[Axo1ot1]

ho-lee shee-it.

[Sven G]

If I were American, I'd probably indeed choose Kucinich as the "lesser evil".

Good choice of colors in the animation, too (OK, here I'm a little biased, of course! )...

[davesimondotcom]

Funny, Bush has turkey with the troops and people were up in arms that he was politicizing the war...

Yet Kucinich is "bringin' it" when he politicizes the war dead...

Wonder if the families of those named signed off on this.

Wonder why, exactly, Kucinich wants everyone to see the bodies of the dead. Maybe to exploit them?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Funny, Bush has turkey with the troops and people were up in arms that he was politicizing the war...

Yet Kucinich is "bringin' it" when he politicizes the war dead...

Wonder if the families of those named signed off on this.

Wonder why, exactly, Kucinich wants everyone to see the bodies of the dead. Maybe to exploit them?

Who cares? He stands no chance whatsoever of becoming president.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Who cares? He stands no chance whatsoever of becoming president.

That is true. Seems like it's easy to get press for any viewpoint, no matter how wild, just declare yourself a candidate for the Democratic nomination...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
That is true. Seems like it's easy to get press for any viewpoint, no matter how wild, just declare yourself a candidate for the Democratic nomination...

Personally, I think he is a paid agent for the Bush campaign.

BTW, did you hear that Lyndon LaRouche is getting $800,000 in federal matching funds this year? Now that annoys me. The guy's a convicted felon. He can't even vote!

[petehammer]

Yup, you have to hate a man who is against the "sanitized for your protection" US war on Iraq.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if people saw soldiers as humans, we wouldn't send them off to die.

The Administration, by hiding these deaths from the American public wants us to believe that a) The soldiers don't exist or b) We shouldn't care about their deaths.

Of course there is political fallout from showing the bodies coming home in caskets. But, perhaps that's what you have to deal with when you send them off to die in the first place?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Yup, you have to hate a man who is against the "sanitized for your protection" US war on Iraq.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if people saw soldiers as humans, we wouldn't send them off to die.

The Administration, by hiding these deaths from the American public wants us to believe that a) The soldiers don't exist or b) We shouldn't care about their deaths.

Of course there is political fallout from showing the bodies coming home in caskets. But, perhaps that's what you have to deal with when you send them off to die in the first place?

So, in other words, you do want to use their deaths for political purposes. Maybe you don't realize this, but troops don't like that. They aren't a political football.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So, in other words, you do want to use their deaths for political purposes. Maybe you don't realize this, but troops don't like that. They aren't a political football.

In other words, meaning not mine?

Soldiers are people too, why are they being hidden like they never existed?

They are being hidden so people don't think there is a cost to war. It's about being honest. If you can show them flying over there, you can show them flying back.

The political aspect is hiding the bodies in the first place, Simey.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by petehammer:
In other words, meaning not mine?

Soldiers are people too, why are they being hidden like they never existed?

They are being hidden so people don't think there is a cost to war. It's about being honest. If you can show them flying over there, you can show them flying back.

The political aspect is hiding the bodies in the first place, Simey.

You can take that around and around. Is it political to display their corpses, or is it political not to display their corpses? I think most soldiers would vote not to be displayed after their deaths. Certainly not if the purpose is to undermine the mission for which they were asked to risk their lives in the first place.

I also think that most would not vote for Dennis Kucinich.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I also think that most would not vote for Dennis Kucinich.

And how is that relevant?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by petehammer:
And how is that relevant?

Because he wants to use them for his political purposes and I don't think they would appreciate it. All he wants to do it undermine their mission, which is a cruel thing to do to people that we have asked to risk their lives.

Anyway, he's a fringe politician. Irrelevant.

[MacGorilla]

Wow, that is very compelling

[davesimondotcom]

Anyone remember the bad ol' days when Apple advertised only in MacWorld and MacUser, and their ads were always highbrow "we're so much better than the other guy" ads?

Remember how that was preaching to the choir and didn't attract new MacUsers? But those of us who got it, loved the ads?

