The media's curious attitude towards pictures

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, May 26, 2004.

  1. CNN's Aaron Brown defended the seemingly endless flow of prison pictures by saying a picture could demonstrate a story much better than words. Others have questioned if it was appropriate for the media to show such inflammatory pictures when our troops are in a war zone, or at the least, to continue to harp on them after the news value is gone.

    One commentator, i believe it was Jason Lowry, contrasted the media's eagerness to show the lurid prison pictures with their historic refusal to publish pictures, drawings or even allow advertisements depicting partial birth abortion. I guess some pictures tell a better story than others.

    Also in contrast to the endless flow of pictures showing Americans abusing helpless Iraqi terrorists is the media's refusal to show pictures of the Berg attrocity. Ditto their refusal to show the abuse of the murdered Americans' bodies in fallujah.

    This is not a question of censorship or self-censorship by the media. As I've shown, they are all too ready to engage in censorship of images they don't want the public to view. This is about the media lacking even a shred of responsibility and about their willingness to put our troops in danger to push their point of view, which seems to be reflected here by Candletrader.
  2. I wouldn't be at all sorry if some soldier who tortured prisoners of war was shot by some guerilla elements/enemy - or even subjected to torture himself before a slow death.

    It's up to the soldiers and the commanders to define the battlefield. Throughout history some "rules" have been defined for conduct in war.

    When some arrogant airheads start ignoring those rules they should be made aware of the consequences - especially when their government has evaded further rules and responsibilities like the ICC.
  3. Reactions like this show how essential it is that American soldiers never be subjected to something as ludicrous as the International Criminal Court.
  4. Is that because of some supremaist/racist philosophy or because of pacifistic beliefs ? Which one do you draw your "conclusion" on ?

    Most people around the world has an innate moral sense which says that torture is fundamentally wrong. Sometimes, however, someone can be mislead into thinking they are far much superior to other human beings. This was the case in the 1930s and earlier - and sometimes manifests itself in tightly controlled groups and societies.

    Some examples of this are the "eccentric" UFOists or religous extremists groups. One could however argue that societies with serious flawed internal mechanics like a totalitarian dictatorship with total media control or an extremely biased society where system criticism is naturally hindered by regulations for the media which only favour voices of system-friendliness because of overly strong relationships with e.g advertisers which do not want to associate themselves with negative or government criticism. The latter which US media is a sad victim of.

    It's evident by just looking at the differences between say and - or say CNN International, CNN US and CNN en español.

    You get your plate of prepared thoughts or biased subleties fed to your brain every day by collegaues, friends and national media. If you think that your government doesn't use the full range of dirty tricks in propaganda and deceit as does the rest of the world - then you are utterly naïve.

    Humans are "social animals" with all the traits that follow: loyalty, bias, group identification, approval, status, security, confirmation, reason .. and so on. To try and reflect on oneself in such a embedded state is very, very hard - becoming aware of flaws is even harder and voicing criticism within the social context is outlandishly hard.
    Trying to understand others than your own social context is a step in the right direction, but most people avoid the automatic conflict and outrage which comes when anyone falls out from the rank of sheepish following. Only courageous and honest persons would dare to use their voice to try and change the mind of others for betterment of all - they are true leaders. The cowards hide within the flock.
  5. [​IMG]
  6. Pabst


    Excellent 'toon.
  7. You use loaded terms like "torture" to describe a situation that was far from torture. There was pressure and coercion, maybe some rough treatment, but nothing revealed to date has suggested "torture" as you imply.

    The ICC is a transparent attempt by the UN and socialist governments in europe to exercise a veto power over US foreign policy. The UN has shown itself to be unwilling to tackle obvious human rights abuses and instead has put some of the worst abusers in charge of its Human rights commission. Such governments have no moral standing to sit in judgment on this country.

    As a sovereign democratic nation, we elect leaders who ultimately answer to the voters, not to european socialists. We have no need to apologise for protecting what's left of our sovereignty, nor do we need to apologise for acting preemptively to attack those who sponsor terrorism.

