1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

So called liberal press missed this one

Discussion in 'The OT' started by lee635, Apr 23, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,023
    1
    Apr 17, 2002
    Why is it that a person running an internet website was the first to question the Bush Administration's policy of suppressing all disclosure of pictures of caskets of returning service personnel? So much for the "liberal press theory".

    "Although photographs of flag-draped caskets returning from overseas fighting were common in the 1980s and 1990s, the Bush administration has enforced the ban on such images, saying it reflects families' wishes. Critics of the policy said the administration is trying to airbrush the realities of war.

    "I feel if the administration were more sympathetic they would see that this is a positive thing," Silicio said in an e-mail yesterday. "When our loved ones are coming home, the families want to be there with them through the media, coming the whole way home."

    link
     
  2. freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003
    I can't even belive this is a story. Why exactly would you want to see those images? What purpose would that serve? Only one I can think of.
     
  3. JM Anthony

    JM Anthony Child of the 60's DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,127
    1
    Nov 16, 2003
    For starters, how about the fact that for most of us, war is an abstraction. While I'm not advocating a return to the "body count" photos on the nightly news like we saw during the Vietnam era, I don't think there was anything distasteful with the photo shown in last Sunday's paper. It served as a cold reminder that brave US men and women have died in the line of service. And if it helps folks remember to press the Pres on his strategy for managing our actions over in Iraq, so much the better. After all, he's our "Mission Accomplished" guy. Not.
     
  4. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Actually this was challenged during the first Gulf War by a group of independent journalists and news organizations. Members of the mainstream media were asked to join the suit, but declined. None even took the fairly benign and inexpensive step to file an amicus brief in support. None of the cable or broadcast networks, the major wire services, major newspapers, not even NPR or PBS bothered to stick their neck out on this free speech issue. But as you've said, "So much for the 'liberal press theory'".

    What purpose would it serve? Oh, I don't know? None I guess if you don't think dead American service people killed in a foreign war is newsworthy. We don't seem to have a problem with showing the troops going off to war in their inspiring Humvees and Bradleys on the way to getting killed. What's next? No cameras at Arlington or Punchbowl or Flander's Field? How about just not releasing the names? That'd keep everything clean and tidy and sterile, wouldn't it? And of course, protect the privacy of the families. :nono2:

    BTW, none of the recent pictures, in fact no picture I can ever remember, of returning flag-draped caskets was in any way disrespectful. On the contrary, they were quite moving in the way they illustrated how we treat our fallen soldiers with honor and respect. This is entirely political and the politicians fear that seeing caskets of dead soldiers, sailors, etc. even in a respectful, honorable fashion will bring home to people the true costs of war. And they don't want you to know those costs, either monetary OR human.
     
  5. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Why is it that a person running an internet website was the first to question the Bush Administration's policy of suppressing all disclosure of pictures of caskets of returning service personnel? So much for the "liberal press theory".

    Actually the mainstream press noted that the Pentagon wouldn't allow such pictures back when the war started.

    The difference is that the website was the first to actually OBTAIN pictures, despite this ban.

    Apparently the person (and his wife... not certain why) who took the first picture showing the soldier saluting the coffins was fired.

    As for showing the pictures, I'm all in favor of it. The respect shown for the bodies makes me proud. Its a far sight better than the treatment of returning vets in a previous era.

    Dishonesty on the other hand only breeds contempt. Showing these pictures isn't adding fuel for stopping the war, as the hawks want you to believe. Nobody expects a war to be casualty free.

    Hiding them from the public however is cause for concern, as it makes us distrust our government and wonder why they have to hide them.
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Just to clarify, the person to take the photos was the wife, but her husband was also fired, though no reason has been given for his dismissal.
     
  7. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    And the person who took the pictures was a private contractor to a branch of the military. By releasing the pix she violated her contract and was justifiably released from her contract.
     
  8. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    The husband however, was simply the guy who was married to the photographer who was fired for evidently no other reason than retribution.
     
  9. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    I suspect he may have had some kind of involvement in the distribution of the pix, although as a favorite talk show host of mine in Minneapolis used to say: "Ahhh, we don't know that".
     
  10. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    Why does this indicate that the press isn't liberal? I thought liberals were compassionate, sensitive, caring people. Many reporters, editors, etc. may have actually (gasp) taken the feelings of the families into consideration, and decided that the limited impact the photos would have on the world's perception of the war was not outweighed by the hurt it would cause the families. I'm surprised the photos weren't first released by that money-grubbing rascallion, Rupert Murdoch! :)
     
  11. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Strangely, a good number of the families have come out in favor of the photos. There was no privacy consideration involved because the photos never revealed any names, and the names of those killed are released by the military themselves.

