chinook crash: journalists removed from scene

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 3, 2003.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    link

    bush complained of the 'media filter.' i guess it doesn't work both ways.
     
  2. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #2
    I wonder if they escorted them into the city to show the "progress" happening elsewhere.

    Of course, the building across the street would blow up, the reporters would start filming that and have their film confiscated again and be moved to an area where more "good things" were happening.

    Wash, rinse, repeat until the American people buy your bull**** or you run out of untainted "progress" to show.
     
  3. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #3
    As I understand it the WH isn't going to allow ANY media coverage of bodies returning to the US.

    This sort of controlling of information is commonplace in totalitarian regimes. So much for the land of the free.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Yeah there has been virtually no footage of the crash site shown anywhere despite the presence of reporters on scene. That media filter is really something ain't it? Of course, maybe the deaths of 16 soldiers isn't newsworthy to the administration.
     
  5. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #5
    Yeah, and they're only dead because the evildoers are really upset about all the progress we're making.
     
  6. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #6
    This has been SOP for several administrations.
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    Well you know we are only being attacked because our enemies hate freedom. They hate the fact that we live in a free society blah blah blah.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #8
    Evildoers. Terrorists. Killers. Enemies of freedom. Thugs. Tough characters. Former thugs of the regime, or I should say current thugs of the former regime.

    Spin spin spin. Who's using focus group buzzwords on the campaign trail (aka the past three years of his "presidency")?
     
  9. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    Don't forget the dead-enders. And as you can see they are getting increasingly desperate. So desperate they are using SAMs against us now. I'd hate to see what things would be like if they wern't so desperate.
     
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #10
    So what's gonna be learned from footage at the scene? That dead, maimed and burned bodies are ugly? That guys scream when they're in pain?

    Let the dead and the wounded have at least a modicum of dignity. Not that dignity ever mattered to a newsie. If it bleeds, it leads.

    Effing ghouls. "How does it feeeeeelllll?"

    Spare me that self-righteous pap. I've cleaned up behind too much blood to tolerate it.

    :(, 'Rat
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    How about we take the cleanliness out of war and show it for what it really is?

    Ugly. Bloody. Disgusting. Savage. Murder. Too many people in this nation think war is a good thing.

    Let's show them what it's like when you can't just walk out of the theatre after two hours, where the "hero" doesn't always survive with just a scratch, where the "villains" are simple men with families just like yours, where there's no pause, rewind or reset.

    Let's make war as real for Joe War-Supporter as it is for the guy sucking blood out of the hole where his face used to be before an RPG hit him.
    --
    I don't think these journalists were your typical American nightly news "how does it feel" types.

    Most likely, they were predominantly foreign press (non-US) due to the fact that American news outlets would rather have cheaper talking heads in studios talk and argue about the events than pay for correspondants to dig up real stories. Professional international journalists aren't quite the muckrakers and accident chasers that we think of them as.
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12
    These guys are volunteers, aren't they? In a public war fought with public dollars.

    Now, I don't want to hear every fart or see every bloody limb, but when they are killed by what seems to be a rather primitive weapon, I do want to know about it. I'm not a watcher of TV so the images are less important to me than the printed word but why can't a reporter do his job? This is the biggest single disaster since the war started, and believe me just 'cuz gw says it's over, doesn't mean it's over. The soldiers were on their way to SDA for a flight back to the US for R & R. To me that is news and I want to hear about it from someone other that the military propaganda machine.

    BTW, does anyone know if they're going to rename Saddam International Airport? I'm sure they are but the irony of those three letter airport codes is that they are unchangeable. BOM (for Bombay) hasn't changed despite the new name of Mumbai. The same with SGN for Saigon or Ho Cho Minh City,.
     
  13. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    no, people would learn this:
    (from article linked to at top)
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Lets see what we learn from footage of the scene, instead of taking journalist's film and see ok.

