The Latest Nefarious Liberal Scheme: Reporting

Julian Sanchez | September 10, 2005

Instapundit appears to think that this is a clever point:

THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.

I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?

PowerLine agrees, which as a rough rule of thumb, should hint there's something wrong with the logic there. Perhaps it's that George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets?

ADDENDUM: Just to clarify, I actually would've been fine with showing everything in 2001 also—though obviously that's a call for each news outlet to make based on any number of factors. I just don't think it's particularly mysterious why some editor might be concerned about touching off a violent public reaction in one case and not the other—and that the difference between the relevant ways of "inflaming" the public in each case is sufficiently obvious that it's silly to reach for an anti-Bush plot as the first explanation.

Comments

|9.10.05 @ 12:48PM|#

I don't see how you're refuting the clever point here

David Sucher|9.10.05 @ 1:04PM|#

Reynolds was too obscure to be clever; I still don't get his point. Of course I am not a mad-dog conservative.

|9.10.05 @ 1:07PM|#

Josh,

I think the counterpoint is, that 9/11 and Katrina are wholly different kinds of events. So the fact that the press thinks it's appropriate to show pictures of dead bodies in one case but not the other, is not evidence of some subversive agenda.

|9.10.05 @ 1:12PM|#

David,

I think he's trying to say that the press wants to inflame passions against Bush by showing Katrina's victims, because he can be blamed for their deaths. Whereas showing pictures of dead bodies on 9/11 might have inflamed passions against Muslims in general (or terrorists, whom everyone knows the Liberal Media secretly support), not Bush.

KipEsquire|9.10.05 @ 1:21PM|#

I see the difference between people dying and dead people.

|9.10.05 @ 1:24PM|#

"I see the difference between people dying and dead people."

Thank you for a concise moment of clarity, Kip.

|9.10.05 @ 1:26PM|#

I see dead people!

|9.10.05 @ 1:32PM|#

I see dead people ... as a big opportunity!

|9.10.05 @ 1:38PM|#

You can't handle the truth!

Jammer|9.10.05 @ 1:42PM|#

It has long been a conservative gripe that the press has been desirous to show pictures of flag-draped coffins, Abu Ghraib, etc, and has shied away from the shots of the bodies falling from the towers in the years since 9/11. For more or less the nefarious reasons suggested, though not always with such vehemence.

|9.10.05 @ 1:48PM|#

The only way to solve this is to have the government run the media. Then you won't have any bias problems, since only public officials will be allowed to report on stories like this.

;-)

|9.10.05 @ 1:55PM|#

"I see the difference between people dying and dead people."

...and that's because in the one case, people are about to die. ...and it's not okay to show pictures of people who are about to die, because--well--because everybody knows that!

...but in the other case, it's after people have died, and--as we all know--sometimes it's okay to show people who have already died, because--unlike in the case of people who are about to die--they're already dead. ...I dunno.

...I guess it just depends on whether President Bush is in the White House.

Lowney|9.10.05 @ 1:59PM|#

I don't know what Instapundit is talking about. I sadly and clearly recall seeing published photographs of people leaping from the burning Twin Towers and a dead Father Mychael Judge being carried away from the scene on Sept 11th. Powerful news pictures that were put out into the world for all to ponder. In contrast, images of faceless unknown corpses floating in New Orleans don't have the same impact. I am not suggesting that newspapers should be running gruesome photos of rotting bodies with twisted faces. That would be only ghoulish. As someone who has photograph tragic death dozen of times as a news photographer, I never once thought about what kind of political fallout might occur as I released the shutter. My only thoughts were about making the strongest possible pictures that best told the story I was witnessing; and doing it as professionally and in the best taste that the situation allowed.

|9.10.05 @ 2:01PM|#

Glenn makes a good, if easily refutable, point. Other than that, I don't think there's much more to see here.

Is there any purpose to showing the Katrina victims? I don't know. Is there any reason NOT to show the Katrina victims? Probably not. Was there a good reason NOT to show the 9/11 victims? Again, probably not.

Unless you're truly concerned that the ignorant masses would have risen up and bashed in the heads of every Muslim, Sikh, and anyone else with dirt-colored skin while chanting "USA! USA!".

|9.10.05 @ 2:07PM|#

jf,

The problem is, the general population, unlike our highly trained law enforcement professionals, might misidentify any Arab as a terrorist. They might even mistake a Brazilian for one!

Oh, wait...

|9.10.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Actually, if you simply reverse the argument, it becomes equally effective:
In 911, the conservatives shouted "we have to show the bodies of the fallen" (so we can whip up the masses into a frenzy and go into a war with an arab who will fill in nicely for the arab that actually attacked us?) NOW, in New Orleans, the conservatives cry "show a little respect for those who died" (maybe this time they don't want those passions inflamed because it is their guy running the country and wouldn't want anyone to actually hold him accountable for anything) I've noticed that in almost 100% of the cases of a liberal or conservative claiming bias, if you simply look at the opposite angle, you see that the other side is being equally hypocritical.

Bob

Tim Cavanaugh|9.10.05 @ 3:04PM|#

This is obvious proof of the media's far-right bias: Dead black people are fair game for sensationalizing; dead white people aren't.

What? That's as defensible a reading as the instapundit's.

|9.10.05 @ 3:08PM|#

Has Fox News showed the the 9/11 footage? I could be wrong, but I think they also have shyed away from showing people jumping out of the buildings, etc. Are they accusing Fox News of a liberal bias as well?

|9.10.05 @ 3:23PM|#

Reynolds is simply beating up a strawman, which he introduces in his opening line: "THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina."

It does? CNN went to court because it wants to capture images of bodies. There is no indication -- certainly not in the material linked by Reynolds -- that CNN "wants to show bodies."

Now, it very well may be that CNN will air footage of Katrina bodies. But any constrast with the media's 9/11 coverage -- or CNN's 9/11 coverage, to be precise -- obviously is irrelevant until that happens. For now, all CNN has done is seek to protect a fundamental right. There was no government mandate against recording 9/11 images, which the press did. And there should be no government mandate against recording Katrina images, which the press wants to do.

Setting aside for a moment the debates about the first amendment and the merits of airing graphic footage... If nothing else, the media is acting here in the service of history. The American people have a right to chronicle their own story. Anyone who cares about the bigger picture (pun not intended) should value the recording of these images, whether anybody disseminates them right now or not.

|9.10.05 @ 3:45PM|#

Is there any reason NOT to show the Katrina victims? Probably not. Was there a good reason NOT to show the 9/11 victims? Again, probably not.

The most rational argument against showing bodies is as a sign of respect for the victims' families. After all, it would royally suck to find out that a relative had died by seeing it on a news broadcast. IIRC, this was a really big deal after the incident portrayed in Blackhawk Down, when CNN and other news outlets broadcasted footage of American servicemen being dragged through the street before the gov't had notified their next of kin.

FWIW, at the podunk mid-level TV station I used to work at, the photogs would generally shy away from shooting footage of dead people, unless it was either from such a distance that they couldn't be ID'd, or they were covered up.

|9.10.05 @ 3:52PM|#

What? That's as defensible a reading as the instapundit's.

Right, except for the part where Reynolds' reading takes into account the media's stated reasons for not showing the 9/11 stuff, that's exactly as defensible.

|9.10.05 @ 4:18PM|#

If you HAVE to show me, will you at least make sure you get my good side?

|9.10.05 @ 4:24PM|#

If you HAVE to show me, will you at least make sure you get my good side?

Yeah,... please, show it all.

|9.10.05 @ 4:29PM|#

I kinda see the difference of dying (in the act) v. dead...

I get the sense that our society finds it disturbing to see someone die, but after it's done they go to the funeral and march by the body. I do conceed, that the body gets dressed up a bit at a funeral.

Arguments like instapundits just go to show that the right is every bit as good at making up demons, in this case news reporters, as the left is, as in Katrina demonstrating racism.

|9.10.05 @ 4:41PM|#

It [the press] didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/1

I guess when I saw people jumping off the towers to their death, I wasn't watching real photage then.

|9.10.05 @ 4:55PM|#

"Arguments like instapundits just go to show that the right is every bit as good at making up demons, in this case news reporters, as the left is, as in Katrina demonstrating racism."

I won't criticize the argument that the right and the left are both proficient in creating monsters out of mole hills--generally speaking. ...but I'm not so sure about the last bit--that Katrina demonstrating racism is a chimera created by the left.

...Did anyone else catch This American Life today? It featured two stories--that I heard--one from a black woman who was trapped at the convention center and one from a white woman likewise trapped--both of which confirmed that the national guard wouldn't let black people cross the bridge to leave the convention center.

I'm not saying that opportunists--even within the black community--haven't made any cheap accusations, but I think it's too early to dismiss charges of racism entirely.

|9.10.05 @ 4:56PM|#

I read that Reynolds post and thought immediately to the aftermath of 9/11, when he was attacking the media for showing people falling off the World Trade Center. A few months later (after that CBS special on the attack) he criticized the media for NOT showing the bodies falling off the buildings and hiding the reality of the attacks.

