Media Coverage of the Dead

[Da Skinna]

For the first time in 18 years we have coverage now in the States over what comes back from wars.

The Pentagon has permitted media coverage of returning US war dead for the first
time in 18 years.

US media broadcast the return of the body of Phillip Myers, a US air force staff sargeant killed in Afghanistan, to Dover Air Force base in the state of Delaware on Monday morning.

Myers's relatives were the first to be asked under a new Pentagon policy whether they wanted his return to be covered by media.

The controversial ban was imposed in 1991 by George Bush, the then president, before the first Iraq war, citing the need for families to have privacy to grieve.

However, critics said the move hid the cost of war from Americans and Barack Obama, the current US president, asked the US department of defence to review the decision.

Robert Gates, the defence secretary, said he was uncomfortable with the ban.

Legal challenges

The family of Myers, who died on April 4 near Helmand province in Afghanistan after being hit with an improvised explosive device, was present when at the air base when his casket was unloaded from a cargo aircraft.

They declined to be interviewed or photographed, as dozens of news photographers and camera crews took pictures and broadcast images of his body's return.

Under the new policy, families of fallen servicemen will decide whether to allow media coverage of their return.

If several bodies arrive on the same flight, news coverage will be allowed only for those whose families have given permission.

There have been some exceptions to the ban since 1991, most notably in 1996 when Bill Clinton, then US president, attended the arrival of the remains of Ron Brown, the US commerce secretary, and 32 others killed in an air crash in Croatia.

In 2000, the Pentagon also distributed photographs of the arrival of remains of those killed in the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen and in 2001 the air force distributed a photograph of the remains of a victim of the September 11 attack on the Pentagon building.

There have also been several legal challenges to the policy, with the Pentagon in 2005 releasing hundreds of military images of flag-draped coffins of soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq following a "freedom of information" request and lawsuit.

Like any government gives a damn about grieving... the reason is BS, pure and simple. They learned a camera's eye just has no place in one of their wars, and they learned that in Vietnam.

Photo-ops work both ways, as we see with the dead of a terrorist attack, and the dead of a questionable war.

War is alright for the people until they start seeing what it does.

[Heinz Guderian]

Good decision by Obama and Gates. I had no idea this ban was repealed. Thanks for the heads up. rep+

[Homeros]

The US Army is experiencing recruitment difficulties for a while, death people are bad publicity so they've tried to ignore them.

The public is being manipulated by Hollywood super-hero movies using the simple - good guys win, bad guys lose, and Britain prevails (I mean the US) - approach. War is glorified and portrayed like a game. Actually seeing people, devastated having lost their loved ones, might spoil the fun.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Just standard manipulation of the media that was a hallmark of the Republican controlled years.

Nice to see that the censorship is finally going.

[CDMan477]

Just standard manipulation of the media that was a hallmark of the Republican controlled years.

Nice to see that the censorship is finally going.

Pfft, a manipulation that also occurred and wasn't repelled during an eight year Clinton administration. An important note to make here is that he may have been a Democrat I believe.

[Khannis]

War is a game. War is tragedy. War is rage, loss, intelligence, and sadism.

Infact, war is what your personal experiences make of it, it has no universal significance, and neither universally good nor bad, depends on the point of view.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Infact, war is what your personal experiences make of it, it has no universal significance, and neither universally good nor bad, depends on the point of view.

What exactly is this? Please, you're reminding me of Sociology 101, and that's never a good thing.

Who are you, who apparently knows the Universal Truth of All Things? I didn't know that you alone understood the true nature of war.

[Khannis]

That's the point, it doesn't have one true nature, it's true nature is exclusive to the impressions of the individual.

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

That's the point, it doesn't have one true nature, it's true nature is exclusive to the impressions of the individual.

Anyone could say that about anything. Doesn't help any issue be resolved.

[motiv-8]

The US Army is experiencing recruitment difficulties for a while, death people are bad publicity so they've tried to ignore them.

Um, no it's not. Check the recruitment and retention numbers. The US Army, and all numbers, are doing EXTREMELY well. Furthermore, combat deaths as a proportion of casualties and combat personnel are IIRC the lowest in the history of the United States military. Check the facts before you report nonsense.

War is glorified and portrayed like a game. Actually seeing people, devastated having lost their loved ones, might spoil the fun.

