MSM: Graphic 9-11 Coverage Inappropriate, But Fine For CNN to Show Sniper Video?

Boston Globe/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

by Mark Finkelstein

October 22, 2006 - 15:07

Will someone please explain to me the MSM's standards for airing graphic footage?

At the time of 9-11 itself, the MSM apparently made a collective decision that it wouldn't show any of the graphic evidence of the horror that had been visited on thousands of our fellow citizens. No pictures of victims. No close-ups of the poor souls who chose to jump rather than being consumed by the flames. Even years later, there was somber MSM discussion, as here and here, as to whether movies like 'World Trade Center' or 'Flight 93' had come too soon.

And God forbid a GOP commercial should portray even the most fleeting image of 9-11. "Political exploitation!" screams the MSM. As if it's wrong to bring into the political debate the most pressing issue of our times.

But a hyper-realistic movie portrayal of the assassination of Pres. Bush? Why, as NewsBuster Noel Sheppard has pointed out, that wins a critics award at the Toronto Film Festival.

And terrorist footage of deadly sniper attacks on US troops? Not only did CNN decide to air it multiple times, but the decision has been supported in the MSM. Take today's column, What's really going on in Iraq, by the Boston Globe's Joan Venocchi, who writes "CNN was right to broadcast this material, even if insurgents supplied it."

But Vennochi gives away the game when the sole source she cites in support of the decision to air the sniper footage is . . . John Kerry, whom she describes as "a strong critic of President Bush's Iraq war policy." Other than the minor detail of having voted to authorize the war, of course. Oh, and Kerry did vote for the $87 billion before he . . . but I digress.

Kerry, writes Venocchi:

"believes Americans should see more truth, not less: 'Snipers are a reality. People being blown up is a reality.' Yet, in this war, Kerry argues, 'People see almost nothing at all. We see only the aftermath of explosions and bombs. As painful as the images of war are, it's important to understand what soldiers go through.'"

"Does footage such as the CNN sniper video help the enemy? 'I don't think you help the enemy to have the truth known," says Kerry. "This is a dirty war. . . and it's escalating day by day by day.'"

"Kerry blames the Bush administration for 'a calculated effort to hide the reality of war.' He also notes that media cutbacks in Iraq coverage also mean Americans receive fewer close-ups of war's brutality."

Then again, Kerry is probably still deeply saddened that there was no available footage to air of US troops razing Vietnamese villages "in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

So, Ms. Vennochi and Sen. Kerry, since you're interested in Americans seeing "more truth," what about the graphic truth of 9-11? For that matter, what about the war in our streets at home? Should media offer explict coverage of the victims of the mayhem in our streets? Is there a consistent principle in operation here, or just a desire - to quote the good Senator - to "blame the Bush administration"?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Disclaimer: Joan Vennochi is the Boston Globe columnist who wrote the column praising CNN's decision to air the sniper footage. Finkelstein is me, governsleast, who wrote the NewsBusters item criticizing Vennochi and Kerry. Kindly address comments accordingly.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Boston Globe/NewsBusters sniping-at-CNN ping to Today show list.

[SaltyJoe]

Is there a way to petition cable network providers to remove CNN from the cable package.

Otherwise, it would do us well to "block" this channel and let commerical advertisers know.

[SaltyJoe]

Furthermore,

Would it be too much to ask Murdoc to fund a counter-CNN movement? It's not much of a loss to the media business if Turner is dropped from cable news. FOX doesn't have a monopoly, it's just clearly the most popular.

[Steely Tom]

Will someone please explain to me the MSM's standards for airing graphic footage?

Why sure. It's simple, really.

If it hurts George Bush, the War on Terrorism, our military, or the GOP, it's news, doncha know, so it must be aired. It's our duty. The truth, wherever it leads. All that stuff.

If it helps George Bush, makes the War on Terrorism look like it might be a good idea after all, boosts the image of our military, or makes the Democrat party look like the boobs, losers, poseurs, and wannabees they actually are then...

It's too graphic for our fragile audience, many of whom are watching at home, in their living rooms, with their toddlers in their laps.

