Originally Posted by MachineGunFunk (Post 2649624)

There should be a place for it in documentaries, books, dvds and such, but not on the nightly news. It should be available for people who seek it, that is their right.

Originally Posted by SanAntonio_JetFan (Post 2649587)

Years ago, I remember seeing the bodies of some of our soldiers dragged through the streets in Mogadishu. I thought it was in very poor taste for our media to show that on the evening news.

Originally Posted by The Paranoid Jet (Post 2649681)

So would you propose maybe like a reverse "statute of limitations" kinda thing on photos that you'd use of dead soldiers? Can't do anything with it for forty years say but then it's groovy, stick it in a textbook?

On the flip side, you say it should be available to people who seek it. Sounds great, I'm all in, but then how does that protect the dignity of the families of the lost?

Originally Posted by MachineGunFunk (Post 2650615)

Hysterical how in a real debate about a real issue without any mention of political parties or Obama/Reagan circle jerks, there are so few responses.

But hey, it's a football message board... I shouldn't expect great intellectual insight.

Originally Posted by MachineGunFunk (Post 2650615)

I shouldn't expect great intellectual insight.

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan (Post 2650816)

Free market. No govt. regulating necessary. If the consumers decide that gory images are too much, then the consumer will not watch or purchase said media outlets products. Information, be it either a dead body or real reasons to wage war, should not be controlled or metered by the federal govt.

Originally Posted by Warfish (Post 2650749)

You're just realizing this now? What are you....new?:D

I am of two minds on the topic of "grisly reporting". One one hand, it serves the (I think vital) purposes of both showing what our enemy does (i.e. the results of suicide bombings, beheadings, ect.) and ensuring our Citizenry know exactly what the cost of the War we're waging is. These are not videogame characters, they're our fellow Americans, kids mostly.

On the other, the idea of showing blown apart or beheaded Americas IS a mite bit distasteful and I can see how some would say disrespectful.

So it's a battle, as I see it, between two different ideals, one that says we need to know whats going on (both ways) and one that says "have respect for the dead".

Not an easy issue, and when you factor in things like American pruddishness about anythign uncomfortable (i.e. death and sex) and a media who has no intention or desire to see the Citizenry educated or informed (only entertained), we get what we have today, which is.....not much.

Originally Posted by The Paranoid Jet (Post 2650896)

This is exactly how I feel about the conflict.

What does your gut say Fish? Mine leans more towards censorship, I think.

Originally Posted by The Paranoid Jet (Post 2649524)

Just wanted to know how everyone felt. The media is sometimes embedded along with troop divisions. It is true that the government will sometimes do things to ensure that pictures of war that are deemed exceptionally grisly are censored.

The question is - how far should this go? Should it exist at all? If so, when and where could it justifiably be used?

I personally think that censorship should be required to ensure that distinguishing photos of dead soldiers cannot be published in the United States, but I'm not sure if it should extend beyond that. While I don't feel that censorship is usually just in any sphere of life, as it restricts information about what really is, this seems like it borders too nearly on a respect issue.

Opinions, thoughts?

Originally Posted by doggin94it (Post 2651061)

I think there should be only one form of imposed censorship - no reporting any material that endangers an active operation by giving away strategically important information (such as locations or objectives of troop movements) - and one of self imposed restraint (not publishing images of recognizable dead bodies, not publishing names of the dead before relatives are notified, etc.)

Other than that, none at all.

Originally Posted by The Paranoid Jet (Post 2651999)

Okay. I don't hate this, but I see a possible flaw of idealism and I want to show you a possible consequence and see if you're still okay with it.

So I'm a photographer over there. I have a self-interest in getting my work published, because it could mean a lot of money and a better life for my family. Oh, geez, there's an American serviceman. His skull has actually been cleaved in two, and he's been mutilated. A shot with full facial clarity will get me on Newsweek, and they will publish it because it will sell papers and get publicity. I have to do it, right? Like, I'd love to be idealistic, but Jesus, it's my family, and what could be so wrong about showing reality? He was alive, now he's dead, so why not show the world?

Basically, I just feel that a limit of self-imposed restraint is extremely likely to result in images that are beyond shocking (because maybe we all deserve to be shocked once in a while) but that become disrespectful. Or, I might ask, is that the price to pay for removing censorship? I'm asking seriously, I don't think it's self-evident. Is freedom of the press and freedom of information more important than an individual's or a family's respect? I just don't know anymore.

So doggin, does your principle still hold even under this extreme situation?

Originally Posted by Mean Bro Green (Post 2652014)

wait, is the question her about what controls the GOVERNMENT should place on the free media???? :huh:

Originally Posted by doggin94it (Post 2652054)

Yeah, I think it holds. Disrespect is not a basis on which to restrict freedom of the press, because that would chill very important speech which could be termed disrespectful (just look at the Mohammed cartoon controversy, for example, or a lot of the political commentary in our airwaves today for example)