Dead American Soldiers And The Media

But...
that would be Left Wing Media traitorous acts trying to aid and comfort the enemy, those rats that hate god and freedom.

0 Replies

PART OF THE "ANSWER"?
It has long been a strategy of war to demonize the enemy. They cannot be seen as equal human beings. Remember the names used for the "enemies" in other U.S. wars"?

Below is a small snippet of this vast subject. For other articles, search Google: Degrading the enemy.[/color]

Quote:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/csmhi/history.cfm

HISTORY, METHODOLOGY and CONCEPTS of CSMHI

History

Diplomacy and psychoanalysis are traditionally perceived as mutually exclusive disciplines. The former focuses on the interaction of nations, the latter on the interaction of the internal and external worlds of the individual. Some statespeople, scholars and clinicians, however, have become increasingly aware of the inextricable link between these human processes, as noted by Anwar Sadat in regard to the chronic conflict between Arabs and Israelis.

"...Yet there remains another wall...It is this psychological
barrier which...constitut[es] 70 percent of the whole problem..."

- Egyptian President Anwar Sadat speaking about Arab-Israeli relations
in an address to the Israeli Parliament, November 1977.

Between 1980 and 1986, under the auspices of the American Psychiatric Association, a small group of psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and former diplomats convened numerous unofficial meetings between high-ranking Arabs and Israelis in order to explore this link. During this process, new theories about the psychology of large groups and leader-follower relationships evolved, and the interdisciplinary team gradually developed into a working entity ready to apply its knowledge and practical experience to other situations.

The nucleus of CSMHI was later formed (in 1987) by several of these facilitators, including founder and then Center director, Vamik Volkan (psychoanalyst), Harold Saunders (former Assistant Secretary of State), Demetrios Julius (psychiatrist), Joseph Montville (former diplomat), and Rita Rogers (psychiatrist and political scientist). . . .

(Read especially the next part of this extract.)

Societal regression and enemy relations: In a regressed society, the group member's adherence to his or her group identity is an attempt to prevent fragmentation of the individual's core identity (which includes the individual and group components). Powerful mental and behavioral mechanisms are put into play across the society and further amplified by a charismatic leader. These are attempts to do away with the perceived or actual threat and to regain or create self esteem and a sense of power.

Features of a regressed society in relation to an enemy include:

*
*keeping the large-group identity separate from the identity of the enemy and maintaining the differences between them (principle of 'non-sameness'),
*
*maintaining a psychological border between the two large groups,
*
dehumanizing and degrading the enemy,
*
thinking and acting in good/bad, we/them, black/white terms,
*
enhancing the group through idealizing one's own group and attributing negative characteristics to the other group.

0 Replies

Re: Dead American Soldiers And The Media

IronLionZion wrote:

The media should treat footage of dead American soldiers the same way that it treats footage of dead Iraqis.

If CNN is willing to show clips of dead and dying Iraqi soldiers, they should show dead and dying American soldiers to the same extent. Period.

And why is this? You are a defender of objectivity? Do you care whether or not they show footage of anyone who is dead or dying?

Perhaps the argument should be that CNN (I didn't realize they were the entirety of "the media.") should not show footage of dead Iraqis.

IronLionZion wrote:

I can't really imagine how anybody could disagree with this. So please try.

Well, no one could argue with you if they were operating from a premise that "the media" should portray only the whole and adulterated truth in a "fair" manner, but then, of course, they don't.

The editors of all news media, every day, make very definate selections about what to cover and what not to cover. Do you see a story of a success in Iraq for every story of violence? No.

Do they report the number and names of Iraqi dead each day? No.

Why do you think they don't show footage of dead Americans?

By the way, you're wrong on this point in any case. Last weeks's Time magazine had at least one picture that contained the image of a dead Iraqi and a dead American.

0 Replies

Excuse my bluntness, but I am not entirely sure what your intended point is. And your reasoning - for example, the idea a single article in Time Magazine negates my point - is utterly abhorrant.