Yeesh. The man can't make up his mind, and his blind hatred of any media outlet that isn't a blog severely clouds his judgement.

|9.10.05 @ 4:58PM|#

"I guess when I saw people jumping off the towers to their death, I wasn't watching real photage then."

I remember seeing people falling too--I also remember there being an announcement that they weren't going to show that footage anymore.

Mr. Snitch!|9.10.05 @ 5:07PM|#

One thing Reynolds does NOT do, is refer to liberals as "mad dogs".

|9.10.05 @ 5:08PM|#

We saw the WTC jumpers when they were alive. How much video was aired of them after they were dead?

I'm not confused as some might accuse Reynolds of being; I thought it would have been tasteless to show us the bodies then, and I think it would be tasteless to show us the bodies now.

|9.10.05 @ 5:51PM|#

Ya'll are having a grand time being deliberately obtuse here - to borrow a phrase used elsewhere.

Yes, you saw images of people jumping to their death - a few times, for a few days, right after 9/11.

After which they were more or less embargoed.

By the way - did you see close up photos of workers carrying body parts out of Ground Zero? Out of the Pentagon?

I doubt it - and that doesn't match up with your "dying vs. dead" explanation very well, does it?

"Respect for the dead" had nothing to do with the embargo of the jumpers footage. It was embargoed because the pressies believed there'd be an anti-Muslim pomgrom if they kept showing it.

Or don't you remember how diligently they searched for evidence of that pomgrom in the weeks following 9/11?

"Respect for the dead" doesn't even enter into the equation. Using the standards of the pressies from four years ago, dead bodies is inflammatory - and this time, they're OK with that.

I wonder why?

|9.10.05 @ 5:57PM|#

The MSM has an agenda. Demoralizing people in the interest of putting Democrats back in office is part of it. Therefore, the Gitmo martyrs and Abu Grahib or whatever it was prison pictures and the flood victims when the chance comes. Making it angry against the enemy is not, hence the ban on WTC people jumping to their death. You don't need a decoder ring for this.

|9.10.05 @ 5:57PM|#

I don't think Reynolds has a blind hatred of media outlets. He just points out the obvious bias of the media from time to time which causes the whiney liberals to pontificate how it just isn't so.

Sorry about the whiney comment, it was my inner mad dog coming out!

|9.10.05 @ 6:02PM|#

"I don't think Reynolds has a blind hatred of media outlets."

No, it's more like a delusional sense that he's just as important as they are, or at least as good as they are at the whole journalism thing.

He's a joke.

|9.10.05 @ 6:18PM|#

You cannot possibly be as obtuse as you are pretending to be, so I can only assume that you are intellectually dishonest.

|9.10.05 @ 6:21PM|#

If CNN wanted to show bodies, why not make that request immediately? Why wait for the opportunity to make a political impact versus simply telling about the horrors of Hurricane Katrina? Is CNN reporting the news or are they hoping to generate further anger and why?

|9.10.05 @ 6:26PM|#

"You don't need a decoder ring for this."

No, you just need a pre-defined agenda and the assumption that everything that runs contrary to that agenda is the result of a conspiracy.

If someone you know is like that, I'd suggest giving a listen to Cavanaugh's debate linked here the other day. ...and if that doesn't help, I understand a lot of people have found this site helpful.

The Lonewacko Blog|9.10.05 @ 6:28PM|#

OT: I see that Reason now is using the idiotic nofollow tag on linked names and links in the comments. They certainly have a right to do something that's highly likely to hurt them with search engines. Look into why wikipedia stopped that for the reason why.

Phil|9.10.05 @ 6:33PM|#

For the double-super-secret tu quoque with a twist, find out if the people who think that the potential for anti-Muslim sentinment was a BS reason for embargoing pictures of 9/11 victims' bodies also think that the potential for anti-US sentiment is a valid reason for continuing to embargo the rest of the Abu Ghraib photos.

|9.10.05 @ 6:41PM|#

A friend of mine who is a freelance writer spent a month volunteering at Ground Zero during the rescue and cleanup operations right after 9/11. She had a series of pieces published in the New York Times Magazine detailing her observations and her interviews with the rescuers and other working cleanup. She was disturbed at how much detail was censored from her work.

Even when avoiding being graphic with her own descriptions and being careful with what she quoted from the rescuers (and survivors) testimonies, she found the Times deleting almost every reference to the dead bodies, body parts, the witnessing of jumper impacts, the sheer scale of the carnage that was scattered all about Ground Zero.

Those jumpers didn't disappear when they jumped- they hit the ground, many falling completely clear of the impact zone of the later collapse of the towers. More than one person described the sound of the falling bodies hitting the ground, one after another, how it didn't stop until the towers actually fell. The remains of those who were trapped but did not jump were also scattered about, sometimes having been thrown quite a distance and later turning up when the cleanup crews least expected it.

Much of this was censored by the "paper of record" and other organs of the MSM, all the while fretting about the civil rights of innocent Muslims. Slandering the vast majority of Americans of all colors while insulting their intelligence and judgement with their paternalistic control of the flow of information.

My friend later donated copies of her manuscript drafts, notes and interview tapes to Columbia University. Maybe some future historian can put together an account of how our media lied to us with their selective presentation of 9/11. With such a sterling record, how can we not view with suspicion the media's newfound need to show dead bodies in prime time?

For a more succint account of the news media's selective focus, see here:
http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/August2005_4.html#jrm3527

|9.10.05 @ 6:43PM|#

So the double super secret tu quoque with a twist involves changing the topic by constructing a straw man attack on your opponents' motives when it is apparent that you cannot win the argument at hand?

fyodor|9.10.05 @ 6:53PM|#

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of the New York Times' decision to edit out descriptions of body parts, it can hardly be described as lying. The fact that thousands of people died is not obscured by whitewashing the details.

|9.10.05 @ 7:03PM|#

UHoo wrote: "You cannot possibly be as obtuse as you are pretending to be, so I can only assume that you are intellectually dishonest."

(Since you did not cite a specific post or poster, the word "you" is vague here. I will presume, though, that it refers to me and my post on Reynolds' "delusional sense," since that was the post immediately preceding yours. If so...)

Now, I may be obtuse (how would I ever know?), but I'm not being intellectually dishonest. Because I do indeed think -- honest! -- that he judges blogging in general, and Instapundit in particular, to be as important as the news media. I also think, again honestly, that he judges them to be journalism equals.

You are welcome to challenge my assessment with evidence or even assessments of your own. Simply attacking me doesn't do much.

If your "you" was aimed at someone else, sorry for wasting time here. Either way: You, UHoo, should use your "you's" with more precision.

Phil|9.10.05 @ 7:08PM|#

So the double super secret tu quoque with a twist involves changing the topic by constructing a straw man attack on your opponents' motives when it is apparent that you cannot win the argument at hand?

No, it involves seeing whether those people are as adept at mind-reading Iraqis and Muslims as they pretend to be at mind-reading other Americans.

|9.10.05 @ 7:16PM|#

Ohh I gotta thank the media for, you know, protecting me from myself. I could have gotten angry over 9/11 and Katrina, hurt someone, and held them liable.

|9.10.05 @ 7:22PM|#

...Did anyone else catch This American Life today? It featured two stories--that I heard--one from a black woman who was trapped at the convention center and one from a white woman likewise trapped--both of which confirmed that the national guard wouldn't let black people cross the bridge to leave the convention center.

I'm not saying that opportunists--even within the black community--haven't made any cheap accusations, but I think it's too early to dismiss charges of racism entirely.

Did they allow white people to leave and not blacks? "Not allowing black people to leave" is not evidence of racism, if white people were also forbidden to leave.

If the National Guard treated people differently because of their race, then it should be investigated and those responsible punished. On the other hand, there are a couple points to keep in mind here:

1) All the scurrilous allegations of racism have been directed at the Feds, and only the Feds. National Guard were always, and still remain, under the direct control of the governor.

2) The National Guard is not the KKK, nor is it a segregated outfit. There are soldiers of all races serving, so while I can accept (as possible, even if there is no evidence I've seen) that some racist individual in the National Guard may have treated blacks (or whites for that matter) unfairly, I have a real hard time believing that orders to target minorities were sent down (from where? the governor's office?) through a racially-diverse organization without somebody in the chain of command going bananas and blowing the whistle immediately.

But we'll see. This will all be investigated, and rightly so. But it seems irresponsible to accept such serious, and in some respects implausible, charges uncritically.

|9.10.05 @ 7:31PM|#

I would first say that I think everyone, including people in "news" organizations, realizes that showing Katrina bodies on TV will not accrue to the administration's benefit.

Questions:

Is Fox News clamoring/planning to show pictures of Katrina bodies?

If "yes," does that disprove their obvious right-wing pro-Republican bias?

If "no," does that provide yet another example of
their obvious right-wing pro-Republican bias?

Does anyone here doubt that Fox News has an obvious right-wing pro-Republican bias? If "yes," I apologize for not having found an appropriate mental health link as Tom Crick did above ....

