See death

[Ocean11 0]

Some relatively mild unpleasantness (relative that is to what has gone before) has gone down in Fallujah, Iraq and bodies were charred and misteated. This particular consequence of US policy is deemed just too awful for Americans to see by their minders in the media.

 

Should people in a democracy be spared the sight of other people who are killed as a result of their countries policies? Or is it actually necessary for them to see it all, however repulsive, just so they know what's involved? I'm inclined towards the latter view myself. It tends to make irresponsible political choices less abstract.

[Dims 0]

At the risk of sounding like a brown-noser, well said ol' bean

[Plucky 0]

I'm not sure what they're showing on TV on the other side of the pond, but I had no problem finding them on the internet. Very gruesome and sad.

 

No further comment at this point although I do lean your way O11.

[jared 0]

Yes and no. I agree with your point but would you want everyone to see your family member being mutilated on TV, would you want everyone else to see it?

Personaly I would say no if it was my family and my choice wether it was shown or not.

[Ocean11 0]

I just read an article saying that the major US TV was just showing burning vehicles, while major European TV was showing all the footage or with blurring. Some channels in the US and Europe apparently showed the lot (which doesn't appear to be that much).

 

It sickens me that the deaths of 4 people are being fussed over when the death tolls in the bombing and shooting were far higher, and body parts were scattered with far greater abandon by 'our' side.

 

Al Jazeera and similar channels show the consequences of all the violence in the Muslim world. This isn't because they're unsophisticated barbarians - it's because they realize that without it, the truth hasn't nearly been told. In 'our' media, there's even a euphemism for pictures of violent death - 'graphic'. We must be careful about what we let you see in case you find it 'graphic'.

[NoFakie 45]

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ocean11:

It sickens me that the deaths of 4 people are being fussed over when the death tolls in the bombing and shooting were far higher, and body parts were scattered with far greater abandon by 'our' side.

The problem there though is bias as opposed to censorship of what you call "graphic" images. Such death tolls have hardly been mentioned in the mainstream media, let alone shown.

I'll readily agree that a failure to show the consequences of war desensitizes people to it, but it's only one of a mighty arsenal of propaganda techniques. Had the deaths of the victims of this latest incident been shown, as things stands I doubt many viewers would think very deeply about causation.

[MistaSparkle 0]

In this day and age when we have military types boasting about surgical strikes and precision bombs, the US media does incredible damage to democracy by not showing, in graphic detail, the consequences of the war (and Im talking about US and Iraqi casualties). "Embedded" journalists are basically kept on a leash, and major news networks wont go near the gruesome truth so they wont upset their audience, whcih would lead to a loss of ratings/market-share and advertising. I have heard so many americans say... "We have the most precise weapons in the world. We can hit the hair on a camel from the other side of the world. No civillians will be killed in the war..." But... people need to see the results of war they support. I have a feeling that if the brutal truth was shown, maybe everyone wouldn't be so gung-ho about going to war in the first place.

[Ocean11 0]

Yes, that's true about the bias overall.

 

As to what conclusions would be drawn by people in general is anybody's guess - although the 'graphic' footage of dead 'copter personnel in Mogadishu was widely credited with ending US involvement there.

 

Apparently the same censorship of violent death occurred in the Japanese media when the two diplomatic staffers were killed. The government said that they 'died instantly'. Later reports suggested that they did no such thing, although no doubt many Japanese took comfort in the 'fact' that there wasn't really that much unpleasantness after all.

 

As for the families of people who die in foreign wars, I think ultimately they would be better served if everybody knew the truth about it. Caution over sending people off to die horrible deaths trumps 'privacy' or whatever the hell it might be called.

[bobby12 0]

While I understand the points being made, and I think they make for an interesting wider discussion, I think the reason why the bodies weren't shown is simply because censorship law prevents disfigured dead bodies being shown on TV (be they american, iraqi, swiss, war victims or victims of accidents etc).

 

I don't think you can read a political agenda into it when this law applies to all footage.

[Ocean11 0]

I don't believe there are any such laws...

[NoFakie 45]

They showed Udey and Qusey (sp?) Hussein covered in blood. Maybe they don't qualify as people.

 

In evidence of the Ocean's point, I believe the US media was told not to show coffins of US fatalities as they returned from Iraq. A quick search, and this looks like it's from the Washington Post

 

http://www.med.sc.edu:1081/curtains.htm

 

I still think the bias in the Western mainstream media is the main problem here.

[bobby12 0]

I totally agree that our media is biased, but I just disagree with the initial point made here that they are picking and choosing which dead bodies to show (because I have never even seen a graphic image of a dead body on the news, let alone a mutilated dead body).

 

If you can show that the news (ie. CNN, BBC etc) regularly shows graphic images of mutilated dead bodies then I will accept that I am wrong.

[Ocean11 0]

> I just disagree with the initial point made here that they are picking and choosing which dead bodies to show

 

No such 'initial point' was made. The whole point was that because they don't show the consequences, the policies are even less likely to be challenged.

[Siren 0]

It is a matter of taste.

 

Showing heroic ‘rescue’ of female soldier trapped behind enemy line is good taste. Showing charred bodies of victims (especially when they are on our side) is not.

[fukdane 2]

On Fox theyre talking about how the US should "bomb the Fallujah".

 

[scouser 4]

You should really stop watching Fox News Channel. Its bad for your thoughts.

[barok 0]

bobby12, There is no law against showing graphic images of mutilated dead bodies. As NoFakie and Ocean wrote, some examples - Udey and Qusey (all major networks), helicopter pilots in Mogadishu (CNN). I've seen plenty of footage of mutilated dead with regards to Vietnam, and Rwanda.

 

From what I have read about this case, the media received no pressure from the Pentagon, they just decided that the people didn't wan't/need/whatever to see the footage.