For one, war in American society at large has certainly not been glorified, nor portrayed as a game, for the last 100 years, if not dating back all the way to the Civil War. The horrors of even the brief American expedition into Europe in 1918 influenced renewed isolationism. The experience of Iwo Jima and Okinawa jolted American public opinion, and the prospects of an even more horrific scene on Kyushu and Hokkaido factored heavily in the decision to use an atomic bomb on Japan. The media correctly portrayed the fightin in Vietnam as it was -- gritty, ferocious, and bloody. In Iraq and Afghanistan, every combat death has been duly reported by the media from the national down to the local level, and care has been given in showing the impact losses have had on the community. All this despite an exponential decrease in casualties from one war to the next in the past half-century. If you bother to look at the background of this current decision, it was due to families' wishes to allow their sons/husbands/fathers the honor of a public arrival back home. This isn't a complete reversal of policy, but the ability for an individual family to choose whether they want their loved one's return to be announced and portrayed to the public. Some families don't want that, and it's not forced on them. It's not about the media, it's not about bs'ing the public, and it's not about PR. It's about giving families the choice of how to bring their boys back home. So, please, save your criticisms and smart remarks for an appropriate subject.

[Homeros]

Um, no it's not. Check the recruitment and retention numbers. The US Army, and all numbers, are doing EXTREMELY well. Furthermore, combat deaths as a proportion of casualties and combat personnel are IIRC the lowest in the history of the United States military. Check the facts before you report nonsense.

They are recruiting ex-cons and gangbangers because they can't get better people:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9598242/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900815_pf.html
http://www.beyourowndetective.com/bl...ing-criminals/
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/mi...recruiting2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NG42LCIGK1.DTL

What nonsense?

[Da Skinna]

For one, war in American society at large has certainly not been glorified, nor portrayed as a game, for the last 100 years, if not dating back all the way to the Civil War. The horrors of even the brief American expedition into Europe in 1918 influenced renewed isolationism. The experience of Iwo Jima and Okinawa jolted American public opinion, and the prospects of an even more horrific scene on Kyushu and Hokkaido factored heavily in the decision to use an atomic bomb on Japan. The media correctly portrayed the fightin in Vietnam as it was -- gritty, ferocious, and bloody. In Iraq and Afghanistan, every combat death has been duly reported by the media from the national down to the local level, and care has been given in showing the impact losses have had on the community. All this despite an exponential decrease in casualties from one war to the next in the past half-century. If you bother to look at the background of this current decision, it was due to families' wishes to allow their sons/husbands/fathers the honor of a public arrival back home. This isn't a complete reversal of policy, but the ability for an individual family to choose whether they want their loved one's return to be announced and portrayed to the public. Some families don't want that, and it's not forced on them. It's not about the media, it's not about bs'ing the public, and it's not about PR. It's about giving families the choice of how to bring their boys back home. So, please, save your criticisms and smart remarks for an appropriate subject.

I disagree. It is about bs-ing the public. They need to be bs-ed.

EVERY war before Vietnam was glorified. Every war before Vietnam was like Vietnam. No war is without grit, without blood and without ferocity.

The impact television had cannot be underestimated here. By 1967 there was a whole generation that had grown up with the television. For war to be broadcast in all its "glory" to a people, provoked anger. It provoked outrage.

And for the first time in American history, the returning soldiers were not considered war heroes. The country was deeply divided.

George Bush Senior blacked out the media coverage because they learned from Vietnam that a camera doth piss the people. It makes them question things.

***

The reason they didn't do a complete reversal is because they are still in the war, to do so would create political havoc for the Obama administration. They didn't start the war, but they have to end it. This decision has a realpolitik of gracefully showing that wars caused by Republicans (despite Democratic complacency...) are bad, at the same time pulling a half-reverse on media coverage at all.

[motiv-8]

Nice selective attention, chief. They also recruit college students (like myself) and all kinds of people who are aged 17-30. Congratulations on using sources out-dated by almost half a decade.

And you question nonsense? I'll just repeat the fact that you are thoroughly wrong on your initial claim that the US Army is not meeting recruiting numbers, because that is, as I said, patent nonsense. Spare yourself further embarrassment, and spare me having to repeat myself. The latest numbers, for your own convenience:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0310-dod01.htm

[Homeros]

Nice selective attention, chief. They also recruit college students (like myself) and all kinds of people who are aged 17-30. Congratulations on using sources out-dated by almost half a decade.

And you question nonsense? I'll just repeat the fact that you are thoroughly wrong on your initial claim that the US Army is not meeting recruiting numbers, because that is, as I said, patent nonsense. Spare yourself further embarrassment, and spare me having to repeat myself. The latest numbers, for your own convenience:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0310-dod01.htm

Who's selective here? You're presenting the results of one month (February 2009). I don't know if you've noticed, but we're in the middle of a severe economic crisis. People losing their jobs, losing their houses, and everything else are begging to get a job at the local McDonalds! Those people are desperate and will take any job thats available. This makes things a lot easier for the army recruiters, don't you think.

