# Should the media SELF-censor military abuses in times of war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2005, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389 "2005-05-25T03:51:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/1 "2005-05-25T03:51:32Z")
One part of the Newsweek debacle that’s gotten some attention is whether Newsweek should have published the allegations at all, whether true or not. Some bloggers have said “no,” and [Zell Miller](http://www.redstaterant.com/archives/571-Zell-Miller-interview-Multi-blog-part-1.html) seems to agree: > [@Zell Miller](#): > > Well it would help if we had more in the media who understand that when they criticize America or the military or anything that relates to this country, when they criticize that, it’s magnified many times over overseas. An example is the Newsweek situation. They should have known better than to have done that. Even if it’s true they ought not to have printed it. It’s not true, but even if it were true, they should not have printed it because they knew—anyone would know that it would cause riots, people being killed. There are certain things that the media should and should not do when we’re at war, and we’re at war. I have to say, on one hand, the very idea of the media doing this fills me with loathing… But on the other hand, there is a small part of my mind that sees the other side’s point. I mean, how many lives overseas would this information be worth? Maybe it’s worth an infinite number, as the price of a free and open government and an unfettered press. But the question DOES give me pause. Note that no one, as far as I can tell, is talking about GOVERNMENT mandating, or even requesting, such withholding. The question is, is the reaction of extremists and more mainstream sources overseas something that the media should consider? If so, how much? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/2 "2005-05-25T04:41:12Z")
Newsweek should not have printed a story like that without better proof. That being said if their story were in fact true I don’t think they would be responsible for the rioting. The people did not riot becuase Newsweek ran a story rather they rioted becuase they (incorrectly) thought that a soldier desecrated their holy book. To me this smacks of an attempt to shift the blame from those who are responsible to those that blow the whistle. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/3 "2005-05-25T04:54:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > To me this smacks of an attempt to shift the blame from those who are responsible to those that blow the whistle. That’s exactly what it is. Newsweek had a senior government official confirm that a military investigation found the things they reported did happen. That source later reversed his/her position. I wish Newsweek had gone to more sources and gotten more definite confirmation, but I have a nagging suspicion about the whole thing. Honestly with the way things shook out, I think it’s probably true and they can’t confirm it. Not that they shouldn’t have admitted they can’t confirm it. Anyway, no, the media shouldn’t self-censor abuses. Unless you’re of the position that those abuses should be whitewashed, because how else are they going to become public? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/4 "2005-05-25T06:31:19Z")
If anything, during times of war, we should have a _stronger_ resolve to uncover the unpleasant truths wherever they occur. Encouraging folks to self-censor unpleasantries during “times of war” will simply motivate the people in charge to keep us in a perpetual state of war… ---
**Author:** ![Imasquare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Imasquare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Imasquare)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/5 "2005-05-25T07:18:08Z")
A free, uncensored media is the only way governments and their instruments (eg military) can be held accountable. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/6 "2005-05-25T07:25:39Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > If anything, during times of war, we should have a _stronger_ resolve to uncover the unpleasant truths wherever they occur. > > Encouraging folks to self-censor unpleasantries during “times of war” will simply motivate the people in charge to keep us in a perpetual state of war… Are you really saying that the national interest should play no part at all in the decision whether to publish or not? That American journalists are journalists first and US citizens second? Publishing ‘unpleasantries’ could cost American servicemen and women their lives. Is that of secondary concern? And ‘the people in charge’ were put there by a democratic vote of the American people. Who has a better claim to define the national interest? Journalists? Truth is a necessary casualty of war. