Re: Army Times shows pics of the fallen

[John Hairell]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 17:37:05 +0000 (UTC), Steven James Forsberg
> wrote:


> It is an interesting question. While I don't think there is a
>"conspiracy" by the administration to prevent such media coverage, the
>US media does indeed self-censor itself to a large extent.


The Washington Post (and other major media) within the last few weeks
had an article about the press being restricted from access to Dover
AFB, where mortuary flights come in.

While I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's interesting none the less.
When some government functionary makes some decision due to good
intentions, the results are often less than stellar. And it feeds the
conspiracy fringe elements...

[rest snipped]

John Hairell )

[BUFDRVR]

>The Washington Post (and other major media) within the last few weeks
>had an article about the press being restricted from access to Dover
>AFB, where mortuary flights come in.
>
>While I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's interesting none the less.
>When some government functionary makes some decision due to good
>intentions, the results are often less than stellar. And it feeds the
>conspiracy fringe elements...
>
>[rest snipped]

Who began this media restriction Clinton or Bush? Hint....it wasn't Bush.
Interesting that its now being spun as a Bush initive, mostly by people who
know that's not the case.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[John Hairell]

On 01 Jan 2004 02:55:14