Now, contrast that with how most of us who were already Mac users found the switcher ads frustrating and silly.

Yet, the switcher ads attracted new customers.

Well, Kucinich is preaching to the choir. This won't get him elected President. It WILL get him praise from those who already agree with him. But is that what he needs to get elected? No.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, if Kucinich is preaching to the choir its because no one else showed up to hear him speak.

That is to say, I don't think he's taking the path of least resistance at all. Rather, he's so remarkably defiant in his convictions and ideals that he's totally incapable of being a mainstream candidate.

That says a lot about American wedge politics.

I have a ton of respect for Kucinich. If nothing else, he has played the role typically played by Sharpton or Jackson--to articulate a popular rage that would otherwise be ignored by the play-it-safe Democrats.

His popularity is almost entirely because he was a voice in the wilderness while the party was sitting on its hands and being bullied by the Bush team.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:

Well, Kucinich is preaching to the choir. This won't get him elected President. It WILL get him praise from those who already agree with him. But is that what he needs to get elected? No.

I don't think anyone on this board thinks Kucinch is going to be the next president.

It doesn't take away from the power or presentation of the message. It's a compelling statement. Time will tell if the other candidates, with a real chance, can deliver a powerful argument against this administrations policies.

Right message, wrong messenger.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
That is to say, I don't think he's taking the path of least resistance at all. Rather, he's so remarkably defiant in his convictions and ideals that he's totally incapable of being a mainstream candidate.

That says a lot about American wedge politics.

I have a ton of respect for Kucinich. If nothing else, he has played the role typically played by Sharpton or Jackson--to articulate a popular rage that would otherwise be ignored by the play-it-safe Democrats.

His popularity is almost entirely because he was a voice in the wilderness while the party was sitting on its hands and being bullied by the Bush team.

Shouldn't that be "unpopular rage?"

If he is a "voice in the wilderness" who is "incapable of being a mainstream candidate" then he's pretty much by definition not representitive of anything popular, is he?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
His popularity...

His popularity?

CNN/Time poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 2%

FOX News poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 2%

LA Times poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
His popularity?

CNN/Time poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 2%

FOX News poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 2%

LA Times poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

He he. Look at that poll. That's 2% of Democrats.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
His popularity?

CNN/Time poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 2%

FOX News poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 2%

LA Times poll, Nov. 2003
Kucinich: 1%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

So how did the right leaning Fox News have him 1% higher than the left leaning Gray Davis Fan Club (LA Times)?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You can take that around and around. Is it political to display their corpses, or is it political not to display their corpses?

Well, considering how much they have politicized living soldiers, I don't think its really an issue of politicizing the troops--only the ones who died.

We seem to have a marketing director who believes live soldiers are good PR, but dead ones are bad PR.

If Jessica Lynch gets a ticker-tape parade, why can't we honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice by showing them coming home with honor and solemnity?

Historically, flag-draped coffins of soldiers are a powerful political image to unify the nation and remind us that despite all our differences, one thing we can all agree on is the bravery and dedication of our military.

Cheering the live ones and hiding the dead ones says to me that the White House is only interested in triumphalism and distratcting America from the very real costs of this enterprise. Perhaps they doubt America's resolve? Perhaps they question whether or not we'll think its worth it when we see the dead?

To me its a silent admission that they have very real doubts about whether or not Americans are really behind them.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
So how did the right leaning Fox News have him 1% higher than the left leaning Gray Davis Fan Club (LA Times)?

What was the margin of error, 4%?

I want to know what did they do with the -3% poll results?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, if Kucinich is preaching to the choir its because no one else showed up to hear him speak.

I actually laughed when I read that.

However, I think that what I said about preaching to the choir applies to most (if not all) of the Democrats.

Here is the problem. Dean is leading the pack. Dean is left of the majority of the other candidates. So they all have to go left to attract his supporters. The further left they go, the harder it will be to come back to the middle when the general election comes about.

This is strictly strategy I'm speaking about. Not criticizing anyone's points of view.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
So how did the right leaning Fox News have him 1% higher than the left leaning Gray Davis Fan Club (LA Times)?