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/7 "2005-05-25T07:48:06Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Are you really saying that the national interest should play no part at all in the decision whether to publish or not? That American journalists are journalists first and US citizens second? Journalists face tough decisions in these situations and they make them. The way this entire question is framed - either hurt America or suppress news - is erroneous. > [@](#): > > Publishing ‘unpleasantries’ could cost American servicemen and women their lives. So can covering it up. You think the retaliation for Abu Ghraib wouldn’t have happened if the press hadn’t told us about it? The Iraqi people already knew. WE didn’t know. The result of suppressing that news would have been about the same in Iraq, but nobody would have been held accountable stateside. > [@](#): > > And ‘the people in charge’ were put there by a democratic vote of the American people. Who has a better claim to define the national interest? Journalists? I don’t know where this argument is going. I’m not sure who DOES determine what’s in the national interest; it seems to be a useless buzzphrase of justification. But I don’t think it serves the national interest if the media begins handing over its independence. To some degree that inevitably happens anyway, since they know where their bread is buttered. I think we’ve seen enough of what happens when the media ‘plays along.’ Also, since the war we’re involved in right now - not Iraq, I mean the global War on Terror - is one that’s undefined and has absolutely no set end, I’m extremely wary of anyone who suggests these kinds of things be done ‘during wartime.’ We have no idea if or when it’s ever going to stop being wartime. ---
**Author:** ![Eolbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d07c76/32.png) [@Eolbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eolbo)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/8 "2005-05-25T09:23:52Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > One part of the Newsweek debacle that’s gotten some attention is whether Newsweek should have published the allegations at all, whether true or not. Some bloggers have said “no,” and [Zell Miller](http://www.redstaterant.com/archives/571-Zell-Miller-interview-Multi-blog-part-1.html) seems to agree: > > I have to say, on one hand, the very idea of the media doing this fills me with loathing… But on the other hand, there is a small part of my mind that sees the other side’s point. I mean, how many lives overseas would this information be worth? Maybe it’s worth an infinite number, as the price of a free and open government and an unfettered press. But the question DOES give me pause. > > Note that no one, as far as I can tell, is talking about GOVERNMENT mandating, or even requesting, such withholding. The question is, is the reaction of extremists and more mainstream sources overseas something that the media should consider? If so, how much? I suspect that the issue of self-censorship of abuses has much more to do with defending our own tender sensibilities about what can really happen in war then with its inflammatory effects upon the enemy. In general the enemy already knows, and we deceive ourselves not him. The truth of My Lai was being described in North Vietnamese propaganda broadcasts long before the massacre and its cover-up became a public issue for Americans. The US commander in the field has stated the Newsweek article was not responsible for the riots and deaths. Since its unlikely that many illiterate afghan tribesmen subscribe to Newsweek personally I’m inclined to believe him. But really there’s a more important issue then whether this particular allegation was true anyway. Which is why it was supposedly so readily believed. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/9 "2005-05-25T09:52:26Z")
**Eolbo:** _In general the enemy already knows, and we deceive ourselves not him. The truth of My Lai was being described in North Vietnamese propaganda broadcasts long before the massacre and its cover-up became a public issue for Americans._ Right. And since the reportage of other, non-involved nations isn’t similarly constrained by self-interest to censor the reports of abuses, they can investigate rumors and report allegations and get the subject into the respectable mainstream press worldwide. And they do. It doesn’t really protect our reputation to keep damaging news out of the _New York Times_ if the world can easily watch it on BBC. Remember the rigid Soviet censorship of media issues unflattering to the USSR? Did that really protect the USSR’s international image in any way? No, it just made us feel sorry for the poor clueless Soviet citizens who believed what they read in _Pravda_. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/10 "2005-05-25T11:40:30Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Publishing ‘unpleasantries’ could cost American servicemen and women their lives. Failing to publish the truth costs American servicemen and women their lives. And their purpose. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > Truth is a necessary casualty of war. No. Absolutely not. This is a belief that we must fight whenever and wherever it rears its horrible and ugly head. Unless, in fact, what you mean to say is that deception is often a necessary condition to engender support for war. That might have some accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/11 "2005-05-25T14:34:04Z")
Suggestions that the US be less abusive toward detainees or in our foreign policy in general are routinely met with gales of mockery as thought the sole purpose was to persuade Osama bin Laden & co. to like us (they always manage to work in the word “beheading”). “Maybe they’ll realize we mean business” is how some right-wing pundits responded to the Abu Ghraib story. Now they’re suddenly concerned with America’s image among Muslims–when they can blame it on the so-called liberal media. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > And ‘the people in charge’ were put there by a democratic vote of the American people. Who has a better claim to define the national interest? Journalists? Whatever happened to “Freedom from Big Government”? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/12 "2005-05-25T14:45:30Z")