0 Replies

Re: PART OF THE "ANSWER"?

Charli wrote:

It has long been a strategy of war to demonize the enemy. They cannot be seen as equal human beings. Remember the names used for the "enemies" in other U.S. wars"?

Below is a small snippet of this vast subject. For other articles, search Google: Degrading the enemy.[/color]

Of course it is a strategy of warfare.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, there is such a thing as a "just war," is it not a service to our warriors to demonize the enemy?

Since we require them to kill the enemy should we not make it easier for them to do so? This can take the form of improved weaponry, personal armor, and even demonizing the enemy. Do we really want the young men and women we ask to take on this fell duty to agonize over what they do anymore than they already do?

Of course, if you believe that no war can ever be just, than the process of demonizing the enemy cannot be justified, but that would be a small sin compared to actually killing the enemy...don't you think?

In any case, showing dead Iraqis (hardly a staple of the nightly news) is quite a subtle method of depersonalizing the enemy, and doesn't rise to demonization.

Finally, anyone who thinks that CNN is in cahoots with the Pentagon in some effort to demonize the enemy, has latched on to a far fetched notion.

0 Replies

Re: PART OF THE "ANSWER"?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If we assume, for the sake of argument, there is such a thing as a "just war," is it not a service to our warriors to demonize the enemy?

No, it isn't.

The purpose of the media is to inform, in as objective a mannor as possible, not to serve as a 4th branch of the government.

0 Replies

ILZ, I understand where you are coming from but the absolutism in your expression of your point brings our the urge to mitigate the absolutism.

1) Media is not supposed to be free of geographical bias.

Is it an inappropriate bias if the NY Times reports events in New York whose equivalents in Los Angeles?

2) Media is not supposed to take none of their readership's interests in mind, as the viability of the organizations depends on satisfying this to some degree.

This audience whoredom is an inherent part of free press, and is why media reports on sex-scandals and such.

It's not unlikely that the US audience cares more about US deaths than they do Iraqi deaths?

Now is this all unfair? Yes. Is it unfair that lives have different prices on them? Yes.

Is it unfair that one cares more about their mother's death than mine? Yes.

But is it understandable given the societal structures we have created in which affinity and proximity are both related and an influence on our interests? Again, yes.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

1) Media is not supposed to be free of geographical bias.

My argument does not neccessitate that.

Sports reporting, for example, obviously requires less rigorous objectivity.

I would argue, however, that in many cases, particularly war, the media should strive to report on both sides equally, without exception.

Quote:

2) Media is not supposed to take none of their readership's interests in mind,

It is in the readers interest to be informed objectively.

Quote:

as the viability of the organizations depends on satisfying this to some degree.

You're saying that people want their biases reflected in the news to an extent, and therefore, news organizations must pander to this in order to survive, no?

This is an economic argument, if I am not mistaken, and one I cannot dispute.

I don't think that reporting wars objectively is unworkable or impractical, though. I think if the mainstream media moves in this direction the public will follow them.

It wasn't too long ago that it was ethical for mainstream journalists to quietly work for a certain political party. However, in the pursuit of objectivity, those ethics changed, and the public changed to accept and even demand that level of objectivity.

Plus, partisan publications will always exist to satisfy that niche.

You point out that the current norm is to report wars in a biased fashion, and that this is understandable given "societal structures we have created in which affinity and proximity are both related and an influence."

The challenge, I think, is to examine the current ethical norm while holding one part of the mind aloof, recognizing that ethical norms may lead to conformity or to defensive, self-justifying thinking, and that the highest ethical duty may be to go against ethical norms.

I think that this is one such case.

We both agree the media is biased, and that this biased is understandable. We differ, I think, in that you think this must be accepted and I think it can and should change, no?

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

I would argue, however, that in many cases, particularly war, the media should strive to report on both sides equally, without exception.

The ideal is acceptable but the way in which you quantify it is where things get tricky.

How do you quantify said objectivity? Where does newsworthiness and the calculation of proximity to the audience come into play?

