Makes sense. But how do yo feel about showing pictures of the corpses from 9/11? Askia is in favor of showing one group of photos but not the other. What do you think?
One thing that photos (along with sworn testimonies and first hand reports) will do is to keep this complete “competency breakdown” from being swept away. It will short circuit those who always say “wait until the facts are in” while those same facts are being swept under the rug, or while the sources are being deicredited. It will stop those who always say “it’s not as bad as all that”. This country has a short attention span, and often needs to have a two-by-four between the eyes before anything gets done right.
I’d show everything: 9/11 corpses, Iraq war corpses, Hurricane Katrina corpses.
Sanitizing the truth just makes it uglier.
A principled stance that I can fully respect. But while I’m probably still on the side of not showing the photos, I think the war photos are different. Let me ask you this. I don’t know where you stand on the war in Iraq, so let’s leave that out of it.
If we were involved in a war that you felt we should be fighting, maybe WWII or some imaginary war of your own devising, something you felt was right and noble, and was going to make the US safer, would you still want pictures of coffins and dead GIs shown as a matter of course. When answering, I ask you to consider that, even with this “noble war”, there will be detractors—maybe a sizeable group of them, maybe half the country. And pictures of our dead men and women would only help the detractors weaken the resolve of the American people and urge them to quit the fight.
And what if the righteous and noble cause that was going to make us safer had to be abandoned because the American people didn’t like death in their faces every day, would that be a good thing? Keep in mind, YOU and half the people believe the cause is noble and righteous and will make us safer.
Your hypothetical is interesting, but there is no “noble and righteous” cause in the Katrina disaster that showing the pictures will damage.
Are you trying to rationalize the need for deception, in order to achieve a goal? That is what your hypothetical sounds like to me.
IMO, once you require deception to achieve your ends, you should probably reconsider the “nobility and righteousness” of your premises.
But to speak to the original topic:
Has anyone considered that dead bodies are not the main (or only) thing the govt wants censored?
As an example, hundreds of armed mercenaries are now active in New Orleans.
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Now if you’d like to join the others I asked and address the hypothetical war, I’d love to hear what you think.
No. I’m simply exploring whether putting forth the ugliest face possible is always warranted or wise. To examine a more “pure” example, I asked about the hypothetical war that you (reader) would consider to be righteous, noble and necessary. So the premises you mention would be yours (reader), not mine.
I’ll volunteer that part of my problem is that the power of photos of the dead is a double-edged sword. The power that they have, and the very reason one might feel they should be used, rouses emotion. And emotion may often lead to a decision that feels good, but is unwise. (This is addition to my previously mentioned reasons.)
So please reread my hypothetical and respond. I’m truly interested in where you come out.
Good point, I think. What do you mean by armed mercenaries? A group to fight who and is paid by who?
Your hypothetical is impossible, stretching limits and definitions until they dissolve entire. A “noble” war? Have we had such? Ever? World War II was necessary, certainly, under any reasonable standard, as we were attacked. Remove that qualifier, and it is debateable whether the US has ever engaged in a necessary war, much less a “noble” one. Spanish American War? We mugged Spain. Mexican American War? We mugged Mexico. Grenada? Please.
And you present awareness and comprehesion by the people as a matter of propaganda, that the presentation of unpleasant truths can be determined to be deterimental to the war effort, hence, subversive, hence, worthy of suppression.
If the people rule, no one is empowered to make such a decision. No one is empowered to keep the truth from the people, in whose name wars are waged. We elect representatives and executives, not kings. We need to sternly remind our leaders who they work for.
Let others fear the dark glare of truth. Democracy ain’t for sissies.
Well, umm, I think mayhap that the Revolutionary War was kinda sorta necessary for the US. YMMV.
It’s not a relevant digression, so I’ll decline.
A-yup. Without a moment’s hesitation. Because if I truly believe the cause is noble, I would also not be afraid to show the true cost of fighting for that cause. To endorse a coverup/whitewash is a tactic admission that I don’t believe the cause is noble, that I have to deceive the populace to get their support. 
I don’t think that is necessarily the case. I think, for instance, that if the corpse of every GI killed during WWII was shown in the paper the next day, that support for the war would have abated, at least to some degree. I think that depending on the particular war, support on the homefront can be very important, maybe even critical. What would have happened if the corpses of GIs were shared during WWII as part of the daily media coverage? Would the support at home have been as strong? Would recyling efforts have been as fervent and successful? Would War Bonds have been so popular? I don’t know. But I’m glad things were handled the way they were.
