Coverage of KIAs

#26
#26
MG1968 said:
how does allowing the press to photograph the coffins and having unfettered access to grieving families prevent the fallen from being "just statistics".

the left is all about privacy as long as it suits their agenda.
Click to expand...


As noted, this would be at the option of the families.

Bush just flat out banned it. Obama is allowing it, but only where the families involved authorize it.
 
#27
#27
GWBs ban was solid and rational. BHOs directive will only result in great discomfort for the families in order to push a political agenda and placate a voyeuristic populus.

I am done talking about this.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#28
#28
therealUT said:
GWBs ban was solid and rational. BHOs directive will only result in great discomfort for the families in order to push a political agenda and placate a voyeuristic populus.

I am done talking about this.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
As noted, this would be at the option of the families.

Bush just flat out banned it. Obama is allowing it, but only where the families involved authorize it.
Click to expand...

so if there are twenty flag draped coffins sitting on the tarmac and only 1 family has granted the press permission, what then?
 
#32
#32
MG1968 said:
so if there are twenty flag draped coffins sitting on the tarmac and only 1 family has granted the press permission, what then?
Click to expand...


I would assume that for those being photographed 100% approval must be obtained. Otherwise, why require permission in the firts place?
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
I would assume that for those being photographed 100% approval must be obtained. Otherwise, why require permission in the firts place?
Click to expand...

why should the press be allowed to take pictures of the coffins in the first place? As I recall, the press gleefully reported on OIF deaths for three plus years. Why should they be allowed to disrupt a fallen soldier's last trip home?
 
#34
#34
MG1968 said:
why should the press be allowed to take pictures of the coffins in the first place? As I recall, the press gleefully reported on OIF deaths for three plus years. Why should they be allowed to disrupt a fallen soldier's last trip home?
Click to expand...

agreed. if the soldier signs a waver saying it's ok before he dies than fine. but who is to say the family has his wishes in mind.
 
#35
#35
MG1968 said:
why should the press be allowed to take pictures of the coffins in the first place? As I recall, the press gleefully reported on OIF deaths for three plus years. Why should they be allowed to disrupt a fallen soldier's last trip home?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with taking a picture of a coffin... so long as that picture isn't used to drive a political agenda.

With that said, the "up to the minute casualty report" is completely unnecessary.
 
#36
#36
DC Vol said:
I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with taking a picture of a coffin... so long as that picture isn't used to drive a political agenda.

With that said, the "up to the minute casualty report" is completely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

that's the problem, what portion of the American press wouldn't use such photos to drive a political agenda. I don't care if it's FNC or Al Jazeera, the press would pursue an agenda, whether it's jingoistic patriotism or anti-war neo-socialism.
 
#37
#37
MG1968 said:
that's the problem, what portion of the American press wouldn't use such photos to drive a political agenda. I don't care if it's FNC or Al Jazeera, the press would pursue an agenda, whether it's jingoistic patriotism or anti-war neo-socialism.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's powerful imagery, for sure, and an extremely powerful tool to be used.
 
#38
#38
MG1968 said:
that's the problem, what portion of the American press wouldn't use such photos to drive a political agenda. I don't care if it's FNC or Al Jazeera, the press would pursue an agenda, whether it's jingoistic patriotism or anti-war neo-socialism.
Click to expand...


The absence of such heart-breaking photos sanitizes the reality of war. I respect the right of a family to say no. But it is nonetheless a truism that if we are going to sacrifice young men and women for a war cause, no matter how noble, we as a country should not be blinded to the costs of that war.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
The absence of such heart-breaking photos sanitizes the reality of war. I respect the right of a family to say no. But it is nonetheless a truism that if we are going to sacrifice young men and women for a war cause, no matter how noble, we as a country should not be blinded to the costs of that war.
Click to expand...

do you honestly think that OIF was sanitized from a press perspective?

if you do, then you're more left-wing than I thought.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
The absence of such heart-breaking photos sanitizes the reality of war. I respect the right of a family to say no. But it is nonetheless a truism that if we are going to sacrifice young men and women for a war cause, no matter how noble, we as a country should not be blinded to the costs of that war.
Click to expand...
I suppose to a public where the closest to war they've gotten is between a Starbucks and McDonalds over the morning coffee crowd... those will convey "the reality of war".

With that said, picturing coffins doesn't do anything but tug at heart-strings of a public that doesn't understand warfare. Those pictures should honor the fallen, not be used to show people that war is real.

You really are kidding yourself if you think that was the intention of a lot of media outlets.
 