If the press covers a car crash like Diana's for days on end should they cover all car crashes this way?

I'm posing these questions as a devil's advocate, because while I understand what you are saying I don't think you can reasonably treat it with binary absolutism.

Quote:

Quote:
2) Media is not supposed to take none of their readership's interests in mind,

It is in the readers interest to be informed objectively.

The expression of their interests is determined on an individual level, rendering that axiom to irrelevance unless they act in accord with your interpretation of both their interest and objectivity.

Quote:

You're saying that people are biased, and want that bias reflected in the news to an extent, and therefore, news organizations must pander to this in order to surivive, no?

Somewhat. The media is, for better or worse, usually both a business and a form of entertainment.

Quote:

I don't think that reporting wars objectively is unworkable or impractical, though. I think if the mainstream media moves in this direction, the public will follow them, and be better off in the long run.

But the difference with which the media treats the dead is not exclusive to war.

fbaezer, a former newspaper editor, made this very relevant post a while ago.

fbaezer wrote:

This may sound really mean:
In the newspaper I used to work for, we had a minimum death toll formula for tragedies to appear on the front page:
In the city: 1 or 2 deaths, depending on the circumstance.
In the country: from 2 to 5 deaths, depending on the rest of the news.
In the USA, Canada or Latin America: from 10 to 20 deaths, depending on the rest of the news.
Europe: from 15 to 100 deaths, depending on the rest of the news.
Elsewhere: from 50 to 300 deaths, depending on the rest of the news.

In other world, for a train wreck in India to make it, surely, to the front page, we needed 300 deaths.

Usually, a picture helps a tragedy to be put on the front page. We had only Mexican, American and French picture services, with their own interest.

The reasoning behind this is how "near" does the public sense those deaths. And it certainly says that, at least for newsmakers, not every life has the same ("newsworthy") value.
It's sadly true: once we published a great reportage on Africa, with incredible pictures. It turned out to be a bad sales day.

Quote:

You point out that the current norm is to report wars in a biased fashion, and that this is understandable given "societal structures we have created in which affinity and proximity are both related and an influence."

A slight correction, it's not war I speak of but media in general.

"Earthquake in ____. 193 dead, including 3 Americans" is the standard. The same goes for every nation that I've lived in in which I've read the local papers.

Quote:

I agree that it is understandable. I do not think it is ethical. I do not think it is immutable.

Ultimately there are limits of what people can and will care about and what newspapers can and will fit on their pages.

Quote:

We both agree the media is biased, and that this biased is understandable. We differ, I think, in that you think this must be acceptted and I think it can and should change, no?

I'm not saying it shouldn't change, but do want to point out that at some point it would be unrealistic to divest them of certain biases.

The way the dead are treated is, IMO, more of a geographical bias, more of a bias of audience interest than a political one. And if so, I think it is a bias inherent to the entities themselves.

Here's another thread by fbaezer you might be interested in (it's not a coincidence, he's just the smartest guy on these forums):

News Coverage of Iraq. How Fair Is Your Deal?

0 Replies

Interesting topic.

Our national broadcaster is held to detailed, and often, I think, ridiculous standards of "objectivity" in relation to the two major political parties - one of which is always their boss.

This gets down to number of minutes of air time granted to each party - it also gets down to heated debate and referrals to the tribunal which attempts to oversee these things (doubtless seen as "stacked" by each party) over reporting of such things as Iraq where the governing party committed Oz to the war - and the Opposition has a stated intention to withdraw - and even to smirks and raised eyebrows and such alleged to be on the faces of interviewers: "He smirked when he reported the prime Minister's press release." "She raised an eyebrow when she finished that story on the Leader of the Opposition."

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

The ideal is acceptable but the way in which you quantify it is where things get tricky.

Can't argue with that.

I would simply say that objectivity is the ideal; the thing that journalists should strive towards even if it is not attainable.

You're right that quantifying objectivity is hard. I'd say that we can generally see the right direction, and it is just a matter of moving in that direction.

