I am not even going to pretend to be well-versed and up-to-date on all that is going on with our military in Iraq, Kuwait, or elsewhere. I know I'm irresponsible in that area. However, when I went back to school as an adult versus a 20yo the first time around, I paid more attention in history classes. As a staff member at a college, I went to lectures that I did not attend as a student and would not have attended when I was younger. On a few occasions, I had the opportunity to see a few things and read some things that were not public broadcasts.
When 9/11 took place, my ex-husband called to tell me about and I think he was FOS because nothing was on the news anywhere - TV, Internt, Radio. He was listening to the FDNY scanner feed and heard it as it was taking place. When CNN did start broadcasting, what I heard on the scanner and what I saw on TV was two entirely different things (until the next plane hit). I kept thinking, "That's not what they said on the scanner!" A year later, a CNN executive came to speak at our institution. The lecture was specifically for communication majors, but I was interested and went anyway. The subject was the responsibility of "the press" to the people (not just the general public, but the government, and the military, the citizens of the 3rd world countries, etc, etc). Many of the staff members attended. I was somewhat shocked at how involved CNN is with the military. I guess I thought they were no different than the ABC or NBC. I'm sure Scot and others know more about that. I saw things that day that were definitely TOO GRAPHIC for television. 9/11 was the first example was because it was so new and fresh in everyone's mind. Other clips were of raids during "ethnic cleansing" in the middle east, military ops in South Africa, US hostages, etc. All of the films were of "past history" so its not like any confidential information was jeopardized. It was simply to demonstrate why CNN chooses what to show and why they choose to not broadcasts some things despite what hits prime-time major networks or what the public thinks about it. The reason they did not broadcasts most of the footage is because they did not want little Johnny seeing his father jump out of a building and that being his last memory of his dad. Another reason isn't much different than what you tell you spouse about dealing with a child when in the middle of a heated argument. "You can't let them know they are in control!" If you present things in a calm and controlled manner, they realize they aren't going to win this fight! And the reason you should NOT be seeing these photos is exactly what is stated above, those people's lives may now be in jeopardy or in fact, they may already be dead, from retaliation and not just from the insurgents but possibly their friends and neighbors. If we oppose our friend or neighbor's politicla beliefs, we argue about it on the cvo forum. Over there, standing up for what you believe can get you killed! (In our current society, when someone in the USA puts a fellow human up on a god-like pedestal it is only acceptable if they are a rock star or actor!)
With the internet and how "open-minded" everyone is, they don't have to intercept radio transmissions! They can just google "US Military activity" and get just about any information they want! I had a friend in customs overseas and I thought he should have been fired and court-martialed for some of the photos he sent me via email. I thought they should have been kept proprietary to the military, and those did not relate to human beings at all! Civilians all over the world have camera phones and digital cameras the size of business cards and they just feel the need to share everything! How do you think the photos of soldier abuse became public?
I'm not saying they shouldn't take the photos because I believe if more information and photos had been made public after Vietnam, it would have helped the families of our soldiers know a little bit more about what they went through and help them cope with the horror of what they saw/did. The same with WWI, WWII, the Korean War (which is still going on, btw) and so forth! The sad part about history is it repeats itself. The attitudes towards our soldiers in Iraq are similar to the attitudes many had towards our soldiers in 'Nam. One difference is that there is a little more resentment and animosity towards the soldiers because many see their involvement as "voluntary" because they were not drafted. I know two young soldiers whose wives were not supportive because they thought they should have "got out" when their original enlistment was up. I know of one wife who thought her husband should have claimed mental problems so he'd be medically discharged so he could come home and help her with their child. He wouldn't. After he came back from his deployment and was stationed back close to home, she told him she didn't love him and that she was leaving him for someone else "who take care of us while you were gone. HE didn't leave us. You didn't have to go." He "kept on keeping on" and no one realized how hard he took it until he put a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. I hear similar stories every week from friends, acquantances or students.
I said all of that to say this! After watching the movie "V for Vengeance" based in Europe some years in the future and listening to them refer to the US as "the former United States," I realized that it wouldn't hurt us to take a few lessons from other countries! There are very few "causes" that the majority feel so strongly about that that they'd risk their life. (And then it's normally to save a tree or a historic monument or the right to wear stripes with polka dots!) They don't watch it on the evening news and complain about it over their cheerios, they get involved and do something about it!
Author
Topic: PHOTOS TOO GRAPHIC FOR ABC, CBS, CNN, ETC. (Read 4247 times)