It must be because Fox wants Kucinich to be the nominee, so Bush will stand a better chance of re-election. Those bastards!

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
It must be because Fox wants Kucinich to be the nominee, so Bush will stand a better chance of re-election. Those bastards!

That MUST be it! That devious Roger Ailes...

[zigzag]

Whether it's delivered by Kucinich or not, and whether its aim is true or not, it's a compelling video.

I've kept my mouth shut about the funeral policy because I can see valid reasons for it - privacy, etc. On the other hand, when I see photos of Dubya serving turkey and the Spaniards having national services for their dead, I can't help but wonder if our priorities are right. I haven't made up my mind, and I would give the most weight to the wishes of the soldiers and their families, but I still wonder.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Historically, flag-draped coffins of soldiers are a powerful political image to unify the nation and remind us that despite all our differences, one thing we can all agree on is the bravery and dedication of our military.

No, that is simply historically wrong. Flag-draped coffins are a private sign of the nation's respect and gratitude, but funerals are almost never public events. The exception is the occasional state funeral. But those are exceedingly rare.

Returning troops get a ticker tape parade (or they should), but it has never been the case that the dead have been paraded in public. There simply is no basis for saying that. The nation's war dead get a private, dignified funeral, a rifle salute, a flag, and a brief message "on behalf of the President of the United States and a grateful nation" (those are the official words).

Go take a walk down to any national cemetary. Every day combat veterans are buried. These days, most are lucky to get even a live bugler. As a matter of fact, it has gotten so bad that the military has come up with an automatic bugle. The soldier lifts it to his lips, and a tape player in the bugle plays Taps.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I actually laughed when I read that.

However, I think that what I said about preaching to the choir applies to most (if not all) of the Democrats.

Here is the problem. Dean is leading the pack. Dean is left of the majority of the other candidates. So they all have to go left to attract his supporters. The further left they go, the harder it will be to come back to the middle when the general election comes about.

This is strictly strategy I'm speaking about. Not criticizing anyone's points of view.

Well, Dean may be left of Kerry or Lieberman on some issues, but I don't think he's reaching to the fringe. In fact, his domination of the polls suggests he's doing a remarkable job of appealing to independents and conservatives as well as angry democrats.

If Kucninich is the firebrand that really ignited the apoplectic (but unarticulated) rage of the "Bush-haters", the one who has really benefited has been the pragmatic, practical and down-to-earth Dean.

In the media, Dean is basically an "anti-war" candidate so casual observers think he's simply riding a wave of Bush-backlash, rather than someone who has real appeal to a broad section of voters. I think the time of underestimating him is quickly passing us by.

Interestingly enough, it was almost a single speech made by Kucinich that put him on the national map. Nobody had ever heard of him until he made an abosolutely shattering speech at a rally in LA in Feb of 2002. It was called "A prayer for America".

It spread like wildfire on the internet and suddenly everyone was asking about this guy who had finally stood up and said what a lot of us were feeling at the time. The Democratic leadership was really at a low point and many of us felt totally betrayed by their "spinelessness". Out of that mood, that point in time, Kucinich's speech was like he was shot out of cannon.

Most of his campaign has been attempts at recapturing the magic of that moment.

[deedar]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, that is simply historically wrong. Flag-draped coffins are a private sign of the nation's respect and gratitude, but funerals are almost never public events. The exception is the occasional state funeral. But those are exceedingly rare.

Returning troops get a ticker tape parade (or they should), but it has never been the case that the dead have been paraded in public. There simply is no basis for saying that. The nation's war dead get a private, dignified funeral, a rifle salute, a flag, and a brief message "on behalf of the President of the United States and a grateful nation" (those are the official words).

Go take a walk down to any national cemetary. Every day combat veterans are buried. These days, most are lucky to get even a live bugler. As a matter of fact, it has gotten so bad that the military has come up with an automatic bugle. The soldier lifts it to his lips, and a tape player in the bugle plays Taps.

I seem to remember many, many images of flag-draped coffins coming home from Vietnam on the evening news...