I agree that it's a mistake to view this as an MSM conspiracy, but it's also quite foolish to think that newspapers/stations don't report from a point-of-view. That point-of-view depends on the editors' personal politics and the marketplace politics of their readers/viewers.

I read NYT everyday for example, and I find it just as obviously biased as Fox News. The main difference is style: Fox is NASCAR Dad, NYT is faux-intellectual.

But in CNN's case, I think their politics have a lot more to do with money ... they're looking for a splash to offer viewers. They think bashing Bush and showing bodies will deliver.

|9.10.05 @ 7:35PM|#

Right after 5:50, a platoon of never before seen commenters appears, and leaves almost exactly the same comment - "deliberately obtuse" (BD and UHoo). I wonder which fascist shithead blog linked to reason at quarter to six.

As many others have noted, we did indeed see pictures of falling people and dead bodies on and shortly after 9/11. The complaint, then and now, about not showing them was not that they weren't being shown as part of the story reporting on the events, but that they weren't being shown over and over and over in the days, weeks, and year afterward. And, in fact, the complainers (Fifth Colum Andy and NRO come to mind) were quite explicit that they wanted the footage shown to make people angry.

So we're left with a deliberate conflation of apples and oranges - the press's eagerness to report on stories and accompany them with powerful images vs. the conservative activists' desire to use imagery long after it ceased to have any news (check the root word there) value for an explicit political cause.

|9.10.05 @ 7:42PM|#

Again, I don't understand why we're even having this debate right now about a scenario that doesn't even exist. Until CNN fills the airwaves with endless imagery of floating bodies, this entire argument is based on assigning various values to something imaginary.

|9.10.05 @ 7:43PM|#

Why do people pay attention to Glenn Reynolds anymore?? He's a complete partisan-hack. Everyone knows that --- except idiots who buy into his "criticisms" of the administration which usually are like this: "I wish the administration would do a better job on x. Of course, this does not mean that the Dems would do a better job on it, they've already proven that THEY can't do it. Sigh, I wish we had an opposition party that wasn't a bunch of treasonous lunatics."

|9.10.05 @ 8:00PM|#

Heh. Indeed. At least joe isn't obtuse.

However, I am. I don't see where it says that CNN wants to show dead people, they just want access to ongoing operations.

Rob Sterling|9.10.05 @ 8:27PM|#

I've carefully read through all the responses and not one of you has refuted Instapundit. Fact is, most press organs did what they could to minimize public reaction to 9/11 because public rage aided Bush, and now they're doing the opposite, because they believe public rage harms Bush. It's very simple.

And for those of you who think we saw the worst of 9/11 casualties on TV: we did not. We never saw people reduced to hamburger on TV - and yes, that's what the jumpers looked like when they hit the street - conical meat patties. We never saw the charred corpses of the people who were set on fire in the North Tower elevators and erupted out into the lobby, screaming, or the bodies of all the other people who were in the lobby that morning. We never saw the cadavers out on the street south of the WTC complex, remains of those who were doused with flaming jet fuel that fell from the sky and burned to death - one victim survived for six weeks with no skin.

All of a sudden the press wants to show the bodies of the dead? Please. It's obvious what's going on. There are people who want to raise America up and people who want to bring it down - CNN falls into the latter category.

|9.10.05 @ 8:33PM|#

Laguna Dave,

'"Not allowing black people to leave" is not evidence of racism, if white people were also forbidden to leave.' Yes, it most certainly could. Racism usually manifests itself as hatred/fear of "black people and that sort."

"All the scurrilous allegations of racism have been directed at the Feds, and only the Feds." No, not really. I've seen them made towards the Guard, as well as local law enforcement.

"The National Guard is not the KKK, nor is it a segregated outfit. There are soldiers of all races serving, so while I can accept (as possible, even if there is no evidence I've seen) that some racist individual in the National Guard may have treated blacks (or whites for that matter) unfairly, I have a real hard time believing that orders to target minorities were sent down (from where? the governor's office?) through a racially-diverse organization without somebody in the chain of command going bananas and blowing the whistle immediately."

Look, Laguna Dave, this isn't about judging people's hearts. Racism manifests itself in many more significant ways than racial animus on an individual level. Discrimination against communities by "whiter" communities, the application of race-neutral policies in non-race neutral circumstances, and favoritism towards "your own" in a situation in which "your own" correlates very closely with racial makeup are all racist phenomena, even if no one participating belongs to the Klan.

You've heard of the soft bigotry of low expectations? How about the soft bigotry of soft bigotry?

|9.10.05 @ 8:35PM|#

By chance, are you the Rob Sterling who used to manage for the CVK Group in the early 90s?

|9.10.05 @ 8:55PM|#

I'd think the main difference is that the bodies in New Orleans have been rotting for days and would likely be unrecognizable.

|9.10.05 @ 8:56PM|#

seems to me reynold's real crime here was using the broad "THE PRESS" instead of "THE DNC OPERATIVES WHO RUN CNN"

|9.10.05 @ 8:58PM|#

What the hell is happening on this thread - I feel like a moderate here. It feels strange.

|9.10.05 @ 9:02PM|#

"It's very simple."

Yes, quite so. Which would immediately suggest to an informed and impartial reader that the theory is bullshit.

|9.10.05 @ 9:54PM|#

The black people were terrorizing and assaulting the white people. The black people vastly outnumbered the white people. I'd let only the whites get out, too. If that makes me a racist, fuck it.

|9.10.05 @ 9:54PM|#

"Discrimination against communities by "whiter" communities, the application of race-neutral policies in non-race neutral circumstances, and favoritism towards "your own" in a situation in which "your own" correlates very closely with racial makeup are all racist phenomena, even if no one participating belongs to the Klan."

Blah, blah blah! It's just tribalism and its repeated on every continent with every ethnic group.

|9.10.05 @ 10:04PM|#

"Did they allow white people to leave and not blacks? "Not allowing black people to leave" is not evidence of racism, if white people were also forbidden to leave."

As I recall--and unfortunately the show won't be available for download until next week--the black woman said the national guard refused to let them cross the bridge. ...The white woman talked about how guilty she felt for leaving black people behind and how elated she felt for getting out, all at the same time.

I've heard other reports. Earlier this week--and I was lookin' for the link, if anybody else out there heard this story and you can post the link, that'd be great!--I heard a white tourist who was in either the convention center or the dome claim that he, along with a group of other whites, were told that they were getting out.

...They were told to form a loose line and to walk out without telling anyone that they were leaving. They were told not to smile, so that no one else in the dome would suspect they were leaving, and then they were led out of the dome and taken to another building and put on a bus. ...while everyone else was left to swelter.

I don't know if any of these claims have been substantiated, whether there were mitigating explanations, etc.; however, I agree that these claims should be investigated, and I'm stickin' to my guns--it's too early to dismiss charges of racism entirely.

|9.10.05 @ 10:04PM|#

Funny, isn't it, how once again the press declares itself to have a "right" the public does not.

NOLA residents who refuse to leave are being forced to do so, "for their own safety", or for public health reasons.

Yet media types think they have the right to go INTO the unhealthy areas, to do whatever the hell they want in the name of "the story". Last time I checked, the media is not part of the governmental agencies engaged in providing relief, or members of outfits like the National Guard, whose mission it is to protect/save others, at risk to themselves.

So just where do the media elites get the idea they are above the law? Or is freedom of the press "freedom to disobey the orders of lawful authorities in the time of an emergency"?

Wanna bet that if some blow-dried "journalist" comes down with dengue fever or cholera, we will hear the last of these demands, as the MSM weenies head for safe haven?

Uncle Sam|9.10.05 @ 10:05PM|#

Politics brings out the w
orst in people.

Uncle Sam|9.10.05 @ 10:05PM|#

Politics brings out the worst in people.

|9.10.05 @ 10:05PM|#

For folks who wanted to do all Abu Ghraib all the time and claim it was merely news but continually relevant, while making the decision, and some execs actually said it, that they didn't want the viewing public to become upset, not to re-show the 9-11 casualties, it's difficult to explain and expect others to keep a straight face.

The point is not whether CNN or Fox or Time can say this stuff without snorting. It's whether people listening to them can hear it without cussing.

Some people think that refusing to admit they are lying is the same as making an irrefutable case they aren't lying. They don't seem to grasp that others--the lied-to--aren't necessarily convinced.


This is a double standard for the most obvious partisan reasons and that the journos don't admit it means exactly...nothing.

|9.10.05 @ 10:10PM|#

laguna dave

i heard the npr story
the group that the woman crossed the bridge with was made up of blacks and whites

|9.10.05 @ 10:14PM|#

if they're going to show dead bodies from Katrina, they should show some with bullet holes in them, some who were beaten to death, etc. Not just the flood victims (of Bush's inadequate and racist government, of course).

This storm didn't create the thugs, it just gave them the chance to show who they were.

