----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 12:46 PM Subject: Re: Beheading Avenges Prison Abuse
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The image is available on their website for anyone > > who wants to see it. I > > think that the media isn't showing the murder out of > > respect for the > > families...just like it stopped showing people > > jumping from the WTC. > > > Dan M. > > Let me think about the rest of it but respond to this. > I would argue that there's a very simple rule to > predict when the press will show a picture. If it's > likely to inflame the American public against their > enemies - the pictures don't get shown. If it's > likely to inflame the enemies of the US against us - > the "news value" of the pictures suddenly gets more > important, as in the case of the prison photos. Why? > It seems to me that the answer to that is very simple. > Like (for example) a few people on this list, most > members of the elite media don't, in their heart of > hearts, believe that people outside the United States > act against us in anything but retaliation for our own > actions. Murdering Daniel Pearl wasn't because the > people who did it were Islamist fanatics bent on the > murder of Jews and Americans, but in retaliation for > the acts of the United States (see Robert Fisk's > articles at the time, for example). It's not that > they think that the terrorists are right, it's that > they think the terrorists have "understanable > grievances" and that the best thing we can do is > "understand why they hate us" and act differently so > as to appease our enemies. > > Thus the photos of the torture - those create an > important policy point. They (might) get the US to > back away from Iraq and appease Islamist fanaticism - > and that is pretty much what most members of the media > think that we should do (note this is not condemnatory > - there's a coherent argument to be made that this is, > in fact, the correct policy. I don't agree with it, > but it's not immoral or anything like that, it's just > incorrect). So the photos get published. >But showing > people jumping from the World Trade Center - that's > not about respect. That's because those photos are > inflammatory - they are likely to remind Americans of > the true horrors of what happened on September 11th > (and you can already see people forgetting). So those > photos become "too horrible to show." OK, let me walk through this arguement. First of all, I saw people jumping from the WTC a number of times on TV. Then, an announcment was made: "we have been requested to stop showing these photos because of the feelings of the families of the people in the WTC. We thought about it, and decided they were right." My real guess is that they thought Americans would believe that and it was not worth the risk of alienating too many viewers. Second, in your discussion of the media elite, you have made it looked like a left wing monolith. I cannot agree with that. Are you arguing that Fox news has had a left wing pacifict agenda over the last year that permiated its news coverage? Don't you think the NY Post, or at least the Washington Times would be willing to publish those photos, if the only reason for not publishing them was a left wing agenda? Is every news outlet part of the leftist elite? Let me give another explaination. The most important question for any news outlet is what will improve our ratings. That can easily explain the importance of pushing a mike into the face of someone who has just lost a loved one in some horrid manner (murder, burned in a fire, etc.) and asking "how do you feel." It is newsworthy because it sells soap. It shows why docudramas like "COPs" are so important. The prison abuse story has been sitting there, univestigated, for for a long time. Without pictures, Americans didn't want to believe it was anything more than a minor abberation. With no boost to circulation or ratings, why spend any time or money chasing down the story. With pictures, the story had sex appeal, and could push up ratings. Therefore it was a serious subject for journalism. The details were not shown because the risk of an FCC fine overrode any benefits that could be gained from sensationalism. I'm arguing that news must be viewed first and formost as a profit making business. The legs a story has is not based on its objective importance, but on its effect on ratings. Thus, we pick out one murder out of thousands as one worth following to the nth degree, while ignoring others. For example, the Peterson trial is still big news, with no objective reason why this is more important than any other double murder. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
