Replies

I disagree. It is what it is. We have a free press, it is for them, not FEMA to decide what they wish to print. National Security is a reason to censor stories. Blood is not. I agree with Michael Savage that this is being done in part to prevent Americans from rising up in righteous indignation and demanding retribution now. The "crime scene" angle is BS. They could put in a "pool" photographer from AP and he would shoot acording to professional photo journalist standards, not FEMA ones. Once again the Constitution takes the short end.

No one is censoring what is being said or written about the crash/site/rescue/recovery etc. Legitimate reporters are visiting the scene and reporting what they see. While under some circumstances, government prohibition of photos might constitute substantive censorship, I don't believe it does in this case. Video of the 2nd crash and both tower collapses were broadcast live; the WTC was essentially open to the public (albeit with tight security procedures by office building standards); everyone who's interested knows what kind of place it was, what happened to it, and what kind of place it is now--in short there is nothing of significance which could possibly be concealed by restricting photo/video coverage. In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable for government authorities to spare grieving families the horror of seeing body parts which might belong to their loved ones broadcast on TV, internet, tabloids, etc.

i'm as pissed off as you and savage. yes, we have a 'free press', BUT, that is part of the problem as MOST of the media is run by communists. if they AREN'T showing the gore, it IS because 'they' don't want to piss us off and have us retaliate fully or take it out on citizens. that is their PLAN!! (yes, they STILL have a 'plan'). the media sucks!

i personally don't need to see the pics nor do i want to. i will be FOREVER outraged! i worked tearing down buildings and saw a 20 year old kid crushed to death from a falling beam. the hard part was his 2 brothers were also working on the job. the even harder part was seeing his brother hold him as he passed away. but the REAL hard part was, it was my friend who cut the beam.

i've always wondered about people who can photograph things like this. how can they shut out reality, click the shutter and say 'it's my job'? is it the lure of the 'pulitzer'?

but don't worry jack, i'm sure the film crew from 'faces of death' will provide more than enough blood and gore for all to see.
savage is great, but all his ranting does for me is frustrate me more than i already am.
(all 'DU' lurkers can go f**k yourselves)

Once again the Constitution takes the short end.

Translation: We are the Press and we demand the right to take pictures of this gruesome scene, interfering at will with the dreadful work being done because we are more important than ordinary citizens.

You guys are worse than lawyers.

That is a joke. We do not have a free press. Most journalists are in bed, figuratively and literally, with the politicians who feed them stories. It is a managed press. Fortunately the Internet and radio have combined to get past the censorship of the elite, but most people take their opiates directly from the old-line broadcasters and chain newspapers.

I believe it would be crude to show "reality" in this case.

...Don't worry, there will be plenty on the gory galleries, I'm sure. I've seen a little carnage first hand, and plenty of it in pictures. I disagree with Savage on this call. I believe citizens will rise up and demand retribution. My imagination is not that vivid, but I can see that this tragedy could turn the stomachs of even the hardest professionals.

... BTW, I agree, the 1st amendment is taking a big hit, but on this one, I'm torn, and at the moment, I'll let it go.