And who they were is in many cases PRISONERS, that Nagin let out of the jails before the storm hit.

|9.10.05 @ 10:20PM|#

joe's comment regarding soft bigotry is well taken... I'd only add the following:

From a poor, black American's perspective, I'm not sure it's necessary for the national guard, or any other government agency, to discriminate against me specifically because I'm black in order to see systemic racism.

...From a poor, black person's perspective, I imagine it might be enough just to realize that because I was born poor and black, I'm many times more likely to end up in a hellhole like the convention center when a disaster strikes.

I'm neither poor nor black, but I don't think that's fair.

|9.10.05 @ 10:26PM|#

The problem in this country is that we have too many so-called independent institutions. That independent press thinks it's OK to put out whatever information they please, without thinking about whether it's consistent with the national agenda. And that independent judiciary thinks they can act as, well, judges. They think they have the right to judge the guilt or innocence of an accused terrorist.

Why can't these institutions just get on board with the national agenda? And it's not about partisan bias. There are plenty of good Democrats who are on board with the agenda. Like Joe Lieberman.

A free press and an independent judiciary sound nice and all, but not if they get in the way of our leader's agenda.

(And yes, the above was sarcasm.)

|9.10.05 @ 10:30PM|#

"Blah, blah blah! It's just tribalism and its repeated on every continent with every ethnic group."

So is the urge to war. ...That doesn't mean it shouldn't be resisted.

...And our tribe has rules about such things. The rules aren't supposed to apply only when it's convenient. Whenever the government applies those rules improperly, we should criticize their failure and punish the offenders.

|9.10.05 @ 10:30PM|#

I really, really don't mean to excuse the cops' inexusable behavior in not letting people leave the Superdome, but I don't think it was racial. In the stories I read, the people who were allowed to leave were foreign tourists, usually Brits our Australians. It would have been quite a diplomatic "situation" if a foreign national died in there.

Please, don't take this as an apology for the cops' disgusting behavior. Just a possible explanation.

|9.10.05 @ 10:32PM|#

People still read Instapundit?

|9.10.05 @ 10:37PM|#

"seems to me reynold's real crime here was using the broad "THE PRESS" instead of "THE DNC OPERATIVES WHO RUN CNN"

I suggest you take a look at my comment from September 10, 2005 at 6:26 PM.

...and if you can't find anything there, please, get help somewhere.

|9.10.05 @ 10:56PM|#

"the group that the woman crossed the bridge with was made up of blacks and whites"

I was distracted while I was listening--I thought I'd download it and listen, but it won't be available until next week! ...I blame audible.com

...They were letting the whites through, were they not?

"In the stories I read, the people who were allowed to leave were foreign tourists, usually Brits our Australians. It would have been quite a diplomatic "situation" if a foreign national died in there."

The tourist I was listening to on the radio was indeed a British tourist. ...and that's a plausible explanation.

...I'm not sure it's fair though. Sometimes I ask supporters of the Iraq War questions about what the war did for America, and I get answers about what the war has done for Iraqis. I'm glad the British and Australian tourists are safe--really I am.

P.S. Just for the record, I cited both the stories I mentioned as evidence, not that our policy was specifically racist, but that it's too early to dismiss charges of racism entirely.

|9.10.05 @ 11:02PM|#

"So just where do the media elites get the idea they are above the law? "

in one romantic sense, the government is a bear, and journalists are a hunter trying to sneak up on the bear and kill it. but the bear is very, very old and very, very hungry. and the hunter is chained to a tree. and armed with a dustbuster.

it's a pretty odd thing.

Greg|9.10.05 @ 11:04PM|#

If the press was afraid to show bodies on 9/11 because they feared Arabs and Muslims would get beaten in the streets - a proposition Sanchez seems to share - then they have very little trust in the American people. TV viewers know what happened 9/11 - they wouldn't need to see bodies to go out and kick some local Muslim ass if they wanted. And how much of that happened? A handful of incidents. The press is showing bodies now to illustrate poor leadership. But Giuliani and Bush's response to 9/11 was strong, so they held back on the bodies. It's clear there's a message behind the presentation of the dead going on here, maybe just not what Glenn Reynolds thinks.

|9.10.05 @ 11:06PM|#

If the commentators on this post are regular, Libertarian minded, Reason readers, it's sad to see how so many Libertarians infected by Bush hating liberalism. The hypocrisy displayed by CNN during this episode as compared to their 9/11 coverage is striking and clear. The attempts of the Bush hating commentators to defend CNN are pathetic and laughable. Implying that censorship is OK if it's to protect against a possible anti Muslim backlash but not OK if CNN, and the rest of the MSM, is pushing a false Bush-is-to-blame backlash? Conservatives are just as hypocritical because it was they who were pushing the release gruesome 9/11 pics while they are against the release of similarly grusome Katrina pics today? Possibly. But that doesn't dispute the hypocrisy and bias of CNN. And I don't think the hypocrisy of a few partisan individuals (as far as I know, no suits were filed or commissions named to look into the embargoing of 9/11 pics) equates to the hypcorisy of a supposedly objective media organization. Dying vs dead? Give me a break? As if CNN ever showed the splattered mush of a dead 9/11 jumper victim. The closest thing to a clear thinking pro CNN argument on this post was the one made by SP at 3:28 on 9/10. Yes, I agree, that individuals and the press have the right to take pictures in public. And it may be premature to accuse CNN of hypocrisy considering they haven't acutually broadcast any such pics of the Katrina aftermath to date (as far as I know). But I disagree. Glenn wasn't disputing anyone's rights. He was implying hypocrisy. Glenn claimed that CNN wants to show dead bodies. Is that a fair claim? Of course it is. SP implies that CNN may want to simply take the pictures for historical reasons and not disseminate them to the general public. That's like saying that Hugh Heffner takes pictures of pretty girls for his own personal pleasure. Again, Glenn's post didn't question anyone's right, only CNN's motives. SP claims that Glenn's comparison is "irrelevant" because CNN has not yet published any such pics. The comparison is hardly "irrelevant". If CNN's hypocritical efforts can be quickly exposed, and broadly disseminated, maybe CNN indeed will think twice about disseminating gruesome Katrina pics. If not "irrelevant" then the comparison could possibly be characterised as unfair if it were not for CNN's recent pattern and record of anti Bush bias. Remember when the surrepticious pics were taken of the returning coffins of the Iraq war dead in an Army transport plane. Did CNN proclaim to the world that those pics should just go on microfiche for future historians? No, Paula Zahn disseminated them to the world. After how many criticisms and complaints of Bush and FEMA did CNN first report (if they've reported at all): that Nagin didn't even implement a perfectly good evacuation plan; the picture of the flooded school buses; the full meaning wasted opportunity and mayoral imcompetence of the flooded school buses; the fact that it was LA officials that blocke Red Cross supplies from the Superdome and Convention Center; that the Gov wasted 24 hours before she allowed law enforcement in the area to be Federalized; that Federal money was not lacking in mainting the dykes - LA received more Army Corps of Engineer money than any other state in the country; that LA wasted the Federal money they did receive by choosing to spend it on other projects instead of maintaining, or even improving, the dykes; that LA left unclaimed millions more of matching Federal dollars that could have been used for maintaining and improving the dykes; etc; etc. Given the obvious record of bias in all the MSM media coverage, if may be unkind, but it certainly is not unfair to question the motives of CNN. For the past 50 years, or so, the American press has had two primary motivations: the first is to support liberal power; the second is to make money through ratings and circulation. If salacious material can be used to make money without hurting liberal power (Katrina; minorities portrayed as victimized by Bush), that's good. If using salacious material would make money but also hurt liberal power (9/11; whites could be portrayed and victimized by minorities), that's bad. That's the hypocrisy!

|9.10.05 @ 11:06PM|#

"it's a pretty odd thing."

...and it gets weirder 'cause, unless I'm mistaken, the bear's obsessed with the dustbuster.

|9.10.05 @ 11:22PM|#

On Sept 11, 2001 a French camera man follow firemen into WTC. He saw a burning body in the lobby. He instintivily turn his camera away from the body. He didn't think " I need to film that burning body for history. It my duty film that burning corpse. No one will be upset, and if they are their just uptight prudes. ". That the difference between being Human and being a Ghoul !

Now to be fair it could be CNN just wants to take up valueable space on search boats to shoot pictures of the rescuers efforts, that might occasionaly show dead people . Which through no fault of their own will generate great profits.

|9.10.05 @ 11:24PM|#

"If the press was afraid to show bodies on 9/11 because they feared Arabs and Muslims would get beaten in the streets - a proposition Sanchez seems to share - then they have very little trust in the American people."

----Comment by: Greg at September 10, 2005 11:04 PM

Perhaps I misunderstood his post? Can you point to what it was--specifically--that you read in Julian's post that made you think he shares this opinion?

Let me refresh your memory--here's part of his post:

"PowerLine agrees, which as a rough rule of thumb, should hint there's something wrong with the logic there. Perhaps it's that George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets?"

...Oh, and bob...

"If the commentators on this post are regular, Libertarian minded, Reason readers, it's sad to see how so many Libertarians infected by Bush hating liberalism."

