A Rant about the Media

The subject of today's blog over at everythink.org (Josh's blog) is the video of Nick Berg's beheading. It is an interesting debate if you have time to follow the comments.

This reminds me of an issue that has really been bothering me. In fact, It has bothered me so much, I wrote to the New York Times about it. The issue revolves around respect and the right to privacy.

I remember not to long ago witnessing outrage when foreign media would broadcast pictures of dead US soldiers or prisoners on television. I wish I had recordings or printed proof, but I don't. Does anyone else remember this?

Anyhow, in the past year, the New York Times has had on their front page, pictures of dead soldiers, pictures of dead civilians, pictures of dead Iraqis and dead Afghanis Television news has been showing more and more images of the dead on the battlefields. I'm not talking the overview of a battlefield in black and white as they did during WWII in Life Magazine. I mean close-up shots of dead, bloody, mangled human beings. This seems to me, to be in exceptionally poor taste. Why?

* The front page of the newspaper is the most public page of them all. It is the one displayed right there on the street in the newspaper boxes. It is the one that arrives face up on your doorstep. If you don't want to see dead, mangled bodies first thing in the morning, you have no choice of you want to read the paper. You can never be sure what the picture on page one is going to be. Newspaper boxes are directly at children's eye level. Their innocence is spoiled enough through living. Do we really have to harden them with the newspaper? How about putting those images somewhere in the middle of the paper, or even on the second page? if they must be? Put a warning on the masthead about disturbing pictures. If they have to put warning labels on CDs,TV, and movies, they should have to do it for the newspaper too.

* I find it overwhelmingly distasteful to put dead pictures of anybody on the TV news or the newspaper - particularly when they show faces. The dead should just be left in peace. Their families shouldn't have to be put through the agony of having to see the mangled remains of their relatives in the media.

* It is sick and wrong for the news agencies to profit from pictures of dead and mangled bodies. The NYT puts the pictures on page 1 for the shock value. The evening news too. We are a sick and voyeuristic people, and the media knows that. The more they can feed into our need for gore, the higher their ratings. Why should big business cash in on tragedy?

* The public does need to know about the war. We need to be kept informed of developments of how we are doing, how the opponents are doing. I think President Bush's ttempted ban on pictures of US soldiers in coffins is a crock of shit. There is a big ifference between showing murdered people in their bloody glory, and showing a neat, but sad little row of coffins. We don't need to see the gore. We can get the point without it. I don't believe for a second that the NYT or Channel 5 News believe that they are posting pictures of bloody murdered people in the name of keeping the public informed about the war. They don't care about the dead people,they don't care about the families. They care about the advertising income from all the sick voyeuristic people tuning in.
Showing pictures of coffins on their way back to the US does far less harm. It protects the privacy of the families and of the deceased, keeps consumers of news from getting desensitized to the gore that is war, while all the time showing us actual proof of the destruction going on in the war.

* Generally, if something about a movie or TV show or whatever else bothers you, it is always a choice to stop the flow of unwanted information by not going to see the movie, not clicking on the link, and turning off the TV. However until the evening news is produced by Tarantino, I don't think it is the place for graphic pictures. If they absolutely MUST show these images, then fine, but do it at 10 o'clock and not at 5 or 6 when children will be watching. Warn people before you show the carnage.

I find myself becoming less and less informed of developments, because I simply cannot deal with the media. I don't want to see the pornographic pictures our military took of prisoners, and I am tired of having to deal with page one of the newspaper. I bought myself a short-wave radio and I listen to NPR more often now. One of the things we are supposedly sending young men and women to fight for, is our own right to freedom and choice. My choice is not to start my day off with war coverage, which is why I wake up to the alarm now, rather than to NPR. I am still free enough to do that. I know it makes me a very privileged person to be able to turn a war on and off, that countless people have to deal with face to face every single day, whether they want to or not. I'm ok with that, and I am grateful that it is possible.

I don't think it is evil of me to exercise my rights and freedoms while I still have them. I don't need to wear a hair shirt and flagellate myself, because my fellow brother and sister humans are being tortured.

There are much more useful ways of expending energy. As Albert Einstein said, "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

Viewing images from the comfort of your own home isn't going to help anyone. It isn't going to enlighten anyone, it isn't going to stop any wars. Rather, it is going to desensitize people to the evils of war, increase the pain of the families of those who are murdered while all the time making news agencies richer and richer. Speaking out, keeping informed through many different sources, and voting, on the other hand, do help matters. That is how we get things done.