For example, as I cited earlier, there has been a trend towards more objectivity in journalism since the early 1900's when newpapers first became accessible to the masses.

Furthermore, I would say that there are some instances where objectivity is quantifiable.

For example, you can roughly quantify degrees of objectivity by comparing the amount of news coverage each side recieves, shots of casualties, the nationality of the people quoted etc.

These things can give a broad, rough outline of objectivity. It is certainly not enough to hold up to rigorous analysis, but its enough to provide a rough guide.

For example, the mainstream medias policy towards dead Americans is clearly and demonstrably biased.

Quote:

If the press covers a car crash like Diana's for days on end should they cover all car crashes this way?

I think that rational people can see the distinction between celebrity deaths (and lives) and a war. Nevertheless, your point about the fine line between entertainment and information is well taken.

I might be back later to elucidate, but I gotta get writing. Thanks for the good posts.

Anyway, what ethical guideline would you use with regards to dead American soldiers vs dead Iraqi soldiers?

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

For example, you can roughly quantify degrees of objectivity by comparing the amount of news coverage each side recieves, shots of casualties, the nationality of the people quoted etc.

We'd have to see a lot more about mongolia for objectivity then...

What I'm getting at is that there are time and space restrictions and "newsworthiness" is as much affected by those as a bias of interest politics etc...

Each entity doesn't cover it all, so if I want my daily mongolian dose I need to look for a regional source.

Quote:

Anyway, what ethical guideline would you use with regards to dead American soldiers vs dead Iraqi soldiers?

Dunno, I probably would have done little different from American media except keep as accurate an Iraqi body count as an American one, unfortunately I don't think that would be possible.

As to pictures and such I don't really have that much of an interest, I always saw them as eye-candy mixed in the news.

0 Replies

IronLionZion wrote:

Excuse my bluntness, but I am not entirely sure what your intended point is. And your reasoning - for example, the idea a single article in Time Magazine negates my point - is utterly abhorrant.

And, excuse my bluntness as well, I'm not sure what your point is.

Are you arguing that the media, because it has shown dead Iraqis, should show dead Americans, or do you simply advocate the media showing dead Americans to advance a political position (Say No To War)?

If the former, then is there any difference is expressing you point as "The media should not show dead Iraqis?"

Or are you advocating a media that shows it all and allows the consumer to filter it?

My point is that the media is not nor ever has been absolutely objective. I suspect that editors make daily judgments with which you have no problem: i.e. They do not feature every possible story that can come out of Iraq, and they certainly favor those that involve blood and mayhem over those that involve successful progression.

Since they cannot possibly print every story that occurs on Earth, editorial discretion is a necessity. Given that editorial opinion is, by definition, subjective, your notion of an utterly objective press is a pipe dream.

As for the "abhorrence" of my point about the recent Time magazine, are you sure you know the meaning of the word or do you simply find loathsome any argument that veers from your own opinion?

Since you chose to define a single source (CNN) as "The Media," I though it was entirely apt to respond to your contention by pointing out that another single source (arguably "The Media," unless you have some particular fondeness for CNN) has actually shown the dead American bodies you seem to be calling for.

0 Replies

Re: PART OF THE "ANSWER"?

IronLionZion wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If we assume, for the sake of argument, there is such a thing as a "just war," is it not a service to our warriors to demonize the enemy?

No, it isn't.

The purpose of the media is to inform, in as objective a mannor as possible, not to serve as a 4th branch of the government.

Non sequitor alert!

Whatever The Purpose of The Media may be, what does it have to do with whether or not demonizing the enemy is a service to our warriors?

If demonizing the enemy is a service to our warriors, it hardly falls only to the government to provide such service.

Everyone should join in, and during WWII everyone did. Of course a bucktoothed "Jap" solider in a Popeye cartoon sends shivers of abhorrence through today's illuminati, but if your son or brother or husband were in the middle of a pitched battle, would you really want him to suffer the hestitancy of action born of angst over the "humanity" of the "ragheads" trying to kill him?

Perhaps you are among those who believe the media in America is not or should not be American media.

