Censorship? What censorship???

[c_yeager]

The title and the body of this article have nothin in common beyond the fact that they appear on the same page. Its clearly written with the intention that people would stop reading at the headline. I would normally say that it was an insult to the intelligence of the reader, however based on some responses here i dont think i could honestly say that.

FEMA is simply ASKING reporters not to show pictures of dead people and FEMA is not allowing reporters to RIDE ON RESCUE CRAFT. There is no censorship here.

 

[JohnBT]

"what the evening news did for Viet Nam"

Oh I remember the nightly news. Night after night they fought to outdo each other.

ALL THE GORE THAT'S FIT TO PRINT should be their motto. You know, there's a difference in preserving something for the historical record and pure career-driven sensationalism.

John

 

[Janitor]

Censorship? Why yes it is.

Want to look "censorship" up in the dictionary, then get back to us and explain why you feel this is censorship?

 

[griz]

Even without naming names you can sometimes unintentionally ID people with context. A family in Virginia had realitives in New Orleans. They talked to them on Sunday and said they were going to ride out the storm. On Tuesday the folks in Virginia were watching live TV when they saw the rescuers wade through the water and go in their familys house. They came out and said there were no survivors.

As to recovery, I agree that it makes no sense to cart around a TV crew if the effort is hampered in any way. I would hope that the "reporters" can document the human tragedy of the disaster without embarrassing themselves or humiliating the victims or their familys.

 

[middy]

Maybe the true scope of this sad situation (on numerous fronts) will awaken a few dormant minds.

What, pray tell, is the grand revelation that these "dormant minds" will be awakened to?

 

[gc70]

Censorship? What Rubbish!

When reporters and photographers are physically detained and removed and their equipment is confiscated, we can talk about censorship.

Just when did it become mandatory for the government to bend over backwards to help every journalist pursue their dream of a Pulitzer-winning "pain and suffering" story or photo?

 

[NHBB]

frankly I would like to see the images as I like to get as much understanding on topics that interest me. maybe I am just jaded and it is a partial morbid fascination, but the pics don't bother or traumatize me... they make me think.

 

[svtruth]

Not censorship

It doesn't seem to be censorship, but the sad story unfolding in NO does show that trusting/cooperating with the gummint is often bad for you.

 

[jefnvk]

Censorship? Can't really see any here. Asking them to act decent, and refusing to take them on rescue boats?

 

[Waitone]

Censorship? Why the discussion. Censorship is a fact of life. Always had it; always will have it.

Only question is who exercises the control over what is censored.

Government control=bad
Editor control=good
Reporter control-good

 

[ravencon]

The establishment has figured out that public support for the Vietnam war eroded when people began seeing images of the war. Now, we have corporate media consolidation and active government management of war "news" (embedded reporters, et al). It is much more convenient for the government and the corporate powers to manage public opinion and present Wag the Dog scenarios.

Yes. The media reporters are verminous jackals, but are the government's flaks any better or any more honest?

When Clinton was in power the libs turned a blind eye to his wrong doing and the cons were apoplectic with rage. Now with Bush in power the cons turn a blind eye to his wrong doing and the libs are enraged. Indignation depends on whose ox is getting gored.

 

[kbheiner7]

C'mon! How on earth does showing dead bodies on TV help the current situation?

There will be time for a management review when people have been rescued, the dead buried and homes and businesses rebuilt. Nothing good will come of showing dead people on TV. Do the flames of partisanship really need more oxygen at this point?

 

[NHBB]

I hear you kbh, and agree somewhat. I am perfectly fine seeing the images on the internet on the many grisly sites that will show what the media refuses to show. When the opportunity arises, I will look, and not feel one bit sorry. I want to see photos that relay all the reports in words of carnage that have been witnessed.

 

[longeyes]

There's a simple rule here: If a corpse can be attributed to Bush, it's okay to show it, no matter how grisly. If it inspires hate against our enemies abroad, no way, Jose.

Seriously, though...

Even journalists should have a modicum of basic, fundamental, human Discretion--or did they eliminate that course when they substituted Journalistic Ethics?

 

[onerifle]

What, pray tell, is the grand revelation that these "dormant minds" will be awakened to?

I think this about sums it up:

It doesn't seem to be censorship, but the sad story unfolding in NO does show that trusting/cooperating with the gummint is often bad for you.

FWIW, I think the bulk of the casualties are on the Mayor's, Governor's and FEMA's collective hands. Bush's ox is getting gored because he seemed as if he was detached. To say that this is Bush's fault, IMHO, is an admission of not really understanding how government (doesn't, for the most part) work.

The infirm, the elderly, the indigent- the mass of those casualties sit squarely in the Mayor's lap.

The rest of the blame lies squarely on those that were able to leave (have you noticed the amount of abandoned/flooded cars, everywhere?), BUT DIDN'T.

Sadly, they made the choice to remain. For them, it was not a wise one.

 

[middy]

OK, onerifle, I'll buy that.