Are people who oppose the Bush Administration wrong by definition?

"Implying that censorship is OK if it's to protect against a possible anti Muslim backlash but not OK if CNN, and the rest of the MSM, is pushing a false Bush-is-to-blame backlash?"

I don't see any comments implying that censorship is okay. ...but maybe I missed one, can you point it out?

|9.10.05 @ 11:38PM|#

Dudes, the liberal media conspiracy is so vast that they've even taken over the science publishers.

Just the other day I saw an actual science journal pushing "evolution".

Why do science publishers hate this president so much?

|9.10.05 @ 11:56PM|#

All the 9/11 bodies were pulverized and made for bad television. Within a week the footage of jumpers and window ledgers were impossible to find. I suppose this was a good thing, but it was not awfully consistent with anything else going on from Nip n' Tuck to Katrina.

Television is death, mayhem, the ghoulish, the lame, the sensational...and the pathetic.

Get over it and turn the friggin' thing off.

|9.10.05 @ 11:57PM|#

Scientists are evil.

Why won't they produce the cure for those that are infected by Bush hating liberalism?

|9.11.05 @ 12:01AM|#

Politics brings out the worst in people.

Or maybe it just brings out the worst people...

|9.11.05 @ 12:05AM|#

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

Most folks don't use facts and logic to determine what they believe, what they believe is a function of whom they trust.

...That's why so many people on both the right and the left get so upset about what whatever television station is showing or not showing. ...Sock Puppet Republicans say, "You can't trust that channel--they're liberal and they hate the President!" Sock Puppet Democrats say, "You can't trust that channel--they're racist warmongers and they hate the poor!"

Meanwhile, most people get their original core political beliefs from their parents and watch whatever television station only to reaffirm what they already believe.

...and the reason certain television stations didn't show splattered Americans was because they didn't want to piss off their viewers. ...not out of the fear that Americans 'd go beat up the local Muslims or because left wing executives were afraid that American's 'd support the President. It was out of the fear that American television viewers would stop watching their network's broadcast and start watching some other station that didn't show Americans splattered all over the street. Network executives were afraid their ratings would go down and that they wouldn't be able to charge as much for their commercial air time.

For Pete's sake, some of these conspiracy theorists are certifiable.

Like I said, it's normal to look to networks that generally agree with you to affirm the general opinions you inherited from your parents. However, if you find yourself obsessed with conspiracy theories, or if you can't think of anything the President has done wrong over the last five years... If you can't think of anything the President has done right over the past five years, or if you feel like you have to find out whether people support or oppose the President before you can figure out whether they're right or wrong on the facts...

...Then I suggest you call a local referral service and get some counseling 'cause something's wrong.

|9.11.05 @ 12:17AM|#

I'm a little late into this discussion. I think pretty much most people who post here are intelligent no matter what politics you choose (I?m a ?leave me alone libertarian,? myself?). Why not let whatever media show whatever they want?
I think if a media outlet is focusing on one particular aspect (say dead bodies in New Orleans), I think we can deduce what their motivation is (Bush?s fault, local gov?s fault, etc.). At least we have that choice. We can also choose not to watch it. I think there are enough sources of information that we are way beyond not only the big networks, but also cable networks.
If we think certain media are exploiting dead bodies, I think the reaction will reflect that if it?s too much or not. At least we won?t have to deduce the government?s motivation for restricting access. Now here?s a point of discussion: does showing the dead bodies of people before families are informed outweigh the emotional impact to the families versus the greater good of knowing the news behind what happened?

|9.11.05 @ 12:18AM|#

Just the other day I saw an actual science journal pushing "evolution".

Why do science publishers hate this president so much?

Thanks. That made me laugh.

Rob Sterling|9.11.05 @ 12:30AM|#

"By chance, are you the Rob Sterling who used to manage for the CVK Group in the early 90s?"

Well, this is the first time anyone's brought up that in a while. Yes, I am. (And here I thought I was famous entirely for my dotcom 'sploits.) Were you a client, an employee, somebody I fucked over or a combination of two (or three) of the above?

(Somehow I have a feeling this is going to get ugly.)

Back then I used to look forward to the Cato Institute receptions with the free food, flirting with Virginia Postrel, inviting P.J. O'Rourke to keg parties, being hit on by Jonathan Rauch, etc. (Well, maybe not that last part.) I actually subscribed to Reason in the early 90s.

Funny how libertarianism's appeal drains away when you stop wearing sneakers to work.

|9.11.05 @ 12:30AM|#

Perhaps it's that George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets?

Interesting theory. Could you explain who it was who would have been likely to be beaten to death if CNN had opted to show the bodies of Hussein's victims?

Also, was it irresponsible for the media to (repeatedly) show the Rodney King tape, since that encouraged people to do violence to police officers?

LE|9.11.05 @ 2:04AM|#

Is this a discussion thread from Democratic Underground?

|9.11.05 @ 6:39AM|#

The MSM's insistence on showing the bodies of 9/11 victims clearly proves their liberal bias. Not respecting the privacy of these innocent victims of terrorism, the callous MSM seeks to remind Americans of al Qaida's power. The repeated use of sickening, gruesome images is obviously a politically motivated effort to scare the nation - to help the terrorists by increasing the psychological effect of the vile crimes committed on 9/11. We all know that terrorists seek publicity for their depraved acts. Well, the MSM is eager to give it to them by pushing pictures of victims of terrorism down America's throat. The Media's behavior proves that they're objectively on the other side.

|9.11.05 @ 7:16AM|#

I wonder what the indecency cops at the FCC would say about images of people turned into red splatters on the street.

Never attribute to liberal conspiracy that which can be explained by bureaucratic asshattery.

|9.11.05 @ 7:39AM|#

Oh, and Tom Crick, What The F**k, Over!

Bob writes:
"If the commentators on this post are regular, Libertarian minded, Reason readers, it's sad to see how so many Libertarians infected by Bush hating liberalism."

Tom Crick responds:
Are people who oppose the Bush Administration wrong by definition?

Bob responds: Now, I can see how you might be offended by my lumping together all the critics, on this thread, of Glenn's comments with Bush hating liberals. I'm sorry. That may be unfair. But, to me, they sound a lot alike: they're both failing to acknowledge obvious hypocrisy when it's presented to them. That said, however, could you please explain to me how I even came close, in my original comments, to implying that all opponents of the Bush Administration are generally wrong by definition. After all the lengthy analysis I provided in my original post, that's your best shot at me? That's just sloppy thinking, Tom. Let's do a quick review, Tom; it may help you. This thread is about Glenn's original implication that CNN's efforts to photograph the dead bodies of Katrina is an example of their hypocrisy (given their position of embargoing the gruesome pictures of 9/11) that results from their left wing bias. Now, all my remarks were focused on defending Glen's narrow implication. I provided numerous examples of biased press coverage related to Katrina. I did not write about abortion, the Iraq War, Terry Schiavo, evolution (unlike some of Glen's critics on this thread), or any other of the many topics on which Bush has vociferous opponents. So how can that be construed as claiming that Bush's opponents are generally wrong by definition. I disagree with the President on many issues. The press coverage of Katrina, however, is another matter. Given the evidence we have now, I think it's indisputably clear to any rational, intelligent, person that, to the extent government can be blamed at all for the death and destruction caused by Katrina, then at least 90% of the blame should go to the city government, state government and other liberal groups like the save our wetlands people who fought in court, tooth and nail, every attempt strengthen the dyke system in, and around, New Orleans. And yet 90% of the press coverage is focused on blaming Bush. Again, the anti Bush bias of the press in general, and CNN in particular (as well CNN's hypocrisy that results from it), is striking and clear; acknowledging it and pointing it out has nothing to do with whether or not he, or his opponents, are wrong on any other issue.


In addition, Bob writes:
"Implying that censorship is OK if it's to protect against a possible anti Muslim backlash but not OK if CNN, and the rest of the MSM, is pushing a false Bush-is-to-blame backlash?"

Tom Crank responds:
I don't see any comments implying that censorship is okay. ...but maybe I missed one, can you point it out?

Bob responds: Er, Helllloooo. How about the comment by jf at September 10, 2005 02:01 PM:

Is there any purpose to showing the Katrina victims? I don't know. Is there any reason NOT to show the Katrina victims? Probably not. Was there a good reason NOT to show the 9/11 victims? Again, probably not.
Unless you're truly concerned that the ignorant masses would have risen up and bashed in the heads of every Muslim, Sikh, and anyone else with dirt-colored skin while chanting "USA! USA!".

Bob continues: The point is clear in this post. This person believes there is no good reason not to show the Katrina pics but does provide a good reason not to show 9/11 pics (a potential anti dark skinned backlash in the U.S.). Therefore, this person is clearly implying that, because the press had a good reason, self censorship in this case is okay.

