April 24, 2004

Good point

The New York Times has an interesting letter to the editor today pointing out and apparent double standard in the Bush policy regarding pictures of flag-draped coffins & bodies.

The Bush administration claims to oppose publishing photographs of the coffins of American soldiers killed in Iraq out of respect (news article, April 23), yet it had no trouble using images of the destruction of 9/11 in the president's campaign ads.

This curious double standard seems explainable more by the administration's political interests than by the public interest: it shows us tragedy when it hopes to profit but shields us from it when it expects to lose.

GERARD J. FITZPATRICK
Collegeville, Pa., April 23, 2004

I hadn't actually thought about that before, but to a great extent, Mr. Fitzpatrick is right: If it's ok to show the photos of the flag-draped bodies being removed from the rubble of the World Trade Center, how is it any more disrespectful to the dead or their families to show the flag-draped coffins? If the coffins were individually identifiable, so that a family would know that the coffin contained their son, daughter, wife, husband, father or mother, I would agree that it would be insensitive - unless the family themselves chose to distribute the photo. But as long as the photos are of anonymous coffins, I don't see where it should be any more of a problem than all the times we saw the images of flag-draped stretchers being carried out of the WTC wreckage.

One place where I do draw the line, though, would be the use of any of these photos in a campaign commercial. I firmly believe that it was wrong and exploitative for Bush to have used the images of bodies being removed from the 9/11 rubble in his ads earlier this year, and I would be just as upset if John Kerry were to put images of flag-draped coffins in his campaign ads.

Those pictures help us remember what true cost of any war really is, and it's something we can't afford to forget.

Posted by thorswitch at April 24, 2004 06:49 PM | TrackBack


Comments

First, this is not a Bush policy, it's Pentagon policy--the same policy that has existed for decades under both Democrats and Republicans. Second, to the families, the coffins represent individuals, not an event. How would you like your loved ones' coffins shown on TV? From personal experience, I KNOW I would not. Third, the implication that Bush, for his political gain, tries to suppress or censor what the public sees is ludicrous. Have you been watching the evening news for the past year? Have you seen the front pages of the newspapers showing charred carcasses of Americans? Further, even if Bush could control the American press (which he sure as hell does not, as the distribution of the picture itself proves), he does not control the international press who can print whatever they want--not to mention the Internet. If you want to see an example of censorship, look at North Korea in the aftermath of the train colission that may have killed thousands. . .their government, which opposes Bush and the American standard of free press, has covered up everything. Finally, I find it interesting that the writer suggests that this is an opportunity for political gain for the Democrats (loss for the Republicans). Why was the partisan issue brought up? If the picture's purpose was without political purpose, should that not speak for itself? (Finally, finally: Some conservatives I know actually consider the picture "beautiful." Kerry won't win, anyway, and I am willing to bet $$$$$$$.)

Posted by: sean at April 27, 2004 04:07 PM

Was anyone else out there shocked and sickened by Bush's comment at the Press Conference: "No one wants to see dead bodies on the TV... "

As a mother of a soldier serving in Iraq, I'm horrified at his insensitivity. No mother wants to hear her child referred to a just a "dead body." How dare he. What a despicable and loathesome excuse for a human being!

Posted by: Carolyn Corbett at May 2, 2004 02:42 AM

Wait a second. If Bush is as dumb as liberals claim, then he simply does not know any better. Do you fault a blind person for stepping on your toe? Also, how does one statement make Bush or anyone a "despicable and loathesome excuse for a human being"?

Posted by: sean at May 4, 2004 04:32 PM