[BRussell]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, Dean may be left of Kerry or Lieberman on some issues, but I don't think he's reaching to the fringe. In fact, his domination of the polls suggests he's doing a remarkable job of appealing to independents and conservatives as well as angry democrats.

Given that he's likely to be the nominee, I hope that's true. But I really doubt it. If you look at those polls, Dean has around 15% of Democrats. That's hardly indicative of an appeal to independents and conservatives. (Clark, Lieberman, Kerry, & Gephardt have maybe another 10% each.)

I think Dean's strength is that he may be able to appeal to more of the apathetics than any of the others. If he can get, say, 10% of the Democratic-leaning non-voters out there, that's maybe 5 million people.

But I have a feeling that Clark could appeal to the Perot-types (shudder), who always struck me as having a kind of authoritarian streak in them anyway, and so they might be attracted to a General. And I think Clark has a better chance of appealing to the middle than Dean.

But this is looking at it purely strategically. I'm not going to admit who I'm voting for in the primaries (if he lasts that long).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deedar:
I seem to remember many, many images of flag-draped coffins coming home from Vietnam on the evening news...

And we all know how well that went. Definately not a precedent to follow.

It's kind of ironic. In one thread, we are told that Americans wallow in our grief, and that we ought to "just get over it." Here, we are told that we ought to make private grief public. Odd.

[mr. natural]

This is not about showing "corpses" or private funerals even (which I have seen reported on locally as it affected a local community membership). Nor is this even remotely about Americans "wallowing" in grief.

It is, however, precisely about this administration denying the press from showing flag draped coffins coming home in an effort to short circuit the bad PR visuals this would cause during the run-up to an election and its reminder of a war that was engaged on dubious accounts.

And as Simey notes about the Vietnam visuals: "Definately not a precedent to follow."

Mind you, I'm not condoning the ad. I honestly don't think it is meaningful except as a commentary about how controlling this administration is when it comes to PR.

But, compared to what we are likely to see from the boys behind the PR curtain of this administration, especially as the election cycle really hits its stride next year, well, as Ronald Reagan once said: "You ain't seen nothing yet."

I'm just glad I don't watch TV.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by mr. natural:
an effort to short circuit the bad PR visuals this would cause during the run-up to an election

In other words you agree that there are people who would like to use the visuals of dead American soldiers in their PR campaign.

No. They can find another way to make the point. Dead soldiers are not props to be used that way.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BRussell:
But I have a feeling that Clark could appeal to the Perot-types (shudder), who always struck me as having a kind of authoritarian streak in them anyway, and so they might be attracted to a General. And I think Clark has a better chance of appealing to the middle than Dean.

But this is looking at it purely strategically. I'm not going to admit who I'm voting for in the primaries (if he lasts that long).

Don't be surprised if a Dean/Clark ticket emerges after the convention.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In other words there are people who would like to use the visuals of dead American soldiers in their PR campaign.

No. They can find another way to make the point. Dead soldiers are not props to be used that way.

I'm all for saying that no one should use them as props, but that doesn't mean I support the PR decision to not show them being received home and honored.

I'd be very happy if there were a gentlemen's agreement to keep those images from the TV ads (or online ads).

But banning the images is its own kind of political theater just the same.

The president uses the word sacrifice in his speeches, but he seems to doubt whether or not Americans really want to recognize the sacrifices being asked of them. If Americans really support this action, there is nothing to fear from images of our soldiers' remains being brought home with honor and dignity.

[Axo1ot1]

Dennis Kucinich: The really smart and well qualified kid that ran for student body president in high school, but lost to the popular guy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm all for saying that no one should use them as props, but that doesn't mean I support the PR decision to not show them being received home and honored.

I'd be very happy if there were a gentlemen's agreement to keep those images from the TV ads (or online ads).

But banning the images is its own kind of political theater just the same.

The president uses the word sacrifice in his speeches, but he seems to doubt whether or not Americans really want to recognize the sacrifices being asked of them. If Americans really support this action, there is nothing to fear from images of our soldiers' remains being brought home with honor and dignity.

