[macvillage.net]

I've been a long time critic over American media's bias. Our media shows us pretty press release video of war, while the rest of the world sees what the war really contains. Every so often a bad pic slips through, and the US is upset.

But this struck me as quite strange...

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world...t.exclude.html

Pictures 6 and 7.

Would we show pictures of Bush, or some other foreign leaders after such a situation? Would we show Tony Blair? The Queen? Kofi Annan? Vladimir Putin? the Pope? Other world leaders?

I just find it rather strange that this picture is all over the media, not even a warning for kids before showing the images. But people still go nutty when the Kennedy Autopsy photo's are shown on primetime TV, saying it's tasteless.

But to counteract that, every media outlet I've seen has covered the faces of the Iraqi prisoners shown in the recent prison abuse headlines. Though I saw the other day people complaing that the soldiers faces were shown, when it's still a pending investigation, and they aren't convicted, ruining their reputation.


My question is this: When does it cross the line? In either direction.

Should the US media "pretty up" war, rather than show us the aweful video the rest of the world knows as war?

Should the US shown foreign leaders killed?

Should the US have covered the faces of the soldiers as they did the prisoners?

What is the ethical standard?

My beef is mainly the lack of a standard. We can't see one thing, but they shove the other in our face.

I can see the argument for not showing bloody war video on network TV, where it's easily accessible to kids during the day. That's an argument with a valid point (though there should be an avenue so people really see what our soldiers are going through).

But why is it OK to show certain individuals, but not others? I'm pretty certain we wouldn't show Tony Blair in such a situation. Is the difference purely political?

It's not just one network here. I just linked to CNN because I found it first and know the link isn't likely to die in 5 minutes like Yahoo. But it's on every network.

There have been several indirect discussions on the topic, so why not one more direct and focused purely on media ethics and standards for such situations.

We saw the same thing during 9/11. What to show, what not to show. And every aniversary since. Princess Diana too.

[Nicko]

Hmmm I'm not sure there would be censorship if it was a more popular world leader getting blown up. I think that it may have more to do with if there is live tv coverage of the event. In the recent assassination, there were camaras all over the event as it was happening, so there wasn't any opportunity to censor. I'm pretty sure if there was live footage of bush getting blown up that it would be on the air in seconds. How many times was the footage of the planes running into the two towers aired?

Ofcourse, I think its natural for people not want to see people they know die.

[Millennium]

Just because you prefer one bias over another does not validate or invalidate either one.

The fact is, you do not get an unbiased view from any media outlet; your precious "what war really contains" is just a bias in a different direction. It is said that the camera can only take pictures in the direction it is pointed; this is a fairly stark example of that. One side shows pretty pictures, the other shows ugly pictures, but each has an agenda they want you to subscribe to.

This is something more people would do well not to forget. All media is biased one way or another, and this is why no single media source should ever be trusted. The best you can do is be aware of the biases in your chosen media sources, and use sources with a variety of biases, so that you can get more information and -horror of horrors- decide for yourself what to believe.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Hmmm I'm not sure there would be censorship if it was a more popular world leader getting blown up. I think that it may have more to do with if there is live tv coverage of the event. In the recent assassination, there were camaras all over the event as it was happening, so there wasn't any opportunity to censor. I'm pretty sure if there was live footage of bush getting blown up that it would be on the air in seconds. How many times was the footage of the planes running into the two towers aired?

Ofcourse, I think its natural for people not want to see people they know die.

Well these pictures have been online for about 24hrs now. I question if CNN would show any pictures of a mortally wounded Tony Blair, or some other allied leader.

When stuff is live things tend to slip, that's just human error. We can't see into the future. I agree, can't punish networks for something like that. There somethings that just slip.

But the US has such a high standard on this stuff, the government is all nutty about not showing pictures of coffins from fallen soldiers, or fresh military graves.

My point is that it's a little distasteful to show something like that. Especially when it's pretty safe to say that if something happened to Bush, and pictures were circulating other nations, it would create quite a bit of outrage.

Originally posted by Millennium:
This is something more people would do well not to forget. All media is biased one way or another, and this is why no single media source should ever be trusted. The best you can do is be aware of the biases in your chosen media sources, and use sources with a variety of biases, so that you can get more information and -horror of horrors- decide for yourself what to believe.

Very good point.

I try to make a point of reading a source from outside of the US on the same topic as well. Often a very different story than what all these US networks seem to want to show.

But it's possible to be less bias than the networks are now. While true unbias is impossible, there is without question room for improvement IMHO.