Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Rant: Media Double Standard

Media Media Bias

  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 10:53 PM

Media Hypocricy Alert:

Apparently, it's okay to show what Iraq claims are US-caused civilian deaths, but most of the networks refused to show the Iraq POW video.

So, let me make sure I get this straight:

-- Video of civilian deaths which may or may not be caused by US: Okay to show.
-- Video of cold, calculated POW brutality by Iraq: Not okay to show.

Here's the excuses to use:

"The video serves no purpose". I beg to differ; showing the enemy we're fighting is quite relevant and purposeful.
"It's too disturbing". But it's less disturbing when people are dead from a missile? <Be it from US or Iraq>.

I can stream over to MSNBC.com now, and download video of alleged civilian deaths for free. But if I want to see how Iraq treats POW's, I'll have to buy a huge friggin' satelite and get Al Jazeera.

Unbelievable...
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:00 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 26 2003, 11:44 AM, said:

Media Hypocricy Alert:

Apparently, it's okay to show what Iraq claims are US-caused civilian deaths, but most of the networks refused to show the Iraq POW video.

So, let me make sure I get this straight:

-- Video of civilian deaths which may or may not be caused by US: Okay to show.
-- Video of cold, calculated POW brutality by Iraq: Not okay to show.

Here's the excuses to use:

"The video serves no purpose". I beg to differ; showing the enemy we're fighting is quite relevant and purposeful.
"It's too disturbing". But it's less disturbing when people are dead from a missile? <Be it from US or Iraq>.

I can stream over to MSNBC.com now, and download video of alleged civilian deaths for free. But if I want to see how Iraq treats POW's, I'll have to buy a huge friggin' satelite and get Al Jazeera.

Unbelievable...
Rov, how would you feel if it was someone you loved, or the body of someone you love, being shown over and over again on national TV?

I don't think it has anything to do with anything other than showing some sensitivity to the families of the POWs and the dead folks whose bodies were on that one video.

If you really feel the need to watch it, I understand that there are several internet sites that have reposted it, along with still pictures. But I certainly wouldn't want the families of those poor people to be bombarded with replays of the video.

That's not hypocrisy - it's common decency.

Edited by Rhea, 26 March 2003 - 11:02 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:03 PM

Quote

Rov, how would you feel if it was someone you loved, or the body of someone you love, being shown over and over again on national TV?

But that's an argument against *both* videos. I could live with it if it was one way or the other; the double standard is what gets me.

The same thing could happen to someone getting CNN who has friends/family living in Iraq. <I know CNN is in several Arab nations. I don't know which ones.>

Quote

I don't think it has anything to do with anything other than showing some sensitivity to the families of the POWs and the dead folks whose bodies were on that one video.

That's a fair enough media decision.

But pick one philosophy; don't pick and choose. Show *both*, or show neither.

IMO.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#4 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:04 PM

Rhea, on Mar 26 2003, 12:51 PM, said:

You edited.. hang on

Quote

If you really feel the need to watch it, I understand that there are several internet sites that have reposted it, along with still pictures. But I certainly wouldn't want the families of those poor people to be bombarded with replays of the video.

It's readily available. It's also a perefct illustration of why-- IMO-- this war is just. It shows just who and what we're fighting.

Quote

That's not hypocrisy - it's common decency.

Then do you oppose showing the bombed out Iraqi marketplace? <Which, again, may or may not have been caused by the US or the UK>
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#5 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:11 PM

Well, I think it all hinges on Geneva Convention rules. You're talking about two different things: POWs and Civilians. Iraq showing the interrogation* and execution of POWs is in direct violation. But I don't know what the Geneva Convention says about dead civilians.

---------

*Interesting that on the BBC the Iraqi video of our POWs execution was called an "interrogation" and nothing else. The fact that it showed their executions was never mentioned.

Edited by Drew, 26 March 2003 - 11:12 PM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#6 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:16 PM

Drew, on Mar 26 2003, 01:02 PM, said:

Well, I think it all hinges on Geneva Convention rules. You're talking about two different things: POWs and Civilians. Iraq showing the interrogation* and execution of POWs is in direct violation. But I don't know what the Geneva Convention says about dead civilians.
Is it a Geneva Convention issue?

If their hands are legally bound, then that's one thing... they're stuck, and I wouldn't ask them to make a legal decision that would cost them their license or significiant legal troubles. MSNBC, CNN, FoxNews, et al have also been showing Iraqi POW's. I'm not sure they're bound by those regulations. I admit I don't know.