    You lost any shred of moral authority or legitimacy by your first post in which you expressed a longing to see American soldiers killed or even tortured. That kind of expression may go over well in a university setting or in a mosque but it is deeply offensive to the rest of us.
  8. OK guys -- let me make it abundantly clear why this whole prisoner torture thing is pure chaos for the US military's fighting men and women --

    the whole point of the geneva convention is to prevent torture of any and all soldiers/prisoners. it's to allow a nation to say "OK, if we capture your guys, we will treat them the same way that we expect you to treat our soldiers if you can capture them"

    when one rogue nation decides to ignore those rules, they're basically saying "OK, if you capture any of our guys, please torture them in the same way we tortured your soldiers"

    anyone OK with this torture engineered by the rumsfeld camp clearly only wants to see american soldiers get the same treatment by other nations.

    now i can see why the bush regime wants that to happen -- when american soldiers/contractors etc get captured and tortured by iraqis/al queda etc, it gets shown on TV, and makes it REALLY fucking easy to get the whole country into a flag-waving hysteria...

    but the people who will ultimately pay the price for this are AMERICAN SOLDIERS -- your friends, children, neighbors, and all the other brave american soldiers who put their lives on the line for you and me so that we can enjoy these basic freedoms.

    anyone who doesn't see it this way is a fucking retard.
  9. Turok


    >I wouldn't be at all sorry if some soldier who tortured
    >prisoners of war was shot by some guerilla elements/enemy
    > - or even subjected to torture himself before a slow death.

    >You lost any shred of moral authority or legitimacy
    >by your first post in which you expressed a longing
    >to see American soldiers killed or even tortured.
    >That kind of expression may go over well in a university
    >setting or in a mosque but it is deeply offensive to the
    >rest of us.

    I'm confused by your assessment of his seem to me that he is ONLY suggesting that it would be valid justice for someone who violated such a trust as these soldiers did to get a taste of their own medicine. I'm not sure I follow the loss of moral position in his "eye for an eye" situation.

    It's not a loaded question and not seeking confrontation, just honestly interested in how you see it.

  10. I would like to think that the rest of the world see the actions undertaken in Abu Ghraib as torture as well. I actually think the Geneva convention forbids it - but that's something very many know very little about it seems.

    There's where you fell into the trap of trying to manipulate my statement into something specifically against US soldiers committing acts of torture. As you can clearly read it says "any soldier" and not "US soldiers".

    I claim no moral authority for others than myself. Normal reaction to some lowlife torturing anybody - human or animal - is that they get a fitting punishment - even morally so. That is embedded into US penal code - with death sentences too.
    So what was it you were saying - you're not a supremacist ? Or doesn't your normal morals apply when it comes to US soldiers - only with US criminals ?

    You see - that's why the International Criminal Court was established. People easily get manipulated by governments when they lack the proper education in self-scrutiny, history and world affairs as well as a common set of moral values. It happened in Rwanda when government elements imported thousands of machetes in the time running up to the slaughter when radio broadcasts and newspapers were chock full of things like "Don't let the Tutsi scum escape."

    US media was full of propaganda leading up to the Iraq war - and they're still churning that propaganda flowing into your ears - now with a opposition presidential candidate as well. The question is what reality you can deduct from the information, reflect over the real situation - and then apply reality-aware conclusions into your voice and actions.

    To me some of the language from Mark Kimmit and others are totally appalling when uttered - but I understand he sometimes tries to strike some humor with his remarks. He applies his language to "the enemy" - the Iraqis, and I don't think they deserved being targeted as enemies in the first place.

    Having principles and morality means you apply them equally - and not based on racist or supremacist beliefs - singeling out the wrong actions of "your own kind" as ok - but condemning the equal actions of others. That was e.g the case when Iraqis flaunted US POWs in TV broadcasts, while the US had shown worse treatment themselves. US media and military commanders cried "Geneva convention!" when seing that on arabic newscasts - yet see where we are now.

    You can continue - but you will lose any continued argument on this - simply because you're wrong; and I will prove you wrong every time.
    #10     May 27, 2004