They can have honor and dignity without TV cameras. Those are not public ceremonies and they don't have a teleological purpose. You haven't argued a need to broadcasting them, only a desire to use the images as free propaganda. Nobody's going to fall for that no matter how much people try to dress it up as showing respect for the troops.

I tell you what. If you can show some evidence that the troops want the repatriations of the coffins broadcast, then I might be convinced that the purpose really is to honor the troop's sacrifice. Until then, I conclude otherwise.

[mr. natural]

Posted by SimeyTheLimey:

In other words you agree that there are people who would like to use the visuals of dead American soldiers in their PR campaign.

No. They can find another way to make the point. Dead soldiers are not props to be used that way.

I am willing to agree that this ad, in my mind, is not effective as intended and I explained my thoughts about it above.

As to whether there are some who might like to use the "visuals of dead American soldiers in their PR campaign" raises a whole set of other issues as to whom one refers to.

I mentioned the "press" as being denied permission to record the unloading of flag draped coffins. Perhaps you feel the use of such images by them would favor "their PR campaign," whatever that may be? (Which raises the question of whether it is the free press's job to play along with anyone's PR; especially of those in power.)

Yet, this is all rather silly because if anyone wanted "visuals of dead American soldiers" or other such type images and text reporting which might undercut support for this war and this administration's handling of it all one needs to do is read or watch the news. I suppose it depends on one's POV about the actual events as they just happen.

However, your complaint about using "dead" soldiers for PR rings rather hollow when this Prezident has absolutely no qualms about using live ones for his PR campaigns.

I.E.: "Mission Accomplished" and his more recent Thanksgiving turkey shoot, not to mention the dubious "rescue" of Jessica Lynch as recorded by the Army.

Had he wanted to he could of visited the troops without any Press aboard Air Force One to record this PR event.

You may not think this significant but I do.

As thunderous_funker said nicely:

Cheering the live ones and hiding the dead ones says to me that the White House is only interested in triumphalism and distratcting America from the very real costs of this enterprise. Perhaps they doubt America's resolve? Perhaps they question whether or not we'll think its worth it when we see the dead?

To me its a silent admission that they have very real doubts about whether or not Americans are really behind them.

Triumphalist spin. That sums up Bush's PR campaign when it comes to our men and women in arms, dead or alive.

Who is kidding whom here, eh?

But that's what political hay is all about nowadaze: SPIN.

Like I said: We ain't seen nothing yet.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They can have honor and dignity without TV cameras. Those are not public ceremonies and they don't have a teleological purpose. You haven't argued a need to broadcasting them, only a desire to use the images as free propaganda. Nobody's going to fall for that no matter how much people try to dress it up as showing respect for the troops.

I tell you what. If you can show some evidence that the troops want the repatriations of the coffins broadcast, then I might be convinced that the purpose really is to honor the troop's sacrifice. Until then, I conclude otherwise.

I think the reasoning here is tortured. The natural reaction of a country to the loss of the men and women who we sent to war would be to openly and publicly honor them. Jeez, every last little silly thing that happens in this country gets 24-hour news coverage by our cable stations. Taking steps to prevent this from getting out is the distortion and the political maneuver.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Taking steps to prevent this from getting out is the distortion and the political maneuver.

Nope. It just takes it out of the political sphere altogther.

[zigzag]

I think mr. natural touched on the crux of the issue: the role of a free press. We can determine the names and number of the dead by reading the text of the news, but are visual images of the repatriations also newsworthy? Does the public's interest in having access to those images outweigh some other interest, e.g. privacy? Again, I haven't made up my mind - I can see arguments both ways - but I'm nonetheless troubled by the idea that the public needs to be protected from such images, while positive images are distributed freely. I'm more inclined to cite the FoxNews motto: we report, you decide. Put both the positive and negative information/images out there and let the voters decide its import. That partisans might use the information to promote their political agendas - either pro or con - is a risk we take in a free society.

It's arguably a matter of privacy, but it's also a matter of public interest, and just as there's a political interest in disclosing the images, there's a political interest in concealing them. Our tradition seems to favor disclosure over concealment.

