ 9/7/2005 - 9:51 pm
I believe the term you seek for media fascination with the dead is ‘ghoulish’.
It’s all very strange.
Comment by Eric Jacobson @ 9/8/2005 - 8:05 am
If FEMA actually enforces this, its a pretty clear restriction on speech. Putting up any sort of a purpose test (’you’re doing this to hate bush / to ask for accountability’) sounds like quite a perversion of the governments role. Its not the governments role to tell the media what is or is not a permissible purpose for reporting.
The wingnuts who think otherwise are just going to have to deal with the fallout, like we all dealing with the disaster.
Comment by wayne @ 9/8/2005 - 8:50 am
“The wingnuts who think otherwise are just going to have to deal with the fallout”
Just who are you calling a “wingnut”?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/8/2005 - 9:05 am
Great post. Shortly the MSM may lose its interest in photos of the dead.
Yesterday, I saw a Democratic Congressman fulminate emphatically on CSPAN and then practically collapse into a puddle of tears on the Capitol floor because of the water and food that were prevented from getting to the people in the Superdome and convention center. That was because the first reports said that it was FEMA that wouldn’t let the Red Cross through. Now that it turns out it was LA troopers under Democratic Governor Blanco who stopped them. Now, I’m guessing that this will no longer be a problem.
Which brings me to the question of why wouldn’t Gov. Blanco allow the President Bush take over at the start? There was a category 5 hurricane that looked as though it was going to hit NO dead on. Maybe she was afraid that someone with expertise would check the levee and discover that shoddy work had been done on it. It, supposedly, had been repaired this summer right where it gave way. What if the “repairs” were more about money going to friends and relatives of the Democratics such as the Landreau’s, who run LA, than that effective work was done?
So, now, it is possible that the NO voters who put her into office have died not only because of graft but because graft had to stay covered up.
Even if every last body could be stacked up at the doors of Blanco, Landreau and Nagin, they should not be photographed for media consumption.
Comment by Evon @ 9/8/2005 - 9:40 am
I am sorry Wayne, but what about a person’s right to privacy?? Dead or alive it is still there. Also there is something to be said for respect for the dead, that is one of the things that sets us apart from the animals. Apparently the MSM just doesn’t understand all of these civilized concepts anymore. But what can you expect from a group of people who report lies as facts then run to the Bill of Rights for protection from libel and slander. How can you defend this?? You do realize the the press is not the only persons mentioned in the 1st amendment right?? There is a reason “The People” are actually mentioned in the Constitution, and “The Press” is only mentioned in the Bill of rights.
Comment by Lorica @ 9/8/2005 - 10:20 am
Lorica,don’t you get it? “Right to privacy” only applies to sex, abortion, and other things many consider aberrations, not to things like human dignity and good taste.
If you look back at the wild rumors that have been put out in previous hurricanes, one meme sticks out. After each major hurricane the conspiracy nuts have claimed that there were tons of dead bodies being hidden in mobile morgues and that the press were keeping people from seeing them because it would cause an outrage against the government. Now that we have a hurricane/disaster where there actually are stacks of bodies, the opportunity to slam the administration cannot be missed. It’s what many have longed for, and others are too opportunistic to pass up.
I’m convinced the reason the administration has stepped up and is doing this is that they know that the press cannot and will not use discretion in this. They haven’t figured out that just because you can do a thing that doesn’t mean you should do a thing, in that way they, and many of their liberal fellow travelers, are like children. They need adult supervision, even though they don’t want or like it.
Comment by Severian @ 9/8/2005 - 10:51 am
“Just who are you calling a “wingnut”? ”
People who defend purpose based tests for restrictions on speech.
“I am sorry Wayne, but what about a person’s right to privacy?? Dead or alive it is still there.”
It exists, but it doesn’t override the first amendment. If need be, privacy can be safeguarded by not showing identifying features of bodies. Taste and respect? Those are domains of the first amendment or government regulation. Those are for the market to regulate, not the government.
Comment by wayne @ 9/8/2005 - 10:59 am
Me: “Just who are you calling a “wingnut”? ”
You: “People who defend purpose based tests for restrictions on speech.”
Me: Well then I guess you’re calling just about everyone in America a “wingnut” then, Wayne, because I guarantee that an overwhelming majority of people in this country didn’t want to, nor did they have to, see autopsy photos of Laci and Connor Peterson (for example) to get a good idea of what happened to them. The media will “censor” itself over things like that, and for whatever reason I haven’t seen people who believe as you do complain too much about that. That’s what I call a double standard. Do you include yourself in the “wingnut” category or would you support any newspaper who started to post photos of dead bodies from murders, car accidents, etc?
Bottom line is it seems that some of the people who are expressing similar opinions such as yours support the showing of dead bodies only when it would seem to hurt a president they don’t like. Does that about cover it?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/8/2005 - 11:06 am
Severian: “I’m convinced the reason the administration has stepped up and is doing this is that they know that the press cannot and will not use discretion in this. They haven’t figured out that just because you can do a thing that doesn’t mean you should do a thing, in that way they, and many of their liberal fellow travelers, are like children. They need adult supervision, even though they don’t want or like it.”
ST: Exactly! The “right” to do something doesn’t make it right to do.
I should also add a side point to anyone who doesn’t think the gov’t “censors” what we see and hear, all they have to do is look to the FCC to realize that they indeed *do* just that and I don’t hear of too many people out there calling for the abolotion of the FCC.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/8/2005 - 11:23 am
So you are telling me that the 1st amendment is more important than the Consitition? That the General Welfare of the PEOPLE is less important than the Press?? That when our Founding Fathers wrote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That they were in error, and they intended this for the Press alone?? I am sorry but I don’t think so. You are very much in error in your thinking. The Bill of Rights never was intended to over ride the Constitution, that is why the Constitution has the “Supremacy” Clause and not the Bill of Rights. Could you imagine some poor soul in Houston hoping and praying that her/his spouse or child is still out there alive seeing their dead body on the nightly news?? Do you realize how horrific that would be to that poor person?? But yet it is the “Right” of the News media to do that to a person. I don’t think so Sir. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 9/8/2005 - 1:09 pm
Wayne wrote, “Putting up any sort of a purpose test (’you’re doing this to hate bush / to ask for accountability’)”
This has been a matter of policy for decades Wayne. This isn’t a new policy developed by Bush or by the federal government as you insinuated for a purpose. The fact that the policy in effect stops ghoulish people from doing their ghoulish things is not “censorship”. Read the constitution.
Comment by Baklava @ 9/8/2005 - 1:37 pm
Wayne wrote, “People who defend purpose based tests for restrictions on speech.”
You are insinuating a purpose based test. Can you point to some document that states a purpose as you stated for the decades old policy?
No.
This is a pattern of liberals. To actually state a non-liberal’s intent or motive or feelings as if you liberals actually know what we think or feel. You constantly refer to Bush’s motives, feelings and intent. Do you guys realize you do that? It comes so natural…
Comment by Baklava @ 9/8/2005 - 1:45 pm
Wayne wrote, “It exists, but it doesn’t override the first amendment.”
If I don’t want the media at my children’s funeral to take pictures and broadcast them, the media first ammendment right doesn’t override mine. You’ve lost sight what the first ammendment means for the media Wayne.
Comment by Baklava @ 9/8/2005 - 1:51 pm
Exactly Baklava
Comment by Lorica @ 9/8/2005 - 9:31 pm
Great serious of responses there, Bak.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/9/2005 - 1:57 pm
Series or Serious?
Comment by Baklava @ 9/9/2005 - 7:11 pm