But I haven't heard that. When discussing the issue anchors always say one of three things:

"We won't show disturbing issues that serve no purpose...."
OR
"The images are too disturbing to show on television" (This, by the way, disgusts me. By showing dead Iraqis and not dead Americans, it implies that seeing dead Iraqis is less disturbing. I don't think that's true at all; people are people, and seeing dead ones is equally disturbing, regardless of what citizenship they hold)
OR
"The Pentagon has asked us not to show the video". So, did they seek permission before showing the marketplace? And if the Pentagon asked them to stop talking about, say, the Grenade Attacks would they do that too? No, I don't think so.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#7 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:20 PM

Drew, on Mar 26 2003, 01:02 PM, said:

*Interesting that on the BBC the Iraqi video of our POWs execution was called an "interrogation" and nothing else. The fact that it showed their executions was never mentioned.
I missed that.

And there's a reason for that, I believe:

Without a real investigation, it's impossible to know whether they were killed in combat or whether they were, in fact, executed.

I don't think the Pentagon has officially asserted that the POW's on the video were definitely executed. If so, I missed it...
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#8 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:23 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 26 2003, 11:55 AM, said:

Rhea, on Mar 26 2003, 12:51 PM, said:

You edited.. hang on

Quote

If you really feel the need to watch it, I understand that there are several internet sites that have reposted it, along with still pictures. But I certainly wouldn't want the families of those poor people to be bombarded with replays of the video.

It's readily available. It's also a perefct illustration of why-- IMO-- this war is just. It shows just who and what we're fighting.

Quote

That's not hypocrisy - it's common decency.

Then do you oppose showing the bombed out Iraqi marketplace? <Which, again, may or may not have been caused by the US or the UK>
I think that videos of dead and dying people shouldn't be shown over and over in any case. But I'm sure I'm in the minority. I consider the media to be vultures. I put what they sometimes do as less honorable than cleaning up dog doo for a living. Does that answer the question?
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#9 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:26 PM

Rhea, on Mar 26 2003, 01:14 PM, said:

I think that videos of dead and dying people shouldn't be shown over and over in any case. But I'm sure I'm in the minority. I consider the media to be vultures. I put what they sometimes do as less honorable than cleaning up dog doo for a living. Does that answer the question?
Then I have no disagreement with you.

I find these two stances intellectually consistent and viable:

1) Neither video should be shown <Where you stand>
2) Both should <Where I stand>

I disagree with you, but I think your position is valid.

What I find untenable is the argument that one should be shown, and the other should not.

And yes, it answers the question. ;).
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#10 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:30 PM

I think we've reached a meeting of the minds. We both despise hypocrisy. There you go!  ;)

Actually, this is probably a tough call for the media. I would not want those videos shown if they were MY child or husband or brother. OTOH, if they DON'T show the Iraqi pictures, we'll be accused of supressing news, at the very least, and of censorship at the worst.

Edited by Rhea, 26 March 2003 - 11:32 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#11 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:37 PM

I've got mixed feelings on this issue.

Once notifications of family have happened, I'm inclined to think showing the POWs does have some value. I'm not sure it completely balances the distress it will cause loved ones, but many of them are volunteering to appear on TV themselves and advocating the benefit of knowing vs guessing.

I also think the reporting on civilian casualties has some validity, particularly in the discussion of cause. (I suspect the Iraqis, btw, of manufacturing the civilian casualties for propaganda value. A government that gasses its opponents and crushes dissent is fighting for survival.  As long as they think they might gain some advantage, the more bodies the better for them. )

After typing that suspicion, I now feel the need for a shower.

It's the endless repetition and embellishment to feed a hungry news cycle that I find utterly repulsive.

BTW, have you registered your displeasure at MSNBC's website. You might find it has an effect if you take the argument to them.

Ro

#12 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:38 PM

Quote

I think we've reached a meeting of the minds. We both despise hypocrisy. There you go!  ;)

See? Wasn't that easy? ;)

Quote

Actually, this is probably a tough call for the media. I would not want those videos shown if they were MY child or husband or brother. OTOH, if they DON'T show the Iraqi pictures, we'll be accused of supressing news, at the very least, and of censorship at the worst

You do ahve a point about surpressing news... I hadn't considered that.

Ro-- Great post. And I've sent MSNBC, Fox News & CNN an email.

This is a grey area, no doubt... but I think that the media is, in this case, on the wrong side of morality and logic. <No surprise there, of course>
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#13 Josh

Josh

    He stares...