Bob continues: Or how about Julian Sanchez's original post. In critiquing a comment by Greg at September 10, 2005 11:04 PM, you seem to dispute Greg's claim that Julian share's the proposition that Arabs and Muslims would get beaten in the streets if the press didn't censor itself by not showing the gruesome pictures of 9/11 to the public. To fully evaluate the claim let's look at Glenn's original post and Julian's response.


Glenn writes:

THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.

I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?


To which Julian Responds:

PowerLine agrees, which as a rough rule of thumb, should hint there's something wrong with the logic there. Perhaps it's that George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets?

Bob continues in response to Tom Crank: I don't know where you're not getting it here. Glenn clearly seems to be implying press hypocrisy resulting from liberal bias. While Julian clearly seems to be saying that, no, the situations are not similar, they are different, there is no hypocrisy here because Glenn's logic is "wrong". As evidence of how "wrong" Glenn's logic is, Julian points out his view that "George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets." The implication clearly is that Muslims and Arabs, however, could be beaten to death in the streets if 9/11 pics were shown to the public. Therefore, clearly, in Julian's view the situations are completely different and that it was okay for the press to censor itself by not showing the gruesome 9/11 pics.

Well, Tom Crank, I hope this adequately responds to your points.

|9.11.05 @ 9:19AM|#

Tom Crick - I didn't find anything useful at your 6:26 link.

Are you really so committed to the notion that CNN is objective that you can't acknowledge their hypocrisy when you see it?

Tom Crick = Eason Jordan.

|9.11.05 @ 9:28AM|#

Agree with those who are saying: what the fuck are they talking about?

I have also seen loads of video and photos of those who died on 9/11, including the jumpers. In fact, the jumpers are the hardest to forget.

Are they just making shit up to kill time, or what?

|9.11.05 @ 9:38AM|#

Showing 9/11 victims would have inflamed Americans against muslims but showing the prison pictures thousands of times on the front pages of US papers, which was sure to "inflame" muslims against Americans, was ok ? Anyone who watches "Lost" would have seen more real torture than the terrorists have been subjected to at AG or Gitmo. When your definition of evil (Americans bad, everyone else is just "different") is so twisted its hard to have a real discussion about any of this.

|9.11.05 @ 9:46AM|#

"Is this a discussion thread from Democratic Underground?"

Seriously. Calling Glenn Reynolds a "Mad Dog conservative" or saying anything else that aren't words to effect "Glenn Reynolds is a reasonable guy who is wrong about X" is really marginalizing yourself to the point where you look like the kind of person who would post irrational comments on an internet blog to no good end.

|9.11.05 @ 11:35AM|#

Ah, now I get it, having now breezed through the comments a little more.

Bush's one and only identifying tag as Prez has been 911.

So that's why the dittoheads are out in force to protect the turf.

Makes more sense now. This is, in normal reality, a non-issue. But when you're a one trick pony, you gotta let the dogs out when somebody threatens the trick.

|9.11.05 @ 11:38AM|#

Rob Serling writes:

I've carefully read through all the responses and not one of you has refuted Instapundit. Fact is, most press organs did what they could to minimize public reaction to 9/11 because public rage aided Bush, and now they're doing the opposite, because they believe public rage harms Bush. It's very simple.

I had a teacher whose husband was an AP photographer. He was at the Twin Towers from 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, September 11, 2001 to 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, September 12. He shot photographs of the towers falling and of people leaping to their deaths, without any thought as to how it would harm the President. His only thought was for those poor souls killed in that horrendous manner, to the point where he had a nervous breakdown later in the week and was unable to return to work.

He thought first about the victims, then his photos. Bush was far far far far far down his list of priorities.

And for those of you who think we saw the worst of 9/11 casualties on TV: we did not. We never saw people reduced to hamburger on TV - and yes, that's what the jumpers looked like when they hit the street - conical meat patties. We never saw the charred corpses of the people who were set on fire in the North Tower elevators and erupted out into the lobby, screaming, or the bodies of all the other people who were in the lobby that morning. We never saw the cadavers out on the street south of the WTC complex, remains of those who were doused with flaming jet fuel that fell from the sky and burned to death - one victim survived for six weeks with no skin.

Put yourself in the TV producer's shoes. You are presented with footage of people turned to hamburger, and photos of charred bodies. Those remains have not been identified, and the process will take months, if the victims can ever really be identified. Families will know nothing about their children for months on end -- unless an image of body comes up on you network, and you se your husabnd, your wife or your child turned into charred cinders.

The key is how to tell the story while showing respect to the dead. Hell, if images are all that matter, then why don't we show the remains of John Wayne Gacy's victims? After all, we can't get the horror of a man raping and murdering children without the images -- can we? I mean, the media must obviously be trying to dampen our enthusiasm for the death penalty if they don't have the cojones to show the corpses of dead children.

All of a sudden the press wants to show the bodies of the dead? Please. It's obvious what's going on. There are people who want to raise America up and people who want to bring it down - CNN falls into the latter category.

The question of displaying bodies is never easy for editors -- who are human beings, despite what some bloggers would like you to believe. You don't want to revel in the gory details of the death, but you don't want to hide from the reality of the situation, either. When contractors were attacked, burned and strung up on a bridge in Iraq, most outlets obscured the bodies -- not because showing them would have helped (or hurt) Bush, but because the story could be told effectively without seeing those charred corpses.

The main question for most media outlets is whether the body is identifiable as an individual person, and whether the story can be told without them. As far as I've seen, most media aren't showing the bodies of the victims of Hurricane Katrina. There have been many print descriptions (like the NYT's horrifying story about a corpse rotting in the middle of a New Orleans street), but visual images are at a minimum. It's always a difficult call, but the reasons to do it are rarely, if ever, political.

|9.11.05 @ 12:11PM|#

Hey Joe,

If those with whom you disagree "fascist shithead[s]," then why comment at all. It's not as if you can really hope to persuade such shitheads.

But perhaps you'll agree that you have nothing substantive to say, but merely like to express your individuality.

|9.11.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Calling Glenn Reynolds a "Mad Dog conservative" [...] is really marginalizing yourself

Seriously.

Of course, calling Reason "left-wing" or "liberal" is equally ridiculous. Reason doesn't really have any discernable politics anymore -- just attitude.

David Earney|9.11.05 @ 1:22PM|#

There are, in fact, three people who can be beaten to death in the streets over this matter.

Mayor Nagin
Governor Blanco
President Bush

CNN's motivations are purely political.

Rob Sterling|9.11.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Brian, I appreciate the time you spent on your response, but this doesn't have anything to do with the photographers and cameramen.

A decision was made at the managerial/editorial level in many American media organs to avoid showing the grisliest 9/11 footage and photos, and even to stop showing the more dramatic footage on TV after about two weeks. Why was this done? We know why - they were very open about it. It inflamed American patriotic fervor, and thus strengthened Bush. Media lefties, as has been noted elsewhere, commonly don't like American patriotic fervor and commonly don't like Bush.

Now they want to do the reverse - show the grisliest footage and photos. They went to court to be able to acquire such footage. We can infer their current, undisclosed motives from their prior, disclosed motives.

Jesse Walker|9.11.05 @ 2:39PM|#

Is this a discussion thread from Democratic Underground?

We need a new Godwin's Law to account for people who think anything remotely different from the Little Green Footballs worldview is indistinguishable from Democratic Underground.

|9.11.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Rob,

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Newsroom managers are extremely sensitive to accusations of exploitation (you may not believe it, but it's true -- these people have to face their children like we do). Dead body debates are always the most heated and draining. There are often divergent viewpoints about the reality vs. sensationalism, and they can be carried to extremes.

We may have to agree to disagree. I personally have never seen any decision about images, or lack thereof, to be motivated by political ends. There's usually far more important things to debate, first and foremost the actual need for images of corpses.

|9.11.05 @ 3:01PM|#

I don't think you have to be a big fan of Bush to appreciate that the mainstream media are overwhelmingly hostile to him.

Lowney|9.11.05 @ 5:10PM|#

Brian,

Thank you for your very reasonable and spot on comments. It is refreshing here. As someone who spent most of his life in newsrooms and has photographed way too much death and too many dead bodies, I am amazed at the silliness of this so-called debate. Journalism is not a perfect science and journalists are human beings. Mistakes are made and some times there are poor judgement calls. But to suggest that there is some national media agenda either way is bordering on the insane.

Some times dead bodies are part of the story and if that makes you lose your breakfast, too bloody bad. If images or a mention of the dead spark debate and questions about way there are dead bodies, then the journalists did their job.

If you are so hyper sensitive about your political views that the sight of death causes a knee-jerk reaction to spin it for a political party and scream conspiracy, then perhaps you should take a step back and think about the dead as people and not as some political tool.

Regarding the dead body vs. the dying debate: More insane silliness. Photographing bodies after a tragic event sucks. And so does photographing people dying. I have done both and they are haunting experiences to say the least. Perhaps the only thing worse is being in a filthy refugee camp, photographing the lost and battered--often the surviving friends and family of the dead. They are alive and have to try to carry on. To some, that is worse than death. They are all part of the story, the living and the dead. And we owe it to them all and to ourselves to look at it all, especially the aspects that may be hard to stomach.

|9.11.05 @ 5:17PM|#

"That said, however, could you please explain to me how I even came close, in my original comments, to implying that all opponents of the Bush Administration are generally wrong by definition. After all the lengthy analysis I provided in my original post, that's your best shot at me? That's just sloppy thinking, Tom. Let's do a quick review, Tom; it may help you."

