And now for those graphic images!
Posted on 05/12/2008 6:16:33 AM PDT by seanmerc
Some readers resented The Washington Post for publishing an Associated Press photograph of a critically wounded Iraqi child being lifted from the rubble of his home in Baghdad’s Sadr City “after a U.S. airstrike.”
Two-year-old Ali Hussein later died in a hospital.
As the saying goes, the picture was worth a thousand words because it showed the true horrors of this war.
Neither side is immune from the killing of Iraqi civilians. But Americans should be aware of their own responsibility for inflicting death and pain on the innocent.
The Post’s ombudsman, Deborah Howell, said about 20 readers complained about the photo, while a few readers praised the Post for publishing the stark picture on page one.
Some mothers said they were offended that their children might see the picture, though one wonders whether their youngsters watch television and play with violent videos in a pretend world.
From the start of the unprovoked U.S. “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, the government tried to bar the news media from photographing flag-draped coffins of American soldiers returning from Iraq. A Freedom of Information lawsuit forced the government to release pictures of returning coffins.
Howell said some readers felt the photo of the Iraqi boy was “an anti-war statement; some thought it was in poor taste.” Well, so is war.
Howell said her boss, Executive Editor Len Downie, “is cautious about such photos.”
“We have seldom been able to show the human impact of the fighting on Iraqis,” Downie was quoted as saying. “We decided this was a rare instance in which we had a powerful image with which to do so.”
It’s unclear to me why this was deemed to be “rare.” After five years of war, there is finally one photo that is supposed to say it all?
Howell said she checked hundreds of U.S. front pages on the Internet but saw the AP photo nowhere else.
This makes me wonder why the media have shied away from telling the story about Iraqi civilian casualties. News people and editors were more courageous during the Vietnam War. What are they afraid of now?
Who can forget the shocking picture of the little Vietnamese girl running down a road, aflame from a napalm attack? And who can forget the picture of South Vietnamese police chief Nguyen Ngoc Loan putting a gun to the temple of a young member of the Viet Cong and executing him on a Saigon street?
I don’t remember any American outcry against the press for showing the horror of war when these photographs were published. Were we braver then? Or maybe more conscience stricken?
Of course, the Pentagon did not enjoy such images coming out of Saigon in that era. Most Americans found them appalling, as further evidence of our misbegotten venture in Vietnam. Americans rallied to the streets in protest and eventually persuaded President Lyndon Johnson to give up his dreams of reelection in 1968.
Some Americans believe the media were to blame for the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. Nonsense.
Johnson knew the war was unwinnable, especially after the 1968 Tet offensive and the request by Army Gen. William Westmoreland for 200,000 more troops, in addition to the 500,000 already in Vietnam.
The Pentagon made a command decision after the Vietnam War to get better control of the dissemination of information in future wars.
This led then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to create an office of disinformation at the start of the Iraqi war. It was later disbanded after howls from the media.
More recently we have seen the Pentagon’s propaganda efforts take the form of carefully coaching retired generals about how to spin the Iraq war when they appear on television as alleged military experts. The New York Times’ revelations about these pet generals have cast a pall over their reputations.
Too often in this war, the news media seem to have tried to shield the public from the suffering this war has brought to Americans and Iraqis.
It’s not the job of the media to protect the nation from the reality of war. Rather, it is up to the media to tell the people the truth. They can handle it.
Helen Thomas can be reached at hthomas@hearstdc.com
And now for those graphic images!
so helen-you like the media publishing these pics, but I bet you have a problem with pics of victims of 9/11 jumping out of the windows of the wtc.
It’s not a woman .... It’s not a woman...
With “it’s” picture shown (3 times!), a giga-barf alert is in order!
You make a good point. Monday morning seemed like the perfect time to bust out a triple-Helen Thomas!
She’s senile, and thinks this is the Johnson* administration.
[*Lyndon or Andrew, your choice.]
Hmmmm! A thousand words to describe a picture of Helen Thomas? Any takers?
Of course, you can’t say that I didn’t warn you.
I don’t think a thousand words are necessary.
Let’s mail Hellen some pictures of aborted children.
Bring me the sword of Perseus and I shall slay this Gorgon! In the meantime, I will attempt to shield my eyes from the horror that is Helen.
Please let me know what she says!
susie
Three Helens should be worth about 3000 words, any of which would get your post deleted.
I wonder if Helen Thomas will ever explain why she thinks Vince Foster was murdered and why she thinks it happened “right there in the white house”
(I heard her say this on LIVE TV)
Howell, like 99.9 % of her MSM pals are afraid to leave the Green Zone. The witch ought to go to any cancer center and take some photos. War is not the ugliest of things.
That woman looks like death riding a skateboard.
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.