  • Islander
  • 13,774 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:43 PM

I'd rather they didn't show any bodies at all than show all of them.

Because when the media gets ahold of something, they have the nasty habit of showing it over and over again (remember the 9-11 shots of people falling from buildings?). So far, I'm rather surprised at their restraint. But I only have the television on for video games, so what do I know? ;)
"THE UNICORNS ARE NOT TO BE TRIFLED WITH!" - John Burke.

#14 MovieImp

MovieImp

    Ka-Bloomie!

  • Islander
  • 1,764 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:45 PM

Well throw into the whole mess the geneva convention that says Iraq should not be putting POW's on camera and showing it on TV.  So do other news networks including our own do the same thing to violate that rule or not show it all.  Personally I don't think it should be shown at all and the US news channels need to clean up their act in regards to Iraq POW's as well and stop showing those pictures.
It's a Girl Thing Sparkle!

#15 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 26 March 2003 - 11:49 PM

I think the rule in question states that POWs should not be "made a spectacle of". The wiggle-room comes in whether you believe that just showing Iraqi soldiers surrendering constitutes "spectacle." I should think the executions certainly do.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#16 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 12:00 AM

Article 13 of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War, relavent sections have been bolded by me:

Quote

Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.

Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.


Also, Article 3:

Quote

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

  (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

  (b) Taking of hostages;

  Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

  (d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

EDIT: There are several Geneva Conventions... Here are links:

Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of Prisoners of War

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Edited by jon3831, 27 March 2003 - 12:03 AM.

"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#17 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 12:13 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 26 2003, 12:11 PM, said:

Drew, on Mar 26 2003, 01:02 PM, said:

*Interesting that on the BBC the Iraqi video of our POWs execution was called an "interrogation" and nothing else. The fact that it showed their executions was never mentioned.
I missed that.

And there's a reason for that, I believe:

Without a real investigation, it's impossible to know whether they were killed in combat or whether they were, in fact, executed.

I don't think the Pentagon has officially asserted that the POW's on the video were definitely executed. If so, I missed it...
Not only have they not said that, they say they have no knowledge that such executions were carried out.

Frell! Now I can't find the link. It was buried in something else. I'll go find it.

I actually saw the full video by accident - it was on a Spanish station. What I saw was the 5 prisoners being interrogated, then a shot of dead bodies.

I assumed from the juxtaposition and the total # of bodies that it was most of the missing folks from the supply squadron. I can't honestly say that the dead bodies looked to have been executed. I assumed that part of them were killed in the battle and the survivors were captured. But who knows?

And Drew, perhaps the reason they didn't mention the executions is that there WERE no executions shown on the video.

Edited to add link:

http://story.news.ya..._ea/war_rdp_309

"Officials expressed caution about a report that some of the soldiers from a maintenance unit captured over the weekend were executed as they attempted to surrender.

Officials said they had one report and that they were looking into it. Five from the unit were shown on Iraqi television as prisoners of war. "

Edited by Rhea, 27 March 2003 - 12:24 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#18 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 01:43 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Mar 26 2003, 07:44 PM, said:

Apparently, it's okay to show what Iraq claims are US-caused civilian deaths, but most of the networks refused to show the Iraq POW video.
This might very well in the minds of the Media go back to the Battle of the Black Sea and CNN showing the bodies of American troops being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#19 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 08:19 PM

I don't have the time for this, because I have to get to work, but here's a quick opinion anyway...

"War is hell," as the old saying goes. People die. I have the awful feeling that the cost of war should be *shown*, whoever dies. You (a general "you") wanted this war, then see what war does. You think that our superior technology will cause us to win a war in several days, with no resistance offered, because the enemy knows we're superior and will automatically surrender, then grow up and see what happens in war.

I'm fed up with living in a society that's grown up on computer games, thinking that war is going to be easy and fast and maybe even bloodless.

Common decency not to show dead bodies? Maybe so. But maybe it would also be decent not to have war in the first place. I'm all for showing the cost of war, since we (at least the civilians and the politicians, not necessarily the soldiers who know more of what happens) were so quick to proclaim how easy this was going to be.

Sorry, just peeved. I'll shut up now.
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#20 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 27 March 2003 - 08:23 PM

I think that the families of those Iraqi casualties should be shown the same "sensitivity" that the media is giving to the families of the American POWs.  

In short, and now I'm getting scared, I pretty much agree with Rov.  It's a double standard and it's hypocritical.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Media, Media Bias

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users