| |
Jonah Goldberg on Abu Ghraib on National Review Online
by Decius at 12:09 pm EDT, May 12, 2004 |
] It's time to put up or shut up. Last week I wrote a column
] saying that CBS should have thought twice before showing
] the photos from Abu Ghraib prison. The response from
] readers and even some journalists was like I'd proposed
] banning the printing press. Numerous e-mailers said I'm
] no different than a Holocaust-denier who'd ban photos
] from Auschwitz.
]
] Well, now we have the horrible news that Nick Berg, an
] American contractor, was beheaded by an
] al-Qaeda-affiliated group explicitly in response to the
] release of the Abu Ghraib photos. There has been an ongoing discussion on MemeStreams for over a year about the ethics of publishing raw war footage. Here is an right wing view. I think it sheds some light on the subject. Be sure to follow the link through to the column he references and read it as well. Despite rambling off into crypto racist commentary about the literacy rate in Iraq, this article does make a valid observation. Why do we show pictures of prison abuses but we don't show the beheading video? Because the press uses its position to exhert greater pressure on those in power to be responsible then it does on those who are already assumed to be monsters. In general, there is no problem there. The abuse photos have certainly cost us a lot of ground in Iraq, and an arguement can be made that they should have been supressed, but honestly, if our political institutions are as strong as we beleive they are they ought to be able to weather such scrutiny, and communicate effectively about how we're handling it with the Arab public. The issue at hand is that clearly the press does not make choices about what footage to air and what footage not to air on the basis of the nature of the footage alone. The press makes these decisions on a political basis. While this author's reference to footage of "partial birth abortions" is partisan and oversimplified, the general point must be considered. The press makes political decisions about what to air. In that sense they cannot be seen as objective. Once we've reached that conclusion we must ask what the political motives of the press actually are, and whether we feel like those motives are in line with our interests. |
| |
RE: Jonah Goldberg on Abu Ghraib on National Review Online
by ryan is the supernicety at 11:33 pm EDT, May 12, 2004 |
Dude, there is a general policy of the American press to not show people being KILLED versus simply fucked with. And I don't care to argue the level of abuse. It was abuse. It was not right under international law. But it was not mutilation nor murder. Decius wrote:
] ] It's time to put up or shut up. Last week I wrote a column
] ] saying that CBS should have thought twice before showing
] ] the photos from Abu Ghraib prison. The response from
] ] readers and even some journalists was like I'd proposed
] ] banning the printing press. Numerous e-mailers said I'm
] ] no different than a Holocaust-denier who'd ban photos
] ] from Auschwitz.
] ]
] ] Well, now we have the horrible news that Nick Berg, an
] ] American contractor, was beheaded by an
] ] al-Qaeda-affiliated group explicitly in response to the
] ] release of the Abu Ghraib photos.
]
] There has been an ongoing discussion on MemeStreams for over a
] year about the ethics of publishing raw war footage. Here is
] an right wing view. I think it sheds some light on the
] subject. Be sure to follow the link through to the column he
] references and read it as well.
]
] Despite rambling off into crypto racist commentary about the
] literacy rate in Iraq, this article does make a valid
] observation. Why do we show pictures of prison abuses but we
] don't show the beheading video? Because the press uses its
] position to exhert greater pressure on those in power to be
] responsible then it does on those who are already assumed to
] be monsters. In general, there is no problem there. The abuse
] photos have certainly cost us a lot of ground in Iraq, and an
] arguement can be made that they should have been supressed,
] but honestly, if our political institutions are as strong as
] we beleive they are they ought to be able to weather such
] scrutiny, and communicate effectively about how we're handling
] it with the Arab public.
]
] The issue at hand is that clearly the press does not make
] choices about what footage to air and what footage not to air
] on the basis of the nature of the footage alone. The press
] makes these decisions on a political basis. While this
] author's reference to footage of "partial birth abortions" is
] partisan and oversimplified, the general point must be
] considered. The press makes political decisions about what to
] air. In that sense they cannot be seen as objective. Once
] we've reached that conclusion we must ask what the political
] motives of the press actually are, and whether we feel like
] those motives are in line with our interests. |
|
| | |
RE: Jonah Goldberg on Abu Ghraib on National Review Online
by Decius at 1:34 pm EDT, May 13, 2004 |
ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] Dude, there is a general policy of the American press to not
] show people being KILLED versus simply fucked with. Thats a valid point. ] And I
] don't care to argue the level of abuse. It was abuse. It was
] not right under international law. But it was not mutilation
] nor murder. Is this fully established? I've heard rumblings about murders, etc... but no specific accusations. |
|
Jonah Goldberg on Abu Ghraib on National Review Online
by k at 1:30 pm EDT, May 12, 2004 |
The issue at hand is that clearly the press does not make choices about what footage to air and what footage not to air on the basis of the nature of the footage alone. The press makes these decisions on a political basis. While this author's reference to footage of "partial birth abortions" is partisan and oversimplified, the general point must be considered. The press makes political decisions about what to air. In that sense they cannot be seen as objective. Once we've reached that conclusion we must ask what the political motives of the press actually are, and whether we feel like those motives are in line with our interests. [ I've spoken and written about this from time to time as well, usually in the context of bloggers' impact on the balance of media bias. In all, I still feel that if the press is going to be biased, which I think is a fact difficult to refute, I'd rather know it, and let them be honest and straightforward about their leanings. For a news outlet to claim neutrality while spinning to one side or another undermines their credibility, and ultimately damages the entire institution. If Fox News' tag line was "We're right..." i'd have a lot less enmity than I do... but they hold up this flag of idealistic journalism "FAIR AND BALANCED" while being irrefutably right-leaning on a consistent basis. Let's can the doublespeak, I say. -k] |
| |
RE: Jonah Goldberg on Abu Ghraib on National Review Online
by oaknet at 6:53 pm EDT, May 12, 2004 |
k wrote:
] If Fox News' tag line was "We're
] right..." i'd have a lot less enmity than I do... but they
] hold up this flag of idealistic journalism "FAIR AND BALANCED"
] while being irrefutably right-leaning on a consistent basis.
] Let's can the doublespeak, I say. -k] If freedom and democracy are among our interests then one answer is to stop the concentration of media power in the hands of a few individuals, encourage diversity and openness in the media (on all sides) and let the people decide. |
|
|
|