That doesn't settle the question for me - I'm still not sure which way I come out on it, and I would be mindful of the preferences of the soldiers and their families - but I'm inclined to favor access, to the repatriations if not the funeral services.

[Lerkfish]

Certain undeniable points come to my mind in this discussion:

1. If one admits that vietnam flag draped coffins had an impact, and that the current administration is aware of it (to the tune of "it was a mistake because it turned people against the war") then one has to admit that NOT showing them is also using dead soldiers for political gain.
Then, logically, Kucinich would be in the same category of using dead soldiers for political gain, HOWEVER, the difference would be to highlight the cost of war instead of covering up or denying the visual truth of the cost of war. One seeks to cover up reality, one seeks to expose reality.

2. If the issue is whether the cost of war is worth it, there is no way to address that issue without bringing up the war dead in some way. To deny an antiwar person to discuss the loss of life is to take away the goal of his argument.
His argument IS that the cost is not worth it. If he cannot show the cost, he cannot make his point.
HOWEVER, a prowar person can better make their point if the public is not allowed to see the coffins. Therefore, denying them the right to use the war dead as an argument hurts them not at all. It actually helps their argument to avoid the butcher's bill. Therefore, to say that neither side can use the war dead as an argument only hampers one side of the argument and benefits the other. Even if the reasons for doing so are the privacy of the family, the end net result is the same.

3. Family's privacy is an issue, but the opportunity is dismissed out of hand by the administration before the press can even approach the family. Some families might WANT that image to be shown. If you think not, think how many times on a local news story you see someone who has lost a loved one and their main focus is to get the word out about their loss, to share that with the community, either as a sense of outrage or grief sharing. One cannot automatically assume EVERY family would not want their offspring's return to the country to be covered.
Where I would agree with the administration is if the family states they don't want it shown. But the reality is in the press we cover funerals all the time, and respect the wishes of the family. We aren't ghouls. Why do you think you always hear or read "pending notification of next of kin" before a victim's or fallen hero's name is released? Don't you think the press already has the name?
For example, *I* know that if my son died a war hero on a foreign shore, you bet your sweet ass I'd want to see his remains on their return to home, as a matter of pride and patriotism.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nope. It just takes it out of the political sphere altogther.

Hmm, taken out of the political sphere for political reasons.

I suppose we could hide bad economic news as well. It would take it out of the political sphere! I'm sure the unemployed don't want to be paraded around by politicians.

Come on, absolutely nothing in this country is taken out of the political sphere. I'm not fond of that aspect of our culture, but this is clearly an anomaly.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hmm, taken out of the political sphere for political reasons.

I suppose we could hide bad economic news as well.

And you want to inject it into the political sphere for political reasons.

No news is being hidden here. Like zigzag says, we all know about the casualties. You don't need a picture for that.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Like zigzag says, we all know about the casualties. You don't need a picture for that.

Which begs the question: In a free press context, do visual images have the same importance as text? More importance? Less? Does it depend? Do we even need to draw a distinction? Why allow images - pro or con - at all if we can get all the information we need from text? I don't know if the Supreme Court has ever addressed this particular question.

In a courtroom, a judge can exclude images that he deems are "more prejudicial than probative," i.e. that serve more to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jurors than to inform them. This seems to be the predominant fear of those who would bar the press from covering the flag-draped caskets. However, we're not in a courtroom - we're in a democracy. That doesn't settle the question but it's interesting to contemplate. Of course, we're talking about dead soldiers, so I don't mean to treat the matter flippantly, even in the abstract.

[mr. natural]

Let's get one thing straight. The news blackout is primarily about pictures of repatriations flag draped coffins being unloaded at Dover Air Force Base. PERIOD.

This certainly isn't isn't about showing maimed and stone cold dead "corpses."

It is somewhat about "visuals of dead American soldiers," but it is not as if their names were printed boldly on the sides of the coffins, so the family privacy issue is without logic.

