NY Times Complains: 'Not enough dead soldiers'

In a piece expertly slanted toward a point of view that supports the idea of showing dead bodies of Americans on the battlefield, the New York Tiimes complains about not being able to publish the bullet riddled or blown up bodies of American soldiers.

After all, how are they going to turn people against the war without using dead Americans as props in their little morality play?

The reason given for being able to publish these ghoulish photos is that if they don't, it "sanitizes" the coverage and that Americans should have their noses rubbed into how terrible war is for soldiers and civilians.

If you believe the war is wrong and that America should leave Iraq, that explanation makes perfect sense. If, however, you care about the dead soldiers and their families as well as, in many cases, operational security, you recognize why publishing photos of dead Americans should be a rare occurrence.

In the article, a general is quoted as pointing out that publishing photos of dead soldiers is as good as an after action report for the terrorists. How much damage did they do to the unit involved?

There is also the effect on soldiers still in the field. That became obvious when, on the few occassions a picture of dead Americans was published, the survivors became so upset that in a couple of cases a guard had to be placed on the journalist to protect him from the wrath of the dead man's friends. And even when the embed rules were followed by the journalist, there were many local commanders who just kicked the journalist out.

But this doesn't sit well with the Times who spill plenty of ink quoting pro-ghoul reporters and "experts" whose anti-war sentiment is clear. Plastering dead Americans on the front pages would no doubt make them feel better. How the families feel about it may be a different story.

This is a different issue than photographing the coffins of dead Americans as they land at Dover Air Force base. There again, you are talking about the sensibilities of families with regard to photographing the flag draped coffins. Some families have expressed support for the idea, others are radically against it. And since the coffins arrive several at a time (usually), it would become almost impossible to photograph one coffin and not the other. Hence, the policy of banning photographers altogether.

Perhaps the Times and other media who wish to make an antiwar statement should use their editorial pages to make their point and not use the pictures of dead heroes to further their political agenda.



In a piece expertly slanted toward a point of view that supports the idea of showing dead bodies of Americans on the battlefield, the New York Tiimes complains about not being able to publish the bullet riddled or blown up bodies of American soldiers.

After all, how are they going to turn people against the war without using dead Americans as props in their little morality play?

The reason given for being able to publish these ghoulish photos is that if they don't, it "sanitizes" the coverage and that Americans should have their noses rubbed into how terrible war is for soldiers and civilians.

If you believe the war is wrong and that America should leave Iraq, that explanation makes perfect sense. If, however, you care about the dead soldiers and their families as well as, in many cases, operational security, you recognize why publishing photos of dead Americans should be a rare occurrence.

In the article, a general is quoted as pointing out that publishing photos of dead soldiers is as good as an after action report for the terrorists. How much damage did they do to the unit involved?

There is also the effect on soldiers still in the field. That became obvious when, on the few occassions a picture of dead Americans was published, the survivors became so upset that in a couple of cases a guard had to be placed on the journalist to protect him from the wrath of the dead man's friends. And even when the embed rules were followed by the journalist, there were many local commanders who just kicked the journalist out.

But this doesn't sit well with the Times who spill plenty of ink quoting pro-ghoul reporters and "experts" whose anti-war sentiment is clear. Plastering dead Americans on the front pages would no doubt make them feel better. How the families feel about it may be a different story.

This is a different issue than photographing the coffins of dead Americans as they land at Dover Air Force base. There again, you are talking about the sensibilities of families with regard to photographing the flag draped coffins. Some families have expressed support for the idea, others are radically against it. And since the coffins arrive several at a time (usually), it would become almost impossible to photograph one coffin and not the other. Hence, the policy of banning photographers altogether.

Perhaps the Times and other media who wish to make an antiwar statement should use their editorial pages to make their point and not use the pictures of dead heroes to further their political agenda.