Interesting, because many of the people who feel this way, very definately believe that businessmen in America must be American businessmen, i.e. They should not outsource jobs to places like India or Mexico.

I don't really know anyone who believes that statesmen in America should not be American statesman.

Somehow though, the expectation of journalists is that they be men and women without country?

I like your absolutism, I just don't agree with it.

0 Replies

I agree but the media has become very superficial, they have so many fake magazines making false accusations, for what other then MONEY . If we don't face the hard truths of war then how will we really know what is going on?

0 Replies

SqUeAkz wrote:

If we don't face the hard truths of war then how will we really know what is going on?

An entirely reasonable position.

First of all we have to agree that there is such a thing as a "Just War," irrespective of whether or not the conflict in Iraq is such a war.

If we can agree to this premise, we then have to weigh our ability to assimilate the "hard truths" of war with our will to pursue the Just War.

Only the truly bent will find the killing of others to be a satisfying activity, but this doesn't necessarily, mean that killing others is to be avoided at all costs.

Of course, if one is to reject the killing of others under any circumstances, then the notion of a Just War has no foundation. But, at the same time, one would have to accept the fact that one's life and liberty are to be, ultimately, sacrifical.

I honor all who truly hold this belief, however I also believe that the number who truly do are quite small. It is very easy and self aggrandizing to declare "War is evil! We should not kill anyone," but such is a meaningless declaration if one is not prepared to give up life and liberty to advance the tenet.

Let's assume though that we agree with the concept of a "Just War."

In conflict with the pursuit of a Just War is (and thankfully so) is the natural reluctance of individuals to kill one another. Surely there are those who, for whatever complex psychological reasons, are enthused by killing, but we need to acknowledge that they are the exceptions and not the rule.

Therefore, if we wish to win the Just War (and why would we not?) we have to concern oursleves with the ability of our warriors to fight to win.

If we burden our warriors with moralistic precepts of killing they will, unquestionably, become less effective in their mission.

So the goal is to keep our warriors immune from humanistic concerns so that humanistic principles can triumph.

It is almost a paradox.

The alternative is to accept the gradual and inevitable spread of totalitarianism throughout the world.

This is all well and good if one belives that the rewards for their actions on Earth will be dispensed in Heaven, but what if one doesn't believe in an after life?

Ironically, most of the people who would reject the notion of a Just War, don't believe in an afterlife.

Here again, the purists among these folks receive my utmost respect: such are people who are willing to greet the black void rather than violating principle. Utterly heroic.

Unfortunately, I've never met any of these heroes, and considering their scant numbers, doubt I ever will.

And so we come full circle: Do we really need or want to know what is "going on?"

Under any number of circumstances (The Vietnam war for example) we most assuredly do. Under others (i.e. WWII) we might not.

What it boils down to, I believe, is how much you feel you can trust your government.

And, of course, in this we many of us differ greatly, however the question returns to: "If the president of your political choice were in power, would you accept his or her march to war?"

When you think of Afghanistan and Iraq, think too of Somalia, Serbia and Haiti.

0 Replies

In order to report the news we have to show where the action of the news story is coming from and in this case it is Iraq and in so doing we are going to see dead Iraqi's. I don't think CNN showed pictures of dead Iraq soldiers on purpose just for the sake of it much less in an attempt to buck our soldiers up. They have showed the pictures of the funeral parades where the victims families carry the coffin of the dead, but that is a news story.

The ethical duty of a reporter is to report the news, they are not a branch of the military. Neither are they supposed to pander to the public's "supposed" biases if they do they cease to become a news program but just one of many political shows.

I don't think the Diana example is a particulary good one for this discussion. The only way it would apply is if there were two opposing characters in the Diana crash story and one side getting more favorable news coverage than the other. A good example would be the coverage of the causalities in the Israeli/Palestine crisis.

0 Replies

You might be interested in this article.

You might be interested in this article with input from some well-known journalists: [/color]

Media Cover-Up

0 Replies

Dead American Soldiers And The Media

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know