How about the 3,000 AMERICANS that were murdered on 9/11/01?
The MSM can't bring themselves to show those innocent civilians who died! 
Posted on 05/23/2005 10:21:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
American photojournalists and their editors are frustrated that they can't show more photos of U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq, saying that the nation isn't getting an accurate picture of the horrors of war.
In a comprehensive report on Saturday, the Los Angeles Times noted:
"A review of six prominent U.S. newspapers and the nation's two most popular newsmagazines during a recent six-month period found almost no pictures from the war zone of Americans killed in action."
The paper explained:
"Many photographers and editors believe they are delivering Americans an incomplete portrait of the violence that has killed 1,797 U.S. service members and their Western allies and wounded 12,516 Americans."
During World War II, the Roosevelt administration strictly prohibited news outlets from printing photos of dead U.S. soldiers because of the obvious blow it would be to American morale. And the press willingly complied.
The same sensibility largely prevailed during Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War.
But with many in today's media opposed to the Iraq war, some say it's time to change the rules.
"There can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that," veteran war photographer Chris Hondros told the Times. "I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war."
Pim Van Hemmen, assistant managing editor for photography at the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., agreed, telling the Times:
"Writing in a headline that 1,500 Americans have died doesn't give you nearly the impact of showing one serviceman who is dead."
By censoring the photos of GI's as they lay dying, Van Hemmen said, "We in the news business are not doing a very good job of showing our readers what has really happened over there."
Steve Stroud, deputy director of photography at the Los Angeles Times, also thinks the public needs to see more photos of dead American soldiers.
"I feel we still aren't seeing the kind of pictures we need to see to tell the American people about this war and the costs of the war," he explained.
Michele McNally, New York Times director of photography, concurred, observing: "War kills men, women and children, and we would be remiss if we couldn't in some way show that this is what happens in war . . . It's our responsibility to bear witness to these events."
Media support for showing more American bloodshed comes despite the risk that soldiers' families may consider the display a horrible violation of privacy.
Deirdre Sargent, whose husband was deployed to Iraq, recently complained to editors of the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., after the paper printed a photo of a dying GI that she said left her "shaking and in tears for hours."
"It was tacky, unprofessional and completely unnecessary," Sargent said.
Executive Editor Dave Zeeck told the Times that he tried to address the complaints in an essay published on Page 2 of the main news section. He explained to readers that he believed the picture, taken by John Moore of the Associated Press, epitomized the sacrifice of the American soldier.
"We not only have the right, but the responsibility to run such photos," Zeeck told the Times.
MSNBC.com posted the same photo to their website, prompting complaints from the dying soldier's family.
"At first we thought it was a really iconic photo of the terrible violence going on in Iraq," MSNBC.com editor in chief Dean Wright told the Times.
But when it turned out the soldier could be identified, Wright took the photo down, saying, "We thought it was too horrific, because it was more personalized then."
I read the first 99 replies to this thread and have not seen this so I'll throw this out.
The embed program is a failure. The military commanders need to be instructed to inform all media types that they are on their own.
Our soldiers are too valuable to be used as the personal cab drivers and body guards for these ghouls who are HOPING to be attacked so they can get some good pictures. It is inevitable that one of these traitors will sell out a squad of soldiers to the terrorists for the exclusive media rights.
"Boys, it's a free country now. But it's a dangerous place. You're welcome to stay -- but you're on your own. Your presence is not welcome among our troops. You will be arrested as enemy combatants and sent to Gitmo if you are encountered by our soldiers. Now, get the hell out of my AO."
Thanks.
How about the 3,000 AMERICANS that were murdered on 9/11/01?
The MSM can't bring themselves to show those innocent civilians who died!
Thanks for the ping Jan. Their hypocrisy will never cease to amaze me...
I completely agree.
I am willing to bet that if someone started showing the photo's of dead journalists the media would have a chenge of heart.
Remember when the reporter for the WSJ was killed, we didn't see reporters at the dead man's house asking his wife how she feels knowing that her husband was killed in an unjust war.
 |
You are right, and Hollywood is doing the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.