Posted on 05/11/2004 3:15:31 PM PDT by Wolfstar
NEW YORK - Video of an American civilian beheaded by an al-Qaida-affiliated group was deemed too gruesome to air by many media outlets Tuesday, including some prominent networks in the Arab world.
Several television networks, including CNN and MSNBC in the United States, showed pictures of a bound and frightened Nick Berg, with five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks standing behind him.
The video, posted Tuesday on an Islamic militant Web site, went on to show the men cutting Berg's head off and then holding it before the camera. Berg's body was found in Baghdad on Saturday.
Many media outlets likened it to the video of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's 2002 execution. In both cases, snippets of the video with the victim still alive were widely shown, but none of the actual killing.
"The news story itself is strong enough," said Jihad Ballout, spokesman for Al-Jazeera television, an Arabic-language satellite station based in Qatar. "To show the actual beheading is out of the realm of decency."
One of Al-Jazeera's competitors, the Arab news station Al-Arabiya, showed a brief snippet without the beheading.
The ABC, CBS and NBC broadcast networks said they did not plan to show anything beyond the opening shot of Berg alive on their evening news programs.
"It's a pretty clear call for us," said Jon Banner, executive producer of ABC's "World News Tonight." "I think the viewer will understand what happened to Mr. Berg. They won't have to sit through the graphic images."
Steve Capus, executive producer of NBC's "Nightly News," said it was one of the worst things he had ever seen.
"I saw it from start to finish and I wish I didn't have to," Capus said. "It's a horrifying, sadistic act of murder that is drawn out."
Peter Koeleman, director of photography at the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, said it was chilling enough just to see pictures of Berg sitting before his captors.
"We always say, `What if his family member lives here?'" Koeleman said. "It's such a cruel thing they did to him. There's so much impact in seeing him helplessly sitting there, it sent shivers down my spine. I didn't need to have it in my face."
Similarly, Bob Keane, a managing editor at Newsday on New York's Long Island, said the newspaper would not show images of the beheading.
"The story is gruesome enough," Keane said. "We'll leave much of it to people's imaginations. If people are curious, they can go to the Web site."
Associated Press Television News, which provides news pictures to 500 subscribers worldwide, distributed video of the full beheading. The video was preceded by a printed warning that lasted a full minute: "Warning! Man is beheaded on camera, extremely graphic footage."
APTN is told repeatedly by subscribers to provide them with as much news material as possible, and let the individual stations decide for themselves what to air, said Sandy MacIntyre, APTN's head of news.
The material was not included in a separate news feed that some stations put directly on the air, MacIntyre said. The AP works as both a wholesaler of news to its members and also disseminates news to the public itself.
The media cop out is to say (A) out of respect for the family AND (B) you can get it yourself off the internet. If they are going to tell people to get it off the internet then they aren't respecting the family.
The left keeps pushing for a day when they can televise an execution at a prison.
I agree - if one imagines that every GI in the Pacific Theatre knew about this picture, think what the Berg video will do not only for our troops, but perhaps every citizen of the civilized world. There ain't no goin' back, no matter how vainly libs may fantasize.
Well, they better pull the license of CCTV broadcast here in the U.S. because they ran the entire footage. Sorry, but I don't buy that the FCC would put CBS NBC or ABC out of business for running the video.
As for how to understand what the war is about without seeing the video, we were able to fight and win many wars before TV even existed, so it is ridiculous to say that if the population cannot see brutality on TV we won't be able to understand the war...
Your comparison saying we should be able to understand this war without television because we have fought other wars without televison ignores very significant differences an does not work as an argument.
In past wars, neither side had television. In this war, both sides have television but the television coverage is being retricted to only that showing America in a bad light. Atrocities a hundred times worse by the other side are not being shown while abuses by American troops of Iraqi prisoner are shown hundreds and hundreds of times.
Surely you can discern this distinction. And if you are going to fall back on the position that the picture of the beheading is just too gruesome to show, think about the message you send to people that would commit such gruesome acts.
Knowing a horrible act will be shown on television only where it motivates your supporters but will never be shown where it would increase the resolve of the enemy, of course they are going to continue to do such things. Your position actually encourages more of the same brutal atrocities.
You need to think your positions through much more thoroughly to take into account not just the immediate but also the stepped consequences that follow position that only one side should be without the benefit of television in the fighting of this war.
You're wrong.
First, I don't have any "pronogrphic sensibilities." I wanted to see exactly what those SOBs did to him for my own information. Simply that and no more.
Secondly, it was worse than my human imagination thought it would be.
It has rekindled my anger from 9/11, which had evolved somewhat of a teary sentimental sadness. Now I remember why we're fighting and what we're fighting for, and how much farther we need to go before it's over.
Did I like watching it? Are you kidding? But I'm glad I did, because now I think I have my head screwed on straight again re the enemy.
Well, I've been wrong plenty of times.
With all due respect, however, one definition of pornography means simply lurid or sensational images. It should not take that to set one straight about the enemy. There are places where the true enemy (the powers and pricipalities) are very close to the surface. Surely al Qaida is a good example.
"..just like they stuffed 9/11..."
While we were being "sheltered", every European country was watching it over and over. Frankly, it makes me angry that our gov't decides what we should see and what we shouldn't. Granted, gross and violent images should only be available to adults and the adults can decide if their kids can see.
There should be a site where any American who wants to see 9/11 as it happened from start to end (if available) can do so. If anyone knows such, please post. Thank you. We, as adults, should be able to see both 9/11 and 5/11!
"It is our troops who have surprised us ..."
Look at the age of some of our troops..it doesn't surprise me they taunt the Iraqi troops that way. At 18-19 many are still children.
I understand that's no excuse.
I recently viewed the clip myself. I was deeply saddened within my soul.
(I know this is crude) It seemed they were using a dull knife making the detestable act take longer. It made me sick to my stomach. How could anyone think that was fake?
In the end of Daniel Pearl's video it says:
"We assure Americans that they shall never be safe on the Muslim Land of Pakistan, and if our demands are not met, this scene shall be repeated again and again..."
Your thoughts? Something about that comment makes me very uneasy. I realize that's it's a warning of what was to come later. (9/ll, Berg, etc.) I want to have something interesting to comment about it myself, but I just can't think of the right words to say.
***Straying away from subject...sorry
Has anyone noticed the lack of GOD lately? I was listening to broadcasts on MTV the other day while cleaning my house, and they were making fun of some list with Jesus Christ listed as #1 for something. I didn't catch all of it. Then, they proceeded to talk about other things that should have envolved HIM, but they left HIM out. That just made me cry. Seems it's not "in" to talk about GOD and faith anymore. He hasn't left us, so why have so many deserted HIM?
How do all these famous people think they got famous in the first place...oh that's right...they sold their soul.
The LORD giveth, and HE shall taketh away... :)
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.