    I'm not suggesting that we show pictures of the dead and wounded up close and personal. I don't need to hear the audio of them dying (although as others have pointed out it might help the rah-rah war supporters see just what war is like) but I don't think we should be prevented from seeing some edited footage.

    Nice to see some self-righteous anger from you 'Rat. Now apply it to Iraqi citizens as well as our own. We might make more friends than enemies that way.

    And if you think newsies are ghouls, how do you feel about a chaplain who prays to god for help killing the enemy? That sounds pretty ghoulish to me.
     
  15. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #15
    Must be a new kind of Chaplain. Most I ever knew prayed that our guys survived, not that the enemy died.

    It's less the filming of mayhem, which is purely factual, than it is the use to which the film is put. Watching the pious blatherings of the talking heads makes me want to throw up. Knowing that it increases ratings is even worse...

    What will never stand out in print, or come across in TV footage, is the smell. Bodies and pieces of bodies on a battlefield are dead meat--and smell like it.

    I dunno. I grew up with combat journalists like Mauldin, Pyle, and later, Maggie Higgins. They showed the reality without slobbering.

    'Rat
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Funny that someone who so despises government secrecy would not only encourage it here, but denounce those who object as well.

    Link
    New breed of chaplain?
     
  17. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #17
    i'd add that preventing it from being seen is also a form of use.
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #18
    Gotta admit I'm startled at the Chaplain's comment.

    I just don't see this as "government secrecy". Sorry about that. I see it as nothing more than wanting film of body parts.

    You think other soldiers don't think of those dead guys as brothers? What would your reaction be if you go to the scene of a car wreck where a family member was all chopped up, and here comes Channel X? Were it my son, that cameraman might have a whole new suppository.

    'Rat
     
  19. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #19
    you're reducing the point of this thread to a comment on mere sensationalism.

    i say it boils down to: a government that's supposed to operate in a transparent manner is hiding aspects of its unfavorable performance from the public. how does a misinformed public serve the good of the country?
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    Not government secrecy, just a nifty double standard by the administration that claims the media is "filtering" the news. That chopper crash was news like it or not. And no one here has suggested showing gory footage of someone's kid dying. The media only rarely shows anything that's even bloody. Should we have shut off our cameras on 9/11 because it might disturb some relative? Should battlefield news reporting end because reporters have to fear having new cornholes ripped in them from people like you?

    You know how car wrecks are shown on TV? There's some footage of the mangled vehicle, but nothing that identifies the person, or shows them suffering. I'm fine with that level of detail. Leave the other photos for the morgue guys.
     
  21. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #21
    zim, I'm not "reducing" anything.

    Secrecy, to me, would be an official refusal to admit the chopper went down, or that guys died. Lord knows, the whole deal has been widely reported.

    Re-showings of the WTC collapse, and shots of people falling, have been "spiked" due to concern for the sensitivity of the families. Seems to me a reasonable view to have the same concern for GIs and their families...

    'Rat
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    Difference here 'Rat, is that the footage of 9/11 exists and can be seen/used at an appropriate time in the future. Here there is no such historical record due to military suppression of information.
     
  23. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #23
    in your WTC example, the media made that decision, based on public input. in the chinook case, the gov't made that decision.

    i don't want the gov't deciding which of its activities i'm allowed to see. i want to decide for myself.

    you're arguing that the ends justify the means.
     
  24. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #24
    I don’t see the big fuss. Everything that the broadcast news and cable showed was accurate and enough. One could see the wreckage smoldering, soldiers being carried by stretchers and locals looking at the activity.

    There were several stories from the home towns of the those killed along with coverage of the wounded being treated in Iraq and Germany.

    Given this is an active war zone I would suspect there are things the Army does not want the rest of the world to see. There are tactical issues to address following an attack, therefore they don’t want the bad guys to see everything the army does following an attack.
     
  25. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #25
    thank you for a wonderful example of willful ignorance

    we are indeed doomed
     

Share This Page