#41
#41
I bet we see more pictures of coffins now in the media than pictures of soldiers coming home.
 
#42
#42
DC Vol said:
I suppose to a public where the closest to war they've gotten is between a Starbucks and McDonalds over the morning coffee crowd... those will convey "the reality of war".

With that said, picturing coffins doesn't do anything but tug at heart-strings of a public that doesn't understand warfare. Those pictures should honor the fallen, not be used to show people that war is real.

You really are kidding yourself if you think that was the intention of a lot of media outlets.
Click to expand...


Its not a question of intention, its a question of covering a news story. If you don't think that its newsworty, I guess we really aren't going to see eye to eye.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
The absence of such heart-breaking photos sanitizes the reality of war. I respect the right of a family to say no. But it is nonetheless a truism that if we are going to sacrifice young men and women for a war cause, no matter how noble, we as a country should not be blinded to the costs of that war.
Click to expand...
If the media is concerned with presenting the reality of thw war then they would do their best to avoid sensationalist stories and opt instead to present what is actually happening on the ground, and how those events play into the greater strategic and political scheme of things.

Coffins do nothing to "convey the reality of war" for anyone who has actually experienced "the reality of war". Did you pull this sentiment from the movie version of Hal Moore's book or did you pull it straight from Tim O'Brien's memoirs of a REMF in a combat zone???
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
therealUT said:
If the media is concerned with presenting the reality of thw war then they would do their best to avoid sensationalist stories and opt instead to present what is actually happening on the ground, and how those events play into the greater strategic and political scheme of things.

Coffins do nothing to "convey the reality of war" for anyone who has actually experienced "the reality of war". Did you pull this sentiment from the movie version of Hal Moore's book or did you pull it straight from Tim O'Brien's memoirs of a REMF in a combat zone???
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
#45
#45
therealUT said:
If the media is concerned with presenting the reality of thw war then they would do their best to avoid sensationalist stories and opt instead to present what is actually happening on the ground, and how those events play into the greater strategic and political scheme of things.

Coffins do nothing to "convey the reality of war" for anyone who has actually experienced "the reality of war". Did you pull this sentiment from the movie version of Hal Moore's book or did you pull it straight from Tim O'Brien's memoirs of a REMF in a combat zone???
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


You think the reality of war is a line on a map and not bodies in a hangar in Dover?
 
#47
#47
therealUT said:
Not a line on a map. Not bodies in a hangar.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


I actually think its both. But so that people understood what it really cost to move the line on that map, they need to see (or at least it ought to be reportable) that there are bodies in the hangar.

And that means more than just saying they are there.

Why is it that the Republicans whine that the media is not showing success stories in Iraq, but are perfectly content with subduing real stories of the cost? I mean, if you want to talk about elections in Iraq, shouldnt we talk about the price paid to have them?
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
I actually think its both. But so that people understood what it really cost to move the line on that map, they need to see (or at least it ought to be reportable) that there are bodies in the hangar.

And that means more than just saying they are there.

Why is it that the Republicans whine that the media is not showing success stories in Iraq, but are perfectly content with subduing real stories of the cost? I mean, if you want to talk about elections in Iraq, shouldnt we talk about the price paid to have them?
Click to expand...

remember when CNN showed Al Jazeera provided footage of a jihadist sniper shooting at American troops?

where was your selective outrage then?

perhaps instead of sitting behind your computer and bitching about not seeing the "cost of war" you should get some journalism credentials and get yourself embedded with some men and women at the sharp end of the spear. Live among them for a while and then come back and tell me about the prices being paid.
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
I actually think its both. But so that people understood what it really cost to move the line on that map, they need to see (or at least it ought to be reportable) that there are bodies in the hangar.

And that means more than just saying they are there.

Why is it that the Republicans whine that the media is not showing success stories in Iraq, but are perfectly content with subduing real stories of the cost? I mean, if you want to talk about elections in Iraq, shouldnt we talk about the price paid to have them?
Click to expand...

What we saw reported was so far from telling the whole story; adding or omitting flag draped coffins is completely irrelevant.

Seeing them didn't suddenly make me realize people were dying there - I saw that every day on the news. I saw repeated coverage of every misstep by any individual soldier. I saw picture after picture of destroyed buildings, war zones, etc. without ever being shown a place that wasn't that way. I saw a daily tally of the dead and wounded; endless stories of missing limbs, head injuries, etc. I saw in depth coverage of every protest.

In short, I saw less than 1% of what war really is. Adding flag draped coffins wouldn't change that a bit.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top