No, military abuses should never be self-censored by the media. If the military doesn’t want their war crimes made public, I suggest they stop committing them. Bush has damaged the US reputation abroad infinitely more than a mere magazine could ever aspire to, his criticism is quite hypocritical. That the story was released is Newsweek’s fault, that it was believed is Bush’s. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/13 "2005-05-25T15:00:36Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Newsweek should not have printed a story like that without better proof. Agreed. That should pretty much hold for all stories, especially the very sensitive ones. > [@Marley23](#): > > Anyway, no, the media shouldn’t self-censor abuses. Unless you’re of the position that those abuses should be whitewashed, because how else are they going to become public? Such decisions should be internal to the media…i.e. its their decision to run a story or not. And whether or not it sparks a riot is not their responsibility…accurately reporting the news is. Freedom of the press means just that. > [@rjung](#): > > If anything, during times of war, we should have a stronger resolve to uncover the unpleasant truths wherever they occur. Agreed. The one caviot I’ll make is that if you are going to uncover unpleasant truths, make sure you are accurate in your reporting and you have all the bases covered. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > Are you really saying that the national interest should play no part at all in the decision whether to publish or not? That American journalists are journalists first and US citizens second? Reporters and the media is not responsible for the national interest…they are responsible to report the news accurately. They are NOT an organ of the government. If they report only those things in the nation interest and ignore stories because they could hurt the US’s image then what point freedom? What are we fighting for? > [@aldiboronti](#): > > Publishing ‘unpleasantries’ could cost American servicemen and women their lives. Is that of secondary concern? And ‘the people in charge’ were put there by a democratic vote of the American people. Who has a better claim to define the national interest? Journalists? Not publishing them can cost lives as well. Life is a crap shoot, especially at an international level. Seemingly innocent things can cause lose of life easily. If reporting the news accurately sparks riots or causes deaths, then thats life. I think that not reporting unpleasant things puts us on a slippery slope that will lead to the negation of many of the things America stands for. > [@aldiboronti](#): > > Truth is a necessary casualty of war. Not in the case of accuate reporting of events by the media. Certainly there are some things that are too sensative to report (data thats classified for instance). But events that are simply unpleasant or throw the US into a bad light…no, those SHOULD be reported. How else can we fix the problems if we, the people, don’t know about them? > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > No. Absolutely not. This is a belief that we must fight whenever and wherever it rears its horrible and ugly head. Though I’d like to disagree with you (on general principals) I cannot. Its…odd…to be on the same side as you and rjung in a thread. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/14 "2005-05-25T18:34:58Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Publishing ‘unpleasantries’ could cost American servicemen and women their lives. As others have said, this is simply bullshit blameshifting. _Publishing_ unpleasantries doesn’t cost American lives; _committing_ unpleasantries is what endangers our servicemembers’ lives and reputations. Don’t attack the messenger. In fact, you should commend the messenger for their efforts at helping us keep our representatives honest. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/15 "2005-05-25T19:02:21Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Though I’d like to disagree with you (on general principals) I cannot. Its…odd…to be on the same side as you and rjung in a thread. Truth does not recognize social, political, nor ideological boundaries. ---
**Author:** ![pdx\_craig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pdx\_craig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pdx_craig)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/16 "2005-05-25T19:58:51Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Truth is a necessary casualty of war. oy Freedom of the press to print exactly what the government wants us to hear. Great. Are you pulling our leg(s)? ---
**Author:** ![Sleel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/73ab20/32.png) [@Sleel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleel)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/17 "2005-05-26T08:02:34Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Are you really saying that the national interest should play no part at all in the decision whether to publish or not? That American journalists are journalists first and US citizens second? > > Publishing ‘unplesantness’ could cost American servicemen and women their lives. Is that of secondary concern? And ‘the people in charge’ were put