    The restriction of photos of the caskets of military personnel was instituted in 1991 by, who else, Dick Cheney, during Desert Storm. It was not extensively enforced during the Clinton administration, but with the return of Heir Cheney the restrictions have become iron-clad. It's only purpose has nothing to do with the consideration of the families, it is for the consideration of Bush and Cheney, to yet again keep the American public in the dark. Bush and Cheney don't trust the American public with the truth, so they shovel misinformation and misdirection at every opportunity.
     
  12. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    I don't recall Heir Clinton having a lot of opportunities to enforce it. He spouted off a lot about Hussein, but didn't take much action. Hence, there weren't a lot of coffins rolling in during his term. Would he have taken the same position as the current administration under the same circumstances? Who knows?
     
  13. freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003
    the liberal press is ignoring this one though.

    http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=14236

    OPINION -- In recent months, the mainstream media has focused its energy by mainly reporting on what some perceive as the Bush administration's flawed policy related to Iraq. But to date one of the most significant stories of the year has received very little attention from the press.


    However, there may be a very good reason why the press has been slow to recognize the far-reaching ramifications of possible corruption involving the United Nations. The facts surrounding the story may explain why some members of that world body did not participate in the liberation of Iraq. With the exception of Great Britain, the United States was basically left to go it alone, in its effort to remove a brutal outlaw regime from power.


    In January, Al-Mada, an Iraqi newspaper, reported on what may be the most important news story of the year.


    After the U.S.-led coalition kicked Iraq out of Kuwait at the conclusion of the first Gulf War, the U.N. implemented an embargo restricting Saddam Hussein's regime from using profits from the country's vast oil reserves for maniacal purposes.


    A google news search on "oil for food scandal" only brings up what would be considered conservative publications. No mainstream press organization is giving this any coverage other than to say the UN fully backs the investigation.k
     
  14. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    the liberal press is ignoring this one though.

    Not really.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/21/un.oil.probe/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/04/19/iraq.corruption.ap/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/31/iraq.un.probe/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/20/iraqi.money/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/19/iraqi.money/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/04/iraq/index.html
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4767130/
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4546426/
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4565553/

    to just name a few...

    Its also been repeatedly hashed over by various national editorial columnists. William Saphire has repeatedly mentioned it. Most recently in his April 19th column.

    Is it getting as much coverage as the war itself or local news? Perhaps not. But thats a far cry from the story being "ignored".
     
  15. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    That darn Commie Lib.
     
  16. freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003
    these I already mentioned.

    A google news search on "oil for food scandal" only brings up what would be considered conservative publications. No mainstream press organization is giving this any coverage other than to say the UN fully backs the investigation.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...robe/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/ameri...n.ap/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...robe/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...oney/index.html
    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...oney/index.html
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4546426/


    This one you posted is from 1997 and has nothing to do with the current scandal.

    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/04/iraq/index.html


    This says it is a witchhunt against UN

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4767130/

    this one is from march 20th and mentions an inquiry.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4565553/

    All pretty tame and with no substance or info that any wrong doing had been done.

    Down play it if you want it still does not change the fact that the mainstream media could do with out this story and do its best to bury it.
     
  17. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I seem to recall some places with names like Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia... I think some soldiers actually died there but I can't be sure...
     
  18. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    Perhaps because the phrase "oil for food scandal" is biased towards conservative publications who would write that type of phrase. Other publications have written about the program problems and even the corruption that took place. But since you only see and hear very selectively, you wouldn't know that.
     
  19. freakmonkey

    freakmonkey Banned User

    351
    0
    Sep 11, 2003

    Very apt description of yourself. I am so glad that you are aware of the things going on and the fact that the very allies you continue to say we ignore are knee deep in this scandal. It is no wonder the UN and the rest did not want us to invade because it ended thier greedy little program to steal from the people of Iraq. BTW I had to use the word scandal in the google search beacuse if you dont well like I sadi befor the stories down play the scandal ignore it all together or say how the UN Russia France ect support the inquiry. Lie to yourself it does not change the fact that the UN is a sham and the reason they did not want us to goto war was monetary. David Kay admitted that Iraq was in clear violation of directives in place against Saddam/Iraq. Those directives are the reason for the war. If the UN and company was not so worried about the oil for food crap and lord knows what else then they would have been on board.

    http://news.google.com/news?q=oil for food&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&start=10&sa=N
     
  20. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I find it very amusing how people like yourself keep changing your story to fit whatever rant you're on at the moment. First it was all about WMDs. Then when that was proven to be a lie, it was all about "terrorist activity", but that has been squashed by lack of evidence, then it was for "humanitarian reasons" but that only brings up embarrassing instances of double-standards with far more heinous regimes. So now it is "violation of UN directives". And David Kay, you either praise him when it is convenient or deride him as a traitor when you don't like what he says.

    Take a moment to get your story straight once and for all then get back with us.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page