Bob wrote this--and much more--in response to a question I asked him. ...It was a question with a yes or no answer.

"The point is clear in this post. This person believes there is no good reason not to show the Katrina pics but does provide a good reason not to show 9/11 pics (a potential anti dark skinned backlash in the U.S.). Therefore, this person is clearly implying that, because the press had a good reason, self censorship in this case is okay.

You'd have to torture the hell out of that comment to make it advocate censorship. ...and very few libertarians would argue that broadcasters shouldn't be allowed to not broadcast whatever they want.

...That's what you're decrying--self censorship?

"Therefore, clearly, in Julian's view the situations are completely different and that it was okay for the press to censor itself by not showing the gruesome 9/11 pics."

Julian, apparently, considers the two situations different. It's also apparent that Julian thinks that media outlets should be free to not broadcast whatever they don't want to broadcast.

...It's not clear to me that Julian's observation that broadcasters should be free to not broadcast what they please flows directly from his observation that the two situations are different.

Are you suggesting that we should force broadcasters to broadcast certain things? ...or are you taking issue with our reluctance to see this as direct evidence of liberal bias?

Is the realization that certain media outlets have certain biases supposed to induce existential panic?

P.S. Why did you call me a crank?

|9.11.05 @ 5:43PM|#

Thank you for this post. I e-mailed him basically the same remark right after he posted his snark, but he apparently is unmoved. I'm glad he periodically denies being a conservative, given how much that undermines his credibility....

|9.11.05 @ 5:47PM|#

Oh. Apparently he did post a response from a reader who makes the argument you make, but only to mock it as unreasonable and absurd. I'm glad he's such a moderate.

|9.11.05 @ 5:51PM|#

"Tom Crick - I didn't find anything useful at your 6:26 link."

I'm sorry to hear that. I'd hoped that Cavanaugh's counter-arguments to that conspiracy theorist who thought 9/11 was perpetrated by the President might be helpful. Short of that, I understand Rick Ross helps cult victims and others who idealize figureheads and have somehow lost the ability to think critically.

...Of course, if you can think critically, it really doesn't matter what some biased news agency broadcasts or doesn't broadcast.

"Are you really so committed to the notion that CNN is objective that you can't acknowledge their hypocrisy when you see it?"

No.

I don't watch CNN, generally speaking, and I don't care about CNN. I don't watch or care about Fox News either. I get most of my news from print and sources on the web--all of them have biases.

...Sometimes I catch the news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, NBC or PBS--I know they're biased too, but I don't really care.

I also don't watch or care about Desperate Housewives, The Amazing Race, Will and Grace, Fear Factor, Life with Jim, Survivor, American Idol or Judging Amy. That's the short list--there are many more programs that I don't watch or care about.

I like cooking shows, gardening shows, Battlestar Galactica, fights, CNBC while the market's trading, football and, although I don't understand Spanish, I like watching the hot chicks on Spanish speaking networks like Univision. I used to really like Farscape. I guess I'm just biased.

Tom Crick = Eason Jordan.

I don't know who Eason Jordan is, and I don't think I care.

Rob Sterling|9.11.05 @ 9:11PM|#

Lowney - It's not absurd to attribute a mass-motive or will behind the actions of disparate individuals. Any reasonably intelligent person who favors one side or another can identify the "spin" his side is pursuing or going to pursue from context, 9 times out of 10, and join right in. For example, I received no instructions to come here and bash CNN's decision, nor did anyone else who has commented here criticizing Julian's post. But we're here, aren't we?

It is beyond dispute that most of the media worked to soften the blow of 9/11 in the United States. See this . The effort included refraining from showing the worst imagery that was captured.

The media (CNN, specifically) is now pursuing the opposite course with Katrina, and it is obvious why it has arrived at a different decision this time.

Similarly, in both of the last two presidential elections the TV networks' election day coverage has miscalled state returns or breached their supposed journalistic ethics in a fashion that has been damaging to George Bush's campaign. In 2000 there was the bad Florida call, BEFORE polls had closed in the Republican panhandle, which suppressed GOP turnout there and elsewhere. And in 2004 there were the stupendously incompetent and inaccurate Zogby exit poll results for several states in contention east of the Mississippi, leaked to Wonkette and other leftist blogs by persons unknown, and dutifully spread.

Have you noticed the common thread? It's always George Bush's campaign that's damaged. And in 2008 I'm confident there will be another huge error or breach that will influence the voting behavior of late afternoon and evening voters, and that it will aid the Democrat. Maybe I'm just jaded?

I'm not suggesting a conspiracy - it's not an either/or proposition between conspiracy and coincidence. There's plenty of room in between the two, and the more wired we get the more nuanced becomes the pathways information can take.

|9.11.05 @ 9:41PM|#

"I'm not suggesting a conspiracy - it's not an either/or proposition between conspiracy and coincidence. There's plenty of room in between the two, and the more wired we get the more nuanced becomes the pathways information can take."

You're a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.

"Have you noticed the common thread? It's always George Bush's campaign that's damaged. And in 2008 I'm confident there will be another huge error or breach that will influence the voting behavior of late afternoon and evening voters, and that it will aid the Democrat."

...and you're sure to find it.

|9.11.05 @ 10:24PM|#

"...It's not clear to me that Julian's observation that broadcasters should be free to not broadcast what they please flows directly from his observation that the two situations are different."

I did a terrible job with that, so just for the record...

It wasn't clear to me that Julian predicated his observation that broadcasters should be free to not broadcast whatever they please on the observation that the two situations were different.

The two ideas stand independently, and that's all I was trying to say.

...Julian's addendum, with the bit about how he would have been okay with showing everything, confirms this, does it not?

Rob Sterling|9.11.05 @ 10:49PM|#

I'm not looking for anything, Tom, we're not talking about fnords. It's right there, presenting itself for viewing. If you don't like the election night 2000 & 2004 comparisons, look at the difference in treatment of the Bush ANG story and the Kerry Swift Boat story. It doesn't take a conspiracy - it just takes a few people with shared sympathies. How more obvious can this be?

Here's an example: what are the chances of a coin flip going heads? 50%, right? And what if you get two in a row heads? Still 50%? What about four in a row? Or eight? Or 15?

See, if you get a substantial number of flips in a row that are all heads, then it becomes obvious that the odds, at least for that particular coin, are not 50%. The game is rigged.

Why does information get passed along? Let's stipulate for this argument that information gets passed along because it's interesting or useful. Some individuals may have perverse or personal reasons for spreading information, but if it's not interesting or useful, broad spread doesn't happen. It takes a large number of people to spread information, and they are usually acting spontaneously without any kind of conspiracy.

On the other hand, how does information get blocked? Some individuals may have perverse or personal reasons NOT to spread information. If it's early enough in the spread, failure to pass it along can kill the information. It doesn't matter what other people think about it because they never see it.

So it's easier for one person to successfully block interesting or useful information than it is for one person to successfully spread it.

When you have an ideologically uniform, or nearly uniform, press room, you get the block effect. Negative information about Bush was allowed to pass on and spread because it was interesting, but negative information about Kerry had trouble making it out - it was blocked by individuals who didn't care for the implications and possible consequences, or who simply disregarded it because it was at odds with their preconceptions.

|9.11.05 @ 10:52PM|#

I had no idea that there was some sort of controversy involving Kerry's Vietnam service.

Damn that liberal media for not informing me!

Rob Sterling|9.11.05 @ 11:13PM|#

Heh. Point is, if you'd relied on the MSM, you wouldn't know. Every news channel and network news department except Fox treated the Swift Vets like redheaded stepchildren, if they dealt with the issue at all.

So the net effect is that you dozens of Vietnam vets who served with or contemporaneously to Kerry in the Swift Boats who couldn't get their story out via the MSM. Most notably, Dan Rather ignored the story, despite DOZENS of men giving testimonials. But then ONE guy with some fake documents completely suckered Rather.

|9.12.05 @ 12:47AM|#

Matt Drudge claiming on his radio show tonight that a New York Times story about Katrina conspiracy theories on the internet is an effort by the New York Times to smear and discredit bloggers...now that's a little closer to completely nuts.

|9.12.05 @ 3:49AM|#

to the extent government can be blamed at all for the death and destruction caused by Katrina, then at least 90% of the blame should go to the city government, state government and other liberal groups like the save our wetlands people who fought in court, tooth and nail, every attempt strengthen the dyke system in, and around, New Orleans. And yet 90% of the press coverage is focused on blaming Bush.

This is so. Yet rim shots at the mayor and gov are red headed step children at best -- and the environmentalists get virtually zero mention. "Bush is being an Asshole about Katrina Victims" is the headline I've seen, far and wide.