The Iraq War began to have an impact on recruiting in 2005, when the Army missed its goal for the number of recruits. In 2007, for the third year in a row, the Army did not meet its benchmark for the level of educational attainment of recruits. The percentage of recruits the Department of Defense (DoD) considers ‘high quality’ also dropped considerably. A higher percentage of recruits will drop out well before the end of the first term of enlistment, leading to further increases in spending on recruitment and training, including enlistment bonuses and pay for additional recruiters.

The Department of Defense defines a ‘high quality’ recruit based on a combination of educational attainment and AFQT score. A ‘high quality’ recruit is one who scores at or above the 50th percentile on the AFQT, and who is tier I (has a regular high school diploma or better). The DoD strives to have all recruits be ‘high quality’ as these recruits will be more likely to complete contracted enlistment terms and perform better in training and on the job. The percentage of ‘high quality’ recruits has dropped precipitously. In 2005, it was 56.2 percent, in 2006, it was 46.6 percent and in 2007, the number dropped further to 44.6 percent. Compared to 2004, the Army is recruiting more than one-fourth fewer ‘high quality’ youth.

Recruiting difficulties have led to increased expenditures spent on recruiting. According to the federal government’s assessment rating of the Department of Defense recruiting program, “The recruiting environment is more difficult, resulting in increased costs for bonuses and other incentives…Additional recruiters and funds were applied to the program in FY 2006 and FY 2007.” More than $4 billion is spent annually on recruiting.

Re-enlistment bonuses have also increased significantly. In 2006, these incentives increased from a maximum of $60,000 to $90,000. Total spending on re-enlistment bonuses increased from $505.6 million in FY2005 to $736.9 million in FY2006. In 2004, it was only $142.9 million and in 2003, $102.6 million, according to the Department of Defense Army budget documents.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/mi...recruiting2007

Maj. Gen. Bostick said one of the difficulties in meeting recruiting goals is the "incredibly challenging" recruiting environment.

"Less than three out of 10 of our nation's youth are fully qualified for service in the Army due to disqualifying medical conditions, criminal records, lack of education credentials or low aptitude test scores," he said.

Likely exacerbating the issue: the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and its affect on "influencers" of potential recruits.

"Today, parents and influencers are less likely to encourage their family members and other young adults to join the military," the general said. "Propensity -- the desire to enlist in the armed forces -- is at its lowest point in two decades."

In fiscal 2007, the Army fell short of the goal of ensuring that 90 percent of its recruits had a high school diploma. Instead, in fiscal 2007, only about 79 percent of recruits held diplomas. Nevertheless, the general said, the Army is recruiting quality Soldiers.

http://www.army.mil/-news/2008/01/31...ruiting-goals/

The US Army is experiencing recruitment difficulties for a while.

Even the US Army acknowledges this, it ain't nonsense.

[Khannis]

The issue IS resolved, the ban is lifted, everybody's happy (or almost).

And you're right: That is truth for ANYTHING. But people never seem to notice.

[motiv-8]

For war to be broadcast in all its "glory" to a people, provoked anger. It provoked outrage.

Actually, the outrage was provoked by deliberate media lies and misinformation that the United States was losing in every way imaginable, when in fact it was delivering debilitating blows to the NVA and wiping out the Viet Cong. You're putting your cart before the horse.

And World War II was certainly NOT 'glorified'. All Americans knew about the horrors of Pearl Harbor, Tarawa, Japanese war crimes, and Iwo Jima-Okinawa. Nothing about it was glorified.

George Bush Senior blacked out the media coverage because they learned from Vietnam that a camera doth piss the people. It makes them question things.

As I recall, CNN was right there from the beginning. And any "blackout" would have not been for the reasons you claim, but because it was well-known that leftist media was composed of complete that relied on sensationalism rather than actual reporting, at least in terms of reporting on war.

[Da Skinna]

Actually, the outrage was provoked by deliberate media lies and misinformation that the United States was losing in every way imaginable, when in fact it was delivering debilitating blows to the NVA and wiping out the Viet Cong. You're putting your cart before the horse.

And World War II was certainly NOT 'glorified'. All Americans knew about the horrors of Pearl Harbor, Tarawa, Japanese war crimes, and Iwo Jima-Okinawa. Nothing about it was glorified.


As I recall, CNN was right there from the beginning. And any "blackout" would have not been for the reasons you claim, but because it was well-known that leftist media was composed of complete that relied on sensationalism rather than actual reporting, at least in terms of reporting on war.

