Officials: Pentagon OKs media photos of war dead
Words can not convey my disappointment with SECDEF Gates.
Of course, that asshat Kerry, my junior Senator was one of the two assclowns asking for the ban to be lifted.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Maggie, believe me, I understand your point. But, you know I'm going to have something to say.
The NYT posted an article on military families' feelings about Dover. Most don't want press, others do. Your Yahoo! link was excellent coverage.
Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, which represents 60,000 families of military personnel, including some who have died, asked its members last week in an e-mail whether they favored keeping the ban or changing it.
From their unscientific survey of about 600 responses, 64 percent say the policy should not be changed; 21 percent say that if the ban is changed, the families should determine media access on a case-by-case basis, and 12 percent say the policy should be changed to allow cameras to photograph the flag-draped caskets.
IAVA's Executive Director issued the following statement: “Less than 1% of the American population has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. There has never been a greater disconnect between those who serve in harm's way and those back home. All too often, the sacrifices of our military are hidden from view. The sight of flag-draped coffins is, and should be, a sobering reminder to all Americans of the ultimate sacrifice our troops have made and the high price of our freedom,” said IAVA Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff.
Some military families believe the media was banned because both Bush Admins. didn't want Americans to see the cost of war, and that our country should honor the sacrifice of our soldiers. Alternatively, you make absolute sense that the media should be banned if the family would prefer their privacy.
For me, this is one of those situations where there's no right and wrong: as long as the media respects the family's wishes and makes decisions on a case-by-case basis. Those who prefer public viewings should have the dead consigned to a different area than those who prefer privacy.
I miss blogging endlessly, especially here...
The media is only allowed if the family approves it, so I'm not sure what your huff is about.
Huff? LOL Clearly you have no skin in this game.
Yes, the family has to give permission. A small concession.
If you are serious about understadning my *huff* (and I don't think you are from your comment) - go read this.
http://bostonmaggie.blogspot.com/2009/02/dover-is-ours.html
Anyone who thinks the media has honor and will abide by the rules, has never had personal experience with the media.
Uh, SK, I wouldn't make that pronouncement in such a facile manner. I not only had experience in the media, I worked in it for several years. Not all the people with whom I worked were assholes who tried to get a story at any cost. Although, admittedly, most are. I think I'm still a good person. But I could be wrong...
8^)
But you clearly miss my point. Really, do you think that the military won't exercise extreme caution to ensure the feelings of Gold Star parents are respected?
Let me repeat myself. Cordon off one area for those families who want privacy, leave an open area for those who don't. I feel certain the media will not be able to photograph families who prefer privacy. The military is quite capable of respecting the privacy of grieving parents and keeping the media out of the "private" areas for families who prefer not to be photographed.
Statistic after statistic indicates that those who serve in the military are the most respected group in America by both progressives and conservatives. The media frequently alienates their audience, but will obey the dictums set out at Dover if the private areas are carefully guarded. And, of course, to ensure they don't lose their advertisers.
Progressives like myself wanted open viewing of those who died in Iraq to remind people to respect the service of our soldiers.
SK, you are not wrong, of course, but it's presumptuous to make a comment like that when you don't know your audience. We've communicated before, and I can't in good faith disagree with your perception of the media. I think military security will prove extremely effective in protecting the privacy of those who do not want it.
And it's absolutely correct for those who desire publicity to have their wishes honored. If we completely disregard their feelings, I consider those actions highly insulting.
Apologies for mistakes... I'm at work...
Sorry, that was rambling me above...
Post a Comment