There. You're welcome.

[Deetes]

BUMP

[WorkingClassFilth]

Maybe a special page ought to be set up to offer detailed dossiers on presstitute personalities. Nothing like drawing on the personal knowledge of 10,000 FReepers to give detailed pictures of the personal lives of media people. Wouldn't CNN reporters feel good to know that the public and global viewers on the web could view pictures of their private homes, details of their lives, recent photos of them and their families and specific information of their routines and habits?

I think the public has a right to know this information. I think the media ought to agree...

[Jaysun]

Well said Finkelstein.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks, ST: somehow I kind of suspected that, but good to have it confirmed!

[Jaysun]

No. And you can't get things such as ESPN booted either, even if you never watch sports. And even if you discover that ESPN makes up about 15% of your bill.

Thank the likes of John McCain for that. After all, it's "the people's airwaves" as he's so fond of saying.

[Disturbin]

Is there a way to petition cable network providers to remove CNN from the cable package?

If only. I used to work for DirecTV and they laughed at the idea. A la carte is their worst nightmare, since cable companies and satellite networks get paid by each network for every subscriber they have. My solution is not to subscribe to any of it!

[Disturbin]

Kerry argues, 'People see almost nothing at all.'

Um, I get a DAILY update on U.S. casualties over there from the DBM, especially via radio news, plus constant editorials like "bloodiest month this year" and "17.85 casualties per month."

[llevrok]

Why? Here is my opinion

1. Liberals are bigots. They are mostly white and always superior to others
2. Liberals are hypocrites
3. Power is almighty, not the Almighty
4. The same ill bred college students storming the Dean's office in 1967 are the same ill bred people leading the liberal movement today (MSM, legislatures, judicial, educators..)
5. They are every bit as greedy as conservatives for financial gain. Only they bathe themselves in the false mantle of altruism
6. They bear some sort of guilt that must be forever cleansed - as long as I must bear it too.

Other than that, I have no idea!

[johnny7]

I like your idea WCF... you're not afraid to be proactive. ;)

[muawiyah]

I think COX is the country's largest cable network. They are easily intimidated.

Unfortunately "Warner", is part of the CNN conglomerate, and they are too stupid to be intimidated.

We really don't have many options here.

[highlander_UW]

MSM: Graphic 9-11 Coverage Inappropriate, But Fine For CNN to Show Sniper Video?

Will someone please explain to me the MSM's standards for airing

Not hard to explain at all...the MSM is rooting for the terrorists.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[pieceofthepuzzle]

My personal belief for why the MSM is so liberal inludes the following:

1. Most people who work in the media don't make much money. On the other hand, they consider themselves highly educated and sophisticated. This disconnect between what they make and what they think they contribute sets them up for envy. Make no mistake. Envy is a crucial fuel for those who believe in socialism.

2. Those that work in media that do make a ton of money have, in conjunction with their inflated concept of their importance in society, guilt. They assuage this guilt by championing the politics they think will help those less fortunate than them. The problem is that they are so isolated from reality, and so narcissistic in their martyrdom, that they fail to see that people who work hard to pull themselves up in this society deserve praise and encouragement, not derision. Bascially your classic limousine liberal.

3. Those with delusions of grandeur. "I'm going to change the world". These are the people who don't just want to report the news. They want to save the world with their mighty pens or eloquent voices.

Just my take.

[WmShirerAdmirer]

Americans saw the horror of September 11th executed on thousands of innocent Americans in the World Trade Center but had to "imagine" the flesh being burned away, the searing of lungs from lethal fumes and gases, the smashing of heads and bones and of bodies being split wide open as they hit the pavement after the victims jumped.

I wonder what did the "agony" look like over there at CNN, I'm sure it was nothing like a real life in real-time smashing and blowing up of bodies of innocent Americans, Iraqis and American soldiers!

[hnj_00]

your description is about 100% accurate....

"#5. They are every bit as greedy as conservatives for financial gain. Only they bathe themselves in the false mantle of altruism!"

that is true except they are socialists who are altruistic with other peoples' money!!!!