Posted on 09/06/2005 10:29:23 PM PDT by HAL9000
NEW ORLEANS, Sept 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. government agency leading the rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina said on Tuesday it does not want the news media to take photographs of the dead as they are recovered from the flooded New Orleans area.The Federal Emergency Management Agency, heavily criticized for its slow response to the devastation caused by the hurricane, rejected requests from journalists to accompany rescue boats as they went out to search for storm victims.
An agency spokeswoman said space was needed on the rescue boats and that "the recovery of the victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect."
"We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media," the spokeswoman said in an e-mailed response to a Reuters inquiry.
The Bush administration also has prevented the news media from photographing flag-draped caskets of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, which has sparked criticism that the government is trying to block images that put the war in a bad light.
The White House is under fire for its handling of the relief effort, which many officials have charged was slow and bureacratic, contributing to the death and mayhem in New Orleans after the storm struck on Aug. 29.
From the descriptions I've heard, Ogrish is a pro-terrorist site, peddling terrorist atrocities as entertainment.
They are neutral. They provide images and video from both sides. Make of it what you will.
There is no neutrality for sites that promote terrorist-produced propaganda videos. Ogrish is anti-American and pro-terrorism.
I think, as it happened with 9-11, our media is intent on shielding our sensibilities. Not so the rest of the world.
Yesterday on FOX & Friends, Brian Kilmie (sp) told viewers the BBC was showing dead bodies as part of their coverage, and this morning my son-in-law in Germany said German TV shows them too.
I think it's interesting foreign reporters and camera crews are able to get inside New Orleans.
Bingo - they are simply asking the media not to publish photos of the dead. Everyone knows that the government cannot stop them from doing it - although they can certainly refuse to allow journalists into certain areas or to ride along on recovery missions.
I will say this, no names of the dead, their location, or the heads/faces need to be shown. You think it's bad now, well, wait until the pictures come out of bodies having been fed upon by packs of hungry animals (pets) that have now started roaming NO in search for food, not to mention the rats. These pets are going to be sick too and very very mean due to illness, hunger, and stress as recovery starts.
I am being a realist here about a great catastrophe (a trait Nagin and Blanco lacked 2 days ahead of time before Katrina hit) in our nation that all Americans need to hear and see, otherwise, governments will continue to tax and spend with no accountability. Inept leaders will continue to be elected and entitlements will outpace economic and physical growth and socialism will then be our way of life.
When the media protest this, ask them if they will be showing the pictures and video of Americans dead and mangled or jumping to their deaths on 9/11 this weekend.
Ah, but they won't show those. (Out of respect for the 9/11 families, of course. /sarc)
They'll only show what advances their agenda.
I learned everything I need to know about Islam by watching an Ogrish video of a man being pulled apart by two cars while a large crowd watched.
I really don't think that they have a pro-islam agenda in the slightest. Awhile ago they used to have a forum with each gruesome video they had. The islamic ones always brought calls for world war over it basically.
To me, they seem fairly neutral politically.
I read one account of the Galveston hurricane that said photographers caught taking pictures of the dead were shot.
Wow, how things have changed.
40,000 is out there. If you'll look a little, you'll find it yourself.
Been saying this since the beginning. This article just strengthens that hunch.
Like you, I ask: How come?
Same difference. I am talking about the European socialist mindset. Once upon a time, as late as the time of Llyod George, the Guardian was a liberal paper. But especially after WWII it became incraesing Fabian socialist in its tone. They are so obsessed by "democratic centrialism" (to use the term without its totalitarian sense) that they are quite incapable opf understanding that state politics is still something done largely independent of what happens inside the Beltway. Even the federal bureaucracyis regionalized and those official there dependent on local government to a degree that cannot be understood in Europe.
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.