You refer to the tactic as a whitewash, or worse: a cover-up. That assumes that showing the pictures every day (as per my example above) conveys an accurate and full picture of the war. I think it could very well be that someone who had the time to digest ALL the information, including the pictures, might conclude the the war was worthwhile; yet, that same person might come to a different conclusion if they saw the pictures and digested only some of the information.
I think the very reason some want to use the pictures is precisely thye reason they are so dangerous: they can have an impact far beyond their importance in the grand scheme of things. Thus, they have the ability to greatly skew reality. They tempt that decisions will then be made with emotion instead of sober, strategic deliberation. The relevant information conveyed in the photos (the deaths of soldiers) can be conveyed without the photographs, and without the risk of inflating (intentionally or unintentionally) its importance. Why is that not enough?
Let’s not forget that both sides are trying to politicize things. That is, while SOME people want to show photos to criticize the party in power, OTHERS who support that party want to suppress those photos in order to protect that party from political consequences.
I personally suspect at least a portion of the righteous outrage “that the dead would be disrespected or their relatives horrified” is cynically intended to deter people from showing photos in order to protect that party in power.
Sailboat
I disagree that listing names or counting the dead is equivalent to showing the pictures of mangled bodies and bloodied corpses. The former are items on a ledger; the latter are visceral. (“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”)
Bottom line is that I believe the citizens of a nation should be given as much information as possible to make their decisions; short of genuine security concerns, shielding anything from the people is cause for suspicion.
I’m sorry if I disappoint you, but my answer would be the same. Your hypothetical is antithetical to the democratic process. Without a free press, there can be no informed electorate. Without an informed electorate, there can be no issuing of informed consent (in your example, to continue prosecuting a war). Without informed consent, there is no democracy.
What cause can you name, that would remain ‘noble and righteous’ - and worth fighting (and dying) for - if it requires deception, media manipulation, and the subversion of democracy to maintain continued public sacrifice?
I’ll say again - check your premises. Perhaps you are only deceiving yourself about the ‘nobility’ of your (hypothetical) cause.
Rich people:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-11-mansions-spared_x.htm
FEMA and (possibly) state or local govt:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002490796_katrina13.html
But that is exactly my point. It is very visceral. And that means that decisions will start to be made more on an emotional basis and less with strategic clarity. I hardly think that emotion is the best footing on which to make decisions of war. Would you agree that a horrible death, or a thousand, or a hundred thousand, does not necessarily mean a war should be abandoned? If so, don’t you think it dangerous to allow those deaths to become a larger factor–in the grand scheme of things–than they should be?
All this can happen without daily pictures of corpses. An informed electorate means they have access to the information. Pictures are not necessary to that end. They might help, but they are not necessary.
[QUOTE=zeeny]
What cause can you name, that would remain ‘noble and righteous’ - and worth fighting (and dying) for - if it requires deception, media manipulation, and the subversion of democracy to maintain continued public sacrifice?
[QUOTE]
This difference is that I don’t see it as deception. If 12 GIs are killed on a particular day, informing people that “12 GIs were killed today” is not a deception. That is the truth whether pictures are included or not.
Take WWII. Do you think it was a righteous war. Let’s assume you do. Do you think the support of the US homefront played any role in that victory? Again, let’s assume you do. Then, isn’t it possible that there is a point that the support on the homefront could have been diminished to a degree as to deprive our forces of what they needed to be victorious? If you were Roosevelt, and believed this, wouldn’t it have been incumbent upon you to manage (yes, manipulate is a better word for your purposes–it’s more manip–eh… loaded) the information being disseminated to the public?
How about the Civil War? If the modern media were around then, would you have been in favor of showing the corpses of the day? Would you fear/care that they might sap support from what Lincoln felt needed to be done?
[QUOTE=zeeny]
I’ll say again - check your premises. Perhaps you are only deceiving yourself about the ‘nobility’ of your (hypothetical) cause.Rich people:
[QUOTE]
You said “mercenaries”. Again, nice manipu-eh… loaded word. Yes, I can see that it’s used in the articles as well. But when it is refering to security guards hired by private individuals to protect their homes from looting, it is hardly a fair characterization.
As far as their other role, they’ve been hired by FEMA and the city of NO to keep order. Where are the rich interests there? Or are you opposed to order as a general proposition? Do you also have a problem with full-time paid “mercenaries”, i.e., the police?
When these guys advertise in Solider of Fortune magazine and wear night scopes and command a salary of hundred of dollars per day, I think “mercenary” completely accurate.
I’m not surprised you think that. By the way, are you planning on reponding to my questions from post #134?