Wow your blinders are on tight.

I remember a story where General Westmoreland in 1967 was in a field hospital to award some soldiers medals with the cameras with him. He asked them what happened, they said they were ambushed. Westmoreland did another take, but not before asking the soldier to not use the word "ambush".

The papers reported a US victory when it was clear, as survivors would tell you, that it was an ambush. The veteran colonel of the Vietnamese company that ambushed the Americans said they had to leave... by chance they happened upon Americans, but they were heading to another fight elsewhere.

The exact opposite was true, misinformation was done by the government because they knew the war was turning into a quagmire.

The power of television shows itself again during the Tet Offensive... yes, Americans ing crippled a major Vietnamese attack, but back home it was a PR loss, people saw the embassy in Saigon attacked.

As for World War 2 being glorified, wars are glorified when its soldiers come home heroes. Of course, the atrocities of Japan were exploited, but where the hell was the US in Nanking? In Auschwitz? In France and the Netherlands?

No, America only knew of atrocity as a reason to go to war when they decided to go to war. They didn't give a about Hitler and anybody that said anything was a Communist and an automatic liar.

It was the same then, it's the same now. Atrocities against Kurds one more reason to go to war with Iraq... pfft.

***

And this kind of television is quite inundated. Yeah yeah shock and awe, but nothing of civilians killed. It's a blackout because it's impersonal and shallow.

Embedded journalism is relatively new, and absolutely rigged to fail to properly inform citizens of what's happening.


***

You have some serious misconceptions about the history of media. Sensationalism also meant a Chicago Daily Tribune correspondent can call Spanish peasants "infected with Communism" and must be humanely put down during the Spanish Civil War.

by deliberate media lies and misinformation that the United States was losing in every way imaginable, when in fact it was delivering debilitating blows to the NVA and wiping out the Viet Cong.

because it was well-known that leftist media was composed of complete that relied on sensationalism rather than actual reporting

These statements are groundless. If you want to know the story of those soldiers in the ambush, it's a documentary called Two Days in October.

For the Chicago paper guy, here is exactly what he said, I have it front of me now actually.

The enemy was complex molecule of a spiritual poison called communism for convenience, but liberalism was the most deadly individual element in it, and the most hated. Introduced into the human organism, this poison acted like a germ virus; not only incurable, but infectious. Certain men known as the Leaders had perversely inoculated themselves with the poison, and like Satan in Catholic mythology, were deliberately trying to spread the infection as widely as they could. As the incarnation of evil these men deserved punishment. Their victims who might have been good Spaniards if they had not had the bad luck to be infected by the Leaders, did not merit punishment properly speaking, but they had to be shot in a humane way because they were incurable and might infect others.

Now that's sensationalism.

[Hardrada992]

And World War II was certainly NOT 'glorified'. All Americans knew about the horrors of Pearl Harbor, Tarawa, Japanese war crimes, and Iwo Jima-Okinawa. Nothing about it was glorified.

Hmm... you are ignoring the vast amount of U.S. War propaganda films and posters. World War II was most certainly glorified.

Here are some

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Not to mention the countless news reels and propaganda films.

[motiv-8]

As for World War 2 being glorified, wars are glorified when its soldiers come home heroes. Of course, the atrocities of Japan were exploited, but where the hell was the US in Nanking? In Auschwitz? In France and the Netherlands?

No, America only knew of atrocity as a reason to go to war when they decided to go to war. They didn't give a about Hitler and anybody that said anything was a Communist and an automatic liar.

LOL, and you accuse me of having blinders. How ironic.

Discussion is clearly pointless.

[Da Skinna]

LOL, and you accuse me of having blinders. How ironic.

Discussion is clearly pointless.

-OR... you can reply.
-Now say I retract those statements. They never existed. What then?

-And what if I clarify that indeed more people were afraid of Communism then, surely all the business and elite class, than the Nazis, and the fascists. That despite the obvious atrocities committed by fascist Germany and Japan, that the Soviet Union was always the more hated.

It was so in the media, and only when America went to war, that suddenly these atrocities had to be accounted for by the Germans and Japanese. Of course after the war, you have the Soviet Union as enemy number 1 once more.

And back in the media was all the atrocities committed under Stalin. The Great Purge, dekulakization, Ukrainian famine.

My point was these glorifications (and I don't mean euphemizing) of atrocities in Germany and Japan only became a big matter when they were concretely the enemy.

Media isn't a bastion separate from government, it wasn't then, it isn't now. It was only meant to be separate, that's why it was given a specific clause in the Constitution to remain separate... just like Church and State.