Nightline producer:"...if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to go to war again."

Mudvillegazette ^ | 04/01/04 | Mudvillegazette

[Pikamax]

Atrocities in Fallujah and Elsewhere I warn you, what follows is in many regards more repulsive than the pictures and videos from Fallujah. Read at your own risk.

WASHINGTON — Every war or disaster contains moments that become defining images: a napalmed girl or a gun to the head in Vietnam, the body of a U.S. soldier dragged through a Somalian street. It is not clear whether the 80 seconds of video Wednesday showing images of charred American bodies being beaten and dangled from the steelwork of a bridge over the Euphrates River will come to define the war in Iraq.

But once again, broadcasters and news executives were torn between a question of taste and the demand to give viewers and readers information that could affect the course of history.

"War is a horrible thing. It is about killing," ABC News "Nightline" Executive Producer Leroy Sievers said in an unusual message to the program's e-mail subscribers discussing the issues posed by Wednesday's killings. "If we try to avoid showing pictures of bodies, if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to go to war again."

Read that last bit twice. "If we try to avoid showing pictures of bodies, if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to go to war again."

And later in the same LA Times piece:

While showing the images could erode support for the war, not showing them could have an opposite effect. Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism, said that networks' "sanitization of war may have helped the administration prosecute the war" a year ago.

During the height of the war, few pictures of slain American soldiers were shown and news photographers were not allowed at places where they could shoot images of coffins being shipped home.

The pictures from Wednesday's attack, Rosenstiel said, could anger viewers or "engender disenchantment about the war."

And in the end,

CNN began airing increasingly graphic footage as the day wore on and as the story became more familiar to Americans who had had a chance to view the video online. A spokeswoman said the network delayed airing more graphic images earlier in the day to "give the U.S. authorities time to contact the next of kin." Whether news executives made the proper decisions may take years of perspective to determine.

But the real effect of the images on Americans could be felt just months from now.

"These are the kinds of pictures that will linger," said John Schulz, dean of Boston University's College of Communications and a former faculty member at the National War College.

"They'll be there in November when people go to vote."

Let's just say what they didn't: Maybe something good will come of this and Bush will get tossed.

And in case you've missed this one

It has got to give the American public pause about this question of how welcome we are there," says Robert Dallek, a presidential biographer who studied Franklin Roosevelt's tenure during World War II and Lyndon Johnson's during Vietnam. "This is not Vietnam, but it is reminiscent of Vietnam." Make no mistake about the meaning: It's Vietnam. It took very few hours to bring that out.

In fact, here's the Google score card in the News category as of this writing:

Iraq quagmire: 286

Iraq Mogadishu: 880

Iraq Vietnam: 5740

It's fitting that liberal talk radio went live yesterday. I caught a bit on NPR (yes, we get NPR via Armed Forces Network on radio here in Germany) reviewing day one. (Audio here) The commenter was bemoaning the fact that there was an endless loop of late-sixties/early seventies era protest music playing. Is this the image we want? He asked, and quickly changed we to "liberals".

Is it surprising that the long-awaited new voice of America is actually years behind the time? And what will be their response to yesterday's events?

I'd advise taking a cue from John Kerry:

There could be political repercussions for the White House, but Bush's rival sought no advantage Wednesday. "United in sadness, we are also united in our resolve that these enemies will not prevail," Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said. That from the USA Today piece quoted previously. We shall see what happens when the focus group survey results roll in.

Today's reflection on yesterday may prove a real test for the liberal talk radio crowd. They have a great grasp of a rose-tinted 1968; can their aging eyes see this year without the aid of that lens?

[avg_freeper]

These are the same people that decided to never show the people the true horror and devastation wrought upon New York in 2001.

[Renegade]

This kind of action reenforces to me the reason why we are in Iraq and need to kick more a$$.

[Lost Highway]

But once again, broadcasters and news executives were torn between a question of taste and the demand to give viewers and readers information that could affect the course of history.

I think there is a typo. It is supposed to read:

But once again, broadcasters and news executives were torn between a question of taste and the prospect of shaping Americans opinion of the war in Iraq to one they approve of.

[taxcontrol]

I would take this mans comments and expand it in a different direction.

We (meaning the whole collective of the human race) have attempted to "civilize" warfare. There are rules, and laws about what can and can not be done by combatants, civilians, etc.

The problem is that there is nothing "civilized" about war. It is the final form of diplomacy. Beat the snot out of the other side because they will not accept your position or are attempting to push their position onto you, which you can not accept. War is a natural response to this condition.

The problem that we have created is that when a war is fought in a civilized manner, the PERCEPTION of a final victor is never achieved. To win a war, you must hurt the other side so badly that the looser must give up their "unacceptable" position and accept the position of the victor.