Furthermore, as I have and Lerkfish pointed out, their are some families (and soldiers) who have spoken out quite publicly about their loss to the press. They want their sons or daughters to be remembered by the community/country at large for the ultimate sacrifice they made.

I heard a radio interview not long ago (here) with a Father who lost his son in Iraq (as well as a number of other folks), who had a number of complaints to raise about the way this whole issue of is being handled. It is a worthwhile listen.

As quoted by Brian Hart from this radio broadcast:

"What's missing is a discussion of the human cost of the war."

For anyone to suggest this is a way to avoid politicizing this is being obtuse, because it is has become so precisely because this administration is wanting to manage our perceptions or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

As to zigazag's querries, of course these "visual images" matter to this administration or they wouldn't have cared so much to enforce this. Simey even admits as much with his remark about the Vietnam visuals -- it's bad for the Triumphalist PR they want to project; and to argue otherwise is plain BS counterSPIN.

It's also revealing that Simey has not addressed whether he thinks Bush's political PR photo-ops as spelled out by me are just dandy compared to the denial of acknowledging the homebound flag draped coffins which Bush doesn't want us to see or feel sad for.

But now it's just another political football. Whoopie!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And you want to inject it into the political sphere for political reasons.

No news is being hidden here. Like zigzag says, we all know about the casualties. You don't need a picture for that.

hm...the bush administration had no qualms about showing uday's corpse, bullet-riddled and all....right?
apparently THAT needed a picture.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hm...the bush administration had no qualms about showing uday's corpse, bullet-riddled and all....right?
apparently THAT needed a picture.

Different audience. That was intended to show the Iraqi people that the people who had been terrorizing them really were dead. Besides, who cares about Uday and Qusay's feelings? I certainly don't.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Which begs the question: In a free press context, do visual images have the same importance as text? More importance? Less? Does it depend? Do we even need to draw a distinction? Why allow images - pro or con - at all if we can get all the information we need from text? I don't know if the Supreme Court has ever addressed this particular question.

In a courtroom, a judge can exclude images that he deems are "more prejudicial than probative," i.e. that serve more to inflame the passions and prejudices of the jurors than to inform them. This seems to be the predominant fear of those who would bar the press from covering the flag-draped caskets. However, we're not in a courtroom - we're in a democracy. That doesn't settle the question but it's interesting to contemplate. Of course, we're talking about dead soldiers, so I don't mean to treat the matter flippantly, even in the abstract.

I think you are on the right wavelength with your more prejudicial than probative analogy -- even if we don't come out with the same answer. People know that this ceremony occurs with each death. This is a private military ceremony on a closed military installation. They don't do it for the cameras. The treat the dead with the same respect regardless. We have all seen it, there is no value in repetition. They also know about the casualties. The numbers are not secret, and they are not confined to the back pages of the newspapers. The media has been very good about telling us about each and every casualty. So there is nothing gained by repetition of an image we have all seen.

The only value in repetititon is for those whose basic interest is in opposing the military mission in Iraq. There is no reason the government should cooperate with that. The government has a legitimate interest in winning the war. If the government were hiding the actual numbers of casualties, I would be upset. But they are not doing that. All they are doing is preventing an easy, emotive, and highly prejudicial image from being used. I see nothing wrong with that. Moreover, I think it was an inevitable decision. It is just one of the lessons learned from Vietnam.

mr natural: I have said nothing about the feelings of the families. Privacy only becomes a concern in my mind if you film the funerals. I'm OK with that, provided the families consent. But it is not otherwise a public event. No, what I am concerned about here are the feelings of the soldiers. I don't think that they would appreciate the deaths of their comrades and a private ceremony designed to honor them being used to undermine the very mission for which we have asked them to risk their lives. And since that seems to be the only interest of those who want this imagery, I think you need to consider their probable point of view.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Different audience. That was intended to show the Iraqi people that the people who had been terrorizing them really were dead. Besides, who cares about Uday and Qusay's feelings? I certainly don't.

they do have families. And the administration is very sensitive to the privacy of the family, right? oh wait, no, theyre just being so when it benefits them politically.