Jonathan Gurwitz has a good addition to the mounting commentary dealing with what the media thinks we can afford to be shown and what it thinks we can afford not to be shown:
Acknowledging this disparity does, however, reveal something about the motivations of those in the media who practice this double standard. Abu Ghraib is the realization of an anti-American fantasy, the embodiment of "the Ugly American" in the post-modern age. Its images are a montage of every perceived vice of American society, and every grievance against it. Islamic fundamentalists see the emancipation of women, homosexuality and sexual decadence taken to its logical -- American -- end.Arab and Third World nationalists see evidence of American imperialism.
Multiculturalists see proof that American society is no better than the societies that globalization and the spread of democracy threaten to supplant.
Anti-war activists revel in a digital My Lai -- a final reckoning of decades-old indictments of the American military.
When all the images have been broadcast, when all this American self-flagellation is complete, perhaps the media will finally show us the Americans tortured by flames and forced to leap 100 stories to their death. Perhaps they'll give us the images of the other incomprehensible crimes that have occurred in the Mideast in the two weeks since the Abu Ghraib photos emerged.
Gurwitz isn't talking about our crimes, and he isn't optimistic about his maybe.
Posted by Justin Katz at May 15, 2004 3:41 PMThanks for the notice.
Posted by: ELC at May 15, 2004 6:22 PMIf the Whitehouse were not so paralyzed by the concerns of State Dept. and CIA arabists they could easily give a press conference demanding that these WTC jumper pics and the Berg video be shown. The immediate and long lasting anti Saudi and anti Muslem reaction would be unacceptable and just too darned hard to nuance. It is also interesting to think how last week's news cycle would have panned out if the highly news worthy, public statement by all of Kerry's commanding officers last Monday finding him 'unfit for command' was allowed to follow a more natural, uninterupted course.
Posted by: Ronald Proby at May 15, 2004 8:11 PMRonald,
I'm not sure I follow you, completely. If you're suggesting that the White House is correct in not pursuing such a press conference, then I agree. But that's only to say that I don't think the push for more-even coverage should come from the White House. (That would be too easily spun, anyway.)
Ultimately, the demand must come from the audience — the citizenry. Rather than putting direct pressure on the major media groups, though, it'll probably prove more effective for citizens to continue taking information dissemination into their own hands, whether through Internet media or word of mouth.
Posted by: Justin Katz at May 16, 2004 2:21 PMIt looks to me like the first question asked in the descision making process for what pictures to show, is: Will their showing embarass the Bush administation? Then again, I'm old, conservative, and suspicious. On the prison photos, we've recently had cases of school hazing that were as close to torture as the photos showed. Doesn't make it right, but there is a big difference between what went on at that prison under Sadam. Post pictures of prison under Sadam, under the U.S., and school hazings and you won't have any trouble figuring out which were really torture.
Posted by: Mike o at May 17, 2004 12:25 PM
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 |