Under today's civilized rules, no one side is allowed to exercise that extent of domination. For example, Israel is not allowed to kick Arabs out of the country.

I believe that if the normal rules of warfare were to allow the victor to set the rules (to the victor goes the spoils), if the leaders of countries KNEW that there was a risk that their homes, families, freedoms, their very way of life was at risk -- then they would be much LESS likely to go to war.

Would Egypt go to war against Israel if they KNEW, and I mean really knew, that once Israel defeated them, that they would have full right to do ANYTHING to the surviving population, deportation, execution, even enslavement? I would say not.

War is a terrible thing, and when you try to make it into anything else, you are only lying to yourself.

[trebb]

"If we try to avoid showing pictures of bodies, if we make it too clean, then maybe we make it too easy to go to war again."

In other words, "If the enemy is really, really bad, and prone to commit atrocities, we should leave him alone and beg him to not hurt us. However, if the enemy is a pansy, and can be defeated by a sharp NO!, then it is OK to confront him."

[ClearCase_guy]

What the media needs to eventually admit is that EVERYONE has an agenda.

Show the pictures? War is dirty, maybe the US will be more reluctant next time.
Embargo the pictures? War is clean, and the US is fighting the good fight.

Show 9/11 pictures? That would makes Americans angry at terrorsts! Bad idea.
Embargo 9/11 pictures? That would help us forget all our troubles ... then we could be happy.

EVERYONE has an agenda. CNN is biased against wars led by Republican presidents. The fact that they don't admit it just means that they have a Liberal Bias AND they are dishonest.

[The G Man]

That person should be fired. No question about it.

[brownsfan]

War is a terrible thing, and when you try to make it into anything else, you are only lying to yourself.

I couldn't agree with you more. To that end, let me correct you in one place: You don't "beat the snot out of" your enemy, you KILL them. War is about killing. Let's keep that in perspective. Those animals in Fallujah don't need punished, or taught a lesson, they should be killed. War is a horrible thing. Killing others isn't something that we consider a good thing, (unlike the muslims). However, in order to secure our way of life, and to get our enemies to submit, we must kill some of them.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[68skylark]

The libs will surely try to pick a picture of gloom, tragedy and failure to symbolize the war on terrorism. It's up to us to pick other pictures.

I like this one, of a soldier handing a bag of school supplies to a liberated child. This is what America is all about.

[mabelkitty]

He apparently missed Dean running his mouth about blaming Bush for the attacks.

[hunter112]

From Sievers comments, I sense a man looking to justify what he was already wanting to show. Back in Mogadishu days, there was really only one 24/7 news channel, and no Internet to compete with. The "people who know what's best for us" in the news media were able to keep a conspiracy of silence on any images they didn't want us to see. If the first President Bush had been re-elected when this happened (and there's a credible argument to be made that it might not have), and the images flowed across three all-day, all-night news networks and the Internet, there might have been pressure to come back with an overwhelming response.

I've seen the pullout in Somalia compared to Reagan's pullout of Lebanon after the barracks bombing. As I recall, Reagan had the Navy use parts of Beruit for some fairly serious target practice on the way out.

When it comes down to it, the deaths of these civilian contractors were only seen as more horrific than the deaths of our soldiers because of what was done to the bodies after they were killed. Dead is dead, and the Iraqi scum have found a way to compound the tragedy of it by playing on our cultural beliefs about the treatment of lifeless bodies. It is appropriate that the pig fat treatment be used in full retaliation. If it were known that every SUV had a pig fat bomb that would spray in all directions upon impact or destruction, would that make them safer? Its worth a try.

[an amused spectator]

Media Shenanigans ping - Tired Of The Drudgery Of Thinking For Yourself? Don't Worry, The Media Elite Will Do It For You!

On, Off, or grab it for a Media Shenanigans/Schadenfreude ping:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~anamusedspectator/

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good editing!

[GOPJ]

Please keep me on...

John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said a few weeks ago that Wal-Marts "drive me crazy" because "they destroy communities."

Teresa Heinz is talking about liberal newspapers, not "communities". The small shops that overcharge buy ads from local liberal newspapers. If local newspapers were in any way beholden to the people of the community, rather than just to shopkeepers, they would have to broaden their appeal. In other words, they'd have to hire some conservatives.

Teresa Heinz is a multimillionaire and doesn't need to shop price. She wants locals who will kiss up to her -- puff up her ego. Walmart won't treat her any differently than any other customer. She wants you to subsidize her exulted lifestyle by paying more for all your goods. Charming. Or tacky. Your pick.