Replies

Even if I don't agree with it, they are justified in showing it.

I think that having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's right to do it. I have a free speech right, I suppose, to say all sorts of things that it would be wrong for me to say.So as far as I can see, they had the right, but that did not justify what they did.

Even in WW2 the government didn't censor pictures of dead soldiers.

When I was growing up, we had the Time/Life history of WWII. There was a photo of some GIs face down on a beach -- I think a Pacific beach -- and the caption said it was the first published picture of US war dead. As for the rest of your post, I think the voluntary self-censorship of the MSM as regards showing footage of the 9/11 shows that their intentions here have nothing to do with the unvarnished truth. Yes I think they are trying to propagandize the populace into abandoning this phase of the WOT. What they showed was footage given to them by the enemy, enemy propaganda. YES they have a right to do that; NO they are not right to do that. I happen to agree with Dubya that one major benefit to fighting them over there is that we are likely not to have to fight them over here quite so much.

"Compared to what" is always a good question to ask. In this case I would say that the fighting in Iraq is lousy compared to a peaceful summer's day with all the world at peace. It's excellent compared to giving the terrorists confirmation that they can inflict damage on the US without paying a huge price. Your mileage may -- and clearly does - vary.

Boy, they got a lot of civic values in North Korea. Every family has a picture of Kim in their home.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think there is an important difference between a dictator requiring his picture in every home and a school honoring the elected leader of a great democratic republic - even if it is not perfect and even if, as could never happen, the elected leader were, say, a mendacious whore-monger and rapist. Okay, maybe that example is a little too extreme....

My understanding is that the Government licenses the use of radio and television frequencies. The relationship between licenses and rights is confusing to me. I think that since CNN has admitted that they censored their pre-War news out of Iraq in favor of what Saddam wanted them to say, since they do not show footage of the 9/11,, and since they DO eagerly show enemy propaganda footage, one can legitimately enquire into the propriety of their having a license.

Another difficult question for me is the exercise of rights in time of war. I think CNN is on shakier ground than they realize.

There was a photo of some GIs face down on a beach -- I think a Pacific beach -- and the caption said it was the first published picture of US war dead.

In stereo... (Union soldier torn apart by shell.)

(Univ of Oklahoma has a nice description of the LOC collection.)

The difference is that in previous wars, if the public had seen the actions of our enemies against us (or had films provided by the enemy), the reaction would have been that we must fight harder to defeat them. Now, we have to worry about the country's resolve when the realities of war are known.

Still, it's true that images were censored and the American public has been lied to during WWII. I recall in particular a caption the American public was given for a photo; it was something like: "G.I.s provide first aid to a wounded German soldier," when the more accurate caption would have been: "G.I.s plunder a wounded German soldier and leave him in distress."