Of course Crick and thoreau will tell us this is only our imagination if we see any BIAS in the MEDIA.

Let's see......people in NO got abused, Nagin was the first line of defense, the gov was the second line, they both failed -- and yet Bush is the asshole.

How rational -- and how entirely, perfectly, intellectually honest our MSM is, to point out the fact that Bush isn't the one who deserves a beating.

Oh, they mention it occassionally, perhaps once for every 10 times they run a story saying "Bush is accused to being a jerk about Katrina".

I don't think you have to be a big fan of Bush to appreciate that the mainstream media are overwhelmingly hostile to him.

I'll drink to that. And I'm NOT a Bush fan.

Bash Bush about Iraq. But slam the city and state idiots in LA, not Bush, when it comes to Katrina.

But the MSM has not done this, nor is it likely that they will.

Sterling|9.12.05 @ 8:45AM|#

Michelle Malkin has another huge example of lefty bias in the media this morning. Again, if you believe there is no liberal bias, then it would follow that the major screw-ups by the media would fall about equally on either side of the aisle. But since they almost always occur to the detriment of the Republican Party, that means something else is going on.

In this case, all these reporters were so eager to play gotcha at the president's expense that they neglected to check their facts, and now have made fools of themselves.

|9.12.05 @ 10:44AM|#

Good thing we have Michelle Malkin to straighten out all those biased media types.

Rob, were you a wingnut when you were a linestander, too?

|9.12.05 @ 10:50AM|#

"Every news channel and network news department except Fox treated the Swift Vets like redheaded stepchildren, if they dealt with the issue at all."

Notice how the actual validity and truthfulness of the Swift Boat operation's statement are completely irrelevant to this line of thinking. Kerry and his supporters say he served honorably, saved lives, performed heroically in battle, and shed his blood for his country. John O'Neil and a bunch of other people who never laid eyes on Kerry* said otherwise. There are two different stories, one of which favors George Bush, and the other which does not. Ergo, if the media does not treat them equally, they are doing so out of anti-Bush bias. Even with the thorough debunking of Kerry's detractors' claims, people like Rob will still show up and complain about this, because the story that helped Bush didn't get the same press coverage as the story that hurt him.

*Yes, one of Kerry's accusers - one - was actually on the boat with him. To the extent that he made statement of fact (a small extent, as most of what he said dealt with his feelings about his former CO), he was contradicted by every other person present at the events he described.

|9.12.05 @ 10:53AM|#

The environmentalists had been pushing for years to restore the wetlands that, in their natural state, would have reduced the storm's damage.

Yes, the liberal media has refused to attack environmentalists for their efforts to stop work that, oops, they actually weren't trying to stop, but were among the foremost advocates in support.

What was I just saying about the irrelevancy of facts?

Don't mind me, my imperial masters. Go on with creating realities.

|9.12.05 @ 11:23AM|#

Joe,

I understood that the levees and dyke-building itself harmed the environment. That is, there was a intractable problem: levee/(whatever engineering) buildup was needed to protect the city, but destroyed the enviro, which in turned made more levee buildup needed.

Am I wrong in this? I'm not sure where any sources for this stuff can be found.

|9.12.05 @ 11:54AM|#

I am not afraid. I will say this aloud. The media works hard to discredit Republicans. However, this does not work and somehow more Republicans are elected than ever before or lately. Is the media a double agent? Do they attack the President and Republicans openly to turn opinion against the MSM and gather sympathy for the President? Is it true Jack Welch used his position as CEO of GE to influence the coverage at NBC and the early call for Bush?

I don't know. I agree that disagreeing with Bush is disloyalty to Bush. Any instance of any information or statement that goes against Bush, Bush policies, Bush anything is an act of disloyalty, treason, if you will against Bush. It is either with us or against us.

Sometimes it seems that the media and people are not agreeing with Bush enough, they are not supporting Bush enough, they are being disloyal. This is so unfortunate. They hate Bush, yes, and Bush is president, so they hate America too.

I forgot what I was trying to say.

Oh, yeah, the media has published stories that are negative against Clinton, take your pick which one. This has zero relevance to what I have written.

What does have relevance is that as a consumer I have choice. I can find images I want of Saddam chopping off heads and arms, dead 9-11 bodies charred, smushed, crushed, etc., dead American soldiers, from several wars, dead Iraqi civilians, dead children, dead New Orleans bodies with their throat slit and pockets stuff with looted merchandise from Rite Aid (what was really stolen? The American Dream) dead Presidents, Dead Kurt Cobain, I can view as much death as I want. I can swim in a visual sea of mortality. It is awesome.

What are we talking about?

Yes, America hates itself. Yes America implies two continents and dozens of countries but the United States of America has never stopped doing what it does best.

I think I've clearly made my point.

America, when will you be worthy of your Freedom Walkers?

America, when will you earn the trust of your SS payroll tax payers?

America, when will it be obvious that the country is kind of silly?

America, everybody looking to blame everybody for things beyond comprehension should remember that it doesn't matter. We are all going to die.

And if we are lucky, pictures from that moment will appear on CNN and The New York Times and the official White House/ Pentagon website.

Amen!

|9.12.05 @ 12:22PM|#

What I'm getting from Rod Sterling is that even if there isn't a vast left wing conspiracy, the main stream media--with their biases--behave as if there was one.

...I keep getting from everyone else that there's a bias in the main stream media--as if this painfully obvious fact were some kind of mind blowing realization. ...once again, is the realization that certain media outlets have certain biases supposed to induce existential panic?

I think I'm starting to understand what you people are saying.

You think the fact that certain media outlets were reluctant to broadcast images of splattered Americans on the sidewalk is irrefutable evidence of a secret media bias. ...Especially when compared to those mainstream media outlets that want to show images of Katrina victims.

Maybe you guys 'll start to understand a little bit of what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that the reluctance to broadcast images of splattered Americans is easily attributable to other factors. I think this is what Julian is saying also.

...But that doesn't mean there isn't any media bias. I will add this--media bias ain't no secret. I contend that most people know about media bias, and they either like it or they just don't care.

Rob Sterling|9.12.05 @ 1:46PM|#

That's close enough, Tom. To have a conspiracy there must be conspirers, and I don't believe there are conspirers. But I do believe that similar blinders and attention to similar culture cues tends to homogenize the output of most mainstream news sources, and thus guarantees a steady stream of news and "errors" that benefit the Democrats at the expense of the Republicans.

Joe - I remember you, I think. You had a brother who was around sometimes, right?

I happen to believe that the Swift Boat Vets were telling the truth about John Kerry's conduct in Vietnam. But it doesn't really matter - they had the affidavits of dozens of men, all of whom served either on the same boat, the same squadron or the same command unit as Kerry. And the MSM ignored them. In court, two credible witnesses are enough to convict. In this case we had dozens.

On the other hand, there was a story with far, far less grounding and evidence than the Swifties' story, based entirely on some obvious forgeries with no chain of custody. Unlike the Swifties' story, it was aired before a national broadcast audience on 60 Minutes. The reporter who aired the report never fully retracted it, even though the forgeries were completely exposed and demolished by bloggers.

What amazed me most about the story was how many people (lefties all) saw the document overlay of the forgeries on top of the same words typed with the default Word document settings, and yet still denied that the docs were forgeries.

And I'm not saying you have to believe one story and not the other. But you DO have to recognize that there were two profoundly different standards of proof going on. Once again, that disparity was to the detriment of the Republican. It always is.

R C Dean|9.12.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Rob is talking good common sense here, folks.

Read what he says - he agrees with you, joe, for instance, that there is no left-wing media conspiracy.

All he is saying is that people who share a lot of opinions and a common outlook tends to filter information the same way and pass on a common message. Surely this is uncontroversial, yes?

He is also saying that a lot of people in the reporting and editorial side of the mass media in this coutry share a lot of opinions and have a common outlook. This should also be pretty uncontroversial, given the poll results showing that they tend to vote the same way, have common socio-economic and educational backgrounds, etc.

At that point, you should be able to do the math. There are plenty of counterexamples, sure, but I think the broad trend is pretty clear, and pretty clearly explainable.

R C Dean|9.12.05 @ 3:37PM|#

We need a new Godwin's Law to account for people who think anything remotely different from the Little Green Footballs worldview is indistinguishable from Democratic Underground.

Don't forget the corrollary to account for people who think anything remotely different from the Democratic Underground worldview is indistinguishable from Little Green Footballs.

SHERRY PARSHLEY|9.13.05 @ 10:41AM|#

SHERRY PASRSHLEY

the one reason for the taliban to win

git dat skank sherry under a Burka an don't let her out.

phew dat gonna be ripe unner der

snort................phew

signed
snorpht fingerpoot

|9.30.05 @ 10:27AM|#

first and farmost i think that 9-11 and katrina are to different to compare and that the dead bodies should be shown to show how stupid our federal gov.can be. we must not forget that katrina was a natural disaster that could not have been prevented but 9-11 was a result from us putting people in high places who should not have been there. vote.