there by a democratic vote of the American people. Who has a better claim to define the national interest? Journalists? > > Truth is a necessary casualty of war. Part of a journalist’s duty _as a citizen of the United States_ is to uphold one of our most basic rights. Truth should _ **never** _ be a casualty of war. [Here](http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1600.htm) are some quotes from a fellow you might have heard of, named Thomas Jefferson, who absolutely disagreed with your opinion on this kind of thing. Some highlights: > [@](#): > > “… were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57 > > “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed.” --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491 > > “The press [is] the only tocsin of a nation. [When it] is completely silenced… all means of a general effort [are] taken away.” --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Nov 29, 1802. (\*) ME 10:341 > > “Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.” --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786. > > “I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.” --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78 > > “To preserve the freedom of the human mind… and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement.” Thomas Jefferson to William Green Munford, 1799. > > “It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness.” --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. ME 10:356 In other words, freedom of the press is always a good thing, we should be prepared to give our lives to protect it, and one of the main functions of the press is to criticize the government and the agents of the government. His buddy, George Washington, once said, “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” John Adams was in accord with both of them saying, “The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing.” James Madison, who wrote the **Federalist Papers** had a choice comment about a too-powerful Executive: > [@](#): > > “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” – Constitutional Convention [June 29, 1787] People around the world should have had a reaction of “bullshit” to the story when they first heard it. That they did not need to be convinced of its truth, but accepted it unquestioningly as fact, says a lot about how our government has been acting lately. As **BobLibDem** said earlier in this thread, if our army doesn’t want their abuses to be exposed they should stop committing them. Even now, I’m not entirely sure that Newsweek did make a mistake. I think it may be a case of not having a source who is willing to stand up to what was quoted. It makes me genuinely sad to feel that way about the US. If in fact Newsweek did make a mistake, and my suspicions are false, then I agree again with what many others have said already: Newsweek should have checked better. The press must be accurate and truthful as well as free from censorship or it becomes a tool of harm instead of a tool of liberty. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/18 "2005-05-26T08:29:40Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Such decisions should be internal to the media…i.e. its their decision to run a story or not. And whether or not it sparks a riot is not their responsibility…accurately reporting the news is. Freedom of the press means just that. When media self-censors bad news about a war, it’s not going to be only the soldiers who benefit. It’ll be the government. With everything governments already do to hide bad news about a war and all the impulses that encourage going along with it, I don’t think it’s good if the press goes even further to overlook negative stories. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/19 "2005-05-26T11:21:24Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > When media self-censors bad news about a war, it’s not going to be only the soldiers who benefit. In what way do the soldiers benefit? Clearly, over 1,600 have not benefitted at all, but have given their last full measure because of media self-censorship in the run up to war (as evidenced by the NY Times “Oops, sorry, I guess we should have reported on that absent-WMD-support-for-the-war stuff a bit more.”) As to the specific case, ONE guy might benefit from media censorship of the Koran story - the guy who actually did it. (And I think a strong case can be made that he did it because of a stifled media to begin with, but I’ll lay that aside.) All the other soldiers suffered, because the description of the incident got out to everyone else by the reports of the victims - the only people clueless about the matter were us, and we are the only ones in a position to stop this kind of thing. Just imagine what we don’t know about right now. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389/20 "2005-05-26T11:21:25Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Are you really saying that the national interest should play no part at all in the decision whether to publish or not? That American journalists are journalists first and US citizens second? This is a false dichotomy. The journalists would say that it’s precisely because they are US citizens, part of their job is to publish what the government is up to, so that the citizens as a whole can make an informed judgment about the government’s conduct. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-media-self-censor-military-abuses-in-times-of-war/305389.md?page=2)