AP last week included as part of a story/photo package a photograph of a fatally wounded U.S. Marine in Afghanistan being aided by two of his fellow soldiers, and The Pentagon went ballistic, saying the world's oldest press association had gone against the wishes of the Marine's parents. The Secretary of Defense wrote to the President of the AP to complain.
The AP reported on its own editorial process in a story on Sunday.
These disputes crop up on a regular basis, the rights of the media to tell the complete story vs the rights of survivors not to be confronted by a visual record of their loved one's demise.
Anti-war activists argue in favor of publication, saying the public must see what is truly happening in Afghanistan to be able to judge if what we're doing is right. Uh, excuse me, but I don't need to see blood and body parts to know war, at its core, means brutal killing.
Americans never seem to have much trouble when the dismembered bodies in their newspaper or on TV are those of the enemy..or even just plain non-Americans caught up in the war. But let a newspaper print a dead American and it's a whole different story. I'd just like to see a little more concern about keeping them from dying in the first place, so we don't have to endlessly debate the merits of publishing their last photo.
[UPDATE: Did newspapers run the controversial photo? Read the Editor & Publisher magazine story.]
Should we publicize brutality? To what extent should censorship exist?
ReplyDeleteThese philosophical questions remain largely unsatisfied, and ever before us.
For example, why is it acceptable to show graphic violence in motion pictures or teevee as entertainment, while it is not acceptable to show reality on teevee news?
While by no means am I one of the "anti-war activists" about whom you opine, I am under no misguided notion that evil in the world will ever be eradicated, and that it remains in the best interests of civil society to see that evil doers are punished swiftly and severely.
From a youth I have wondered why capital punishment was relegated to the unseen private rooms with limited audience. Why not execute child molesters, murderers and others openly? Or why not require such executions to be published and broadcast live?
California's criminal/penal recidivism rate is 70%. In other words, 70% of all incarcerations will offend again.
That's not correction. That's habituation.
Criminal habituation is expensive to society monetarily and socially. As well, it contributes to the social terrorizing of an otherwise peaceful and civil society.
The Discovery Channel will soon be airing a documentary about mass lawlessness in Oakland, CA entitled Gang Wars. I think your readers would find it enlightening to consider the damage such reprobates have caused the city.
Doubtless, few would shed a tear were they all to be sent to their eternity. And were they, it would be justifiably so.
Were they all to be rounded up, or even mowed down in the hunt, who would miss their hatred, violence, and criminal natures?
I rather think the city, state and nation would rejoice, and criminal remnants would cower.