Posted by Jim Lindgren:
A Different Take on the Criticisms of AP.--
Frankly, I have been somewhat ambivalent in reading the criticism of
the Associated Press (AP) for running photos of the killing of
innocent Iraqi civilians by terrorists in Iraq. Much of the discussion
has focused on how much of a tip the AP photographer had; if he knew
of an assassination attempt before it occurred and went to photograph
it rather than stop it, that would be wrong. Other criticism, of the
sort that I wanted to comment on, goes to the more general question
whether the AP or other MSM should be showing pictures of terrorist
acts that the terrorists want shown.
Earlier in the war, the press was criticized for showing American
atrocities (e.g., prison torture) and possible atrocities (e.g., the
shooting of a wounded militant/terrorist in a mosque), but mostly
refusing to show beheadings and other atrocities committed by
terrorists. This even goes back to the aftermath of 9/11 when the
media fairly quickly stopped showing pictures of people diving from
the twin towers, probably to avoid stirring up the public excessively
(but perhaps out of concern for families of victims).
In most prior wars, the home country press showed pictures of
atrocities committed by the enemy, but downplayed or covered up
atrocities committed by the home country. This war is unusual in
several respects. First, at some times (though certainly not always),
the US press has been more likely to show the home country's
atrocities than the enemy's. This is somewhat explained by the US
press having better access to US actions, both good and bad, but it is
still historically very strange.
The other oddity is that the actions that the terrorists want shown
are themselves atrocities. Usually, one side in a war would be proud
to show its military victories, but ashamed to show its vicious
killings of innocent, unarmed civilians. In Iraq, the terrorists want
first to frighten, intimidate, and (yes) terrorize decent people who
want democracy. Second, they want to recruit and embolden a small
cadre of bloodthirsty people who would be attracted toward the cause
of people who commit atrocities.
For these two reasons, we have the odd spectacle of terrorists who
want their atrocities broadcast around the world, instead of being
ashamed by them. The Belmont Club, which quite insightfully [1]first
raised questions about the AP, pointed out how the terrorists might be
helped:
Although the Eddie Adams photograph [[2]of the execution of
Vietcong Captain Bay Lop by South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc
Loan] was widely used to illustrate the 'brutality' of the Saigon
government, the photos taken by the Associated Press are unlikely
to reflect badly on the electoral worker's killers. Press reports
highlight the confidence and boldness of the insurgents. "Both of
the victims shown in the sequence wore traditional Arab headscarfs.
In contrast, the attackers were bareheaded and apparently unafraid
to show their faces", suggesting that 'collaborators' must conceal
their faces while the Ba'athists stride with impunity through the
light of day.
So I can see some reasons for running pictures or video of atrocities
committed by Iraqi terrorists and some reasons for not running them.
In particular, if the press knew that the atrocity would not have
occurred without the press as an audience, that would definitely
suggest not covering it. But something like this problem arises in
more ordinary situations. Park Dietz once estimated that for every
product tampering extensively covered in the press (e.g., the Tylenol
scare), there are a couple dozen copycat events, some of them fatal.
Something similar has been argued for the press's covering mass school
killings, but I know of no evidence for this.
The only tentative conclusion that I would draw is that it might be
somewhat unfair to criticize the MSM both for showing atrocities that
terrorists want covered (such as perhaps the AP story) and for not
showing the beheading of hostages, which are also atrocities that
terrorists want covered. Is the press (even if the US press had no
goal other than to help the US war effort) supposed to show terrorist
atrocities or not? Which policy actually helps the terrorists or the
US war effort? Until the AP story, I got the impression in the
blogosphere that most critics of the press thought that the press
should be showing terrorist atrocities, even when the terrorists
wanted them shown. Now after the AP story, I'm not so sure.
I should add that I am not accusing any particular blogger for being
inconsistent (which is why I haven't linked most of the AP
criticisms), both because I have no idea whether any have been
inconsistent and because there are some good reasons to distinguish
the two sorts of cases. Indeed, most of the AP criticisms, and in
particular the brilliant and [3]amazingly perceptive post from the
Belmont Club that started all this, have focused on what the AP might
have done besides just publicize an event that the terrorists wanted
covered.
References
1.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/12/odds-against-associated-press-article.html
2.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/666noxlw.asp
3.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/12/odds-against-associated-press-article.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
