Winds of Change.NET: Things You Can See And Things You Can't

September 5, 2008

Things You Can See And Things You Can't

by Armed Liberal at September 5, 2008 3:42 AM

Josh Marshall, approvingly quoting the Boston Globe:

One of the most enduring taboos in American politics, the airing of graphic images from the September 11 attacks in a partisan context, died today. It was nearly seven years old.

The informal prohibition, which had been occasionally threatened by political ads in recent years, was pronounced dead at approximately 7:40 CST, when a video aired before delegates at the Republican National Convention included slow-motion footage of a plane striking the World Trade Center, the towers' subsequent collapse, and smoke emerging from the Pentagon.
The September 11 precedent was one of the few surviving campaign-season taboos. It is survived by direct comparisons of one's opponents to Hitler.

Josh Marshall, 2004...

Now, I have a degree of ambivalence about this question of media coverage of the fallen soldiers coming back to Dover. For many opponents of the war there is an unmistakable interest in getting these photographs before the public in order to weaken support for the war. There's no getting around that. I don't mean to imply that most who want these pictures out believe that, or even that that's an illegitimate goal. And there's a long record of governments managing bad news during wartime to keep up civilian morale.
But one needn't oppose the war to find something morally unseemly about the strict enforcement of the regulations barring any images of the reality behind these numbers we keep hearing on TV. There is some problem of accountability here, of putting on airs of national sacrifice and not having the courage to risk the real thing, some dark echo of the Rumsfeldian penchant for 4th generation, high-tech warfare where data transfers and throw weights replace bodies at every level.

I've never understood how one thing could be OK and the other not...but maybe I'm dense that way.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/8083

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Things You Can See And Things You Can't"

Comments

#1 from Vista at 3:53 am on Sep 05, 2008

This post leaves me wondering whether you agree or disagree with the display of the images in these two circumstances.

#2 from Armed Liberal at 4:00 am on Sep 05, 2008

I'm honestly ambivalent about both, but lean toward showing neither. Despite that, I believe flatly that showing one and hiding the other is a flat lie.

A.L.

#3 from Nortius Maximus at 4:12 am on Sep 05, 2008

Well, if you're going to show morgue shots of the fallen of Iraq, you should show the same of the charred body parts and red watermelon splashes from 9/11. And if you're going to show caskets, show caskets (in both cases). If you're going to show slo-mo footage of the planes impacting, what's the analog? Slo-mo of recons-by-fire in Afghanistan? Or simulations of IEDs successfully harming Hummers? I dunno.

#4 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 4:34 am on Sep 05, 2008

I'm confused a little. Were the Iraq pictures going to be played at the Democratic Convention? Used in a Democratic campaign ad? I think it's the context of the replay that's novel, not the showing of the collapse itself.

Is there really no difference between showing something on the 7 o'clock news and showing it at a political rally?

#5 from Jeff Medcalf at 5:06 am on Sep 05, 2008

I hate to state the obvious, Andrew, but in case you really didn't know, images of Iraqi dead were featured rather a bit in the 2004 Democratic campaign ads.

#6 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 5:10 am on Sep 05, 2008

I gave up TV almost 20 years ago, so I'm sometimes out of touch. I'd say if Democratic campaign ads used Iraq dead, then 9/11 is probably fair game. I think I'd juxtapose it with "Osama bin Laden determined to strike in US" and a Bush look-alike saying "You've covered your ass, now."

Dems really are too chicken sometimes.

#7 from Dave at 7:49 am on Sep 05, 2008

AL, these are two different things entirely. Having a political party intentionally show images of the WTC vs. the government disallowing news organizations to cover caskets returning home? You veer off entirely from the purpose of the quote - partisian context - in order to grab something dissimilar.

Despite that, I believe flatly that showing one and hiding the other is a flat lie.
I think what you're going for is that one party has done both of these.

Just curious - you were using this as an approval for what John Marshall mentions, right? Because otherwise it seems like you're taking a shot using 2 different things, contexts, and comparing use for propaganda(for the GOP) vs. news.

#8 from Armed Liberal at 8:59 am on Sep 05, 2008

AJL and Dave - really? Video of what happened on 9/11 is propaganda while images of (generic) war dead are news?

Did you miss Marshall's point about the images?

C'mon guys, step off the ideological bus enough to see what's being talked about.

A.L.

#9 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 3:19 pm on Sep 05, 2008

A.L., the images by themselves are neither political propaganda nor news. I know. I've seen replays of the 9/11 attacks in a documentary context. It's not like the tape is classified Top Secret. Unless you've decided that all news organizations except Fox are extensions of the Democratic Party, use of footage in a news report is different from use at a political convention.

You don't believe me? You think footage from the Nuremberg Rally means the same in a mainstream documentary and the National Stormfront web site?

Of course, it may be that the GOP made a mistake. They appear to have shown Walter Reed Middle School as a backdrop instead of Walter Reed Army Hospital. Botched execution again.

#10 from Armed Liberal at 7:55 pm on Sep 05, 2008

And yet, Andrew, none of the news media I see show images from 9/11 - not even as a part of documentary discussions which would make it relevant. It'll be interesting to see what's shown next week.

That's the rub; if - as Marshall says - activists against the war can agitate to show pictures of war dead as a way to leverage public opinion, why isn't it legitimate for activists for the war to agitate to show and use images from 9/11?

Because info that you oppose is "propaganda" and info you support is "news" ??

A.L.

#11 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 8:23 pm on Sep 05, 2008

A.L., this isn't a question about people outside the party agitating to show the footage; it's about the party actually showing the footage. If there has been political use made of US soldier coffins, well, I'd say you are right, let the GOP show what it wants. But (and as I said, I don't see much TV) I haven't seen Iraq War dead used in an overtly political context, certainly not by the Democratic Party. Might have happened, links welcomed.

#12 from Shad at 2:30 am on Sep 06, 2008

Might have happened, links welcomed.

Did happen, link.

#13 from Glen Wishard at 3:52 am on Sep 06, 2008

That coffin ad was pulled, but only after it had been defended by those wonderful leaders Pelosi and Reid, and Hillary's former valet Chuck Schumer.

#14 from TOC at 10:08 pm on Sep 06, 2008

Last time I heard their was free speech in the U.S. people have the right to show these sorts of images even if others find them offensive. The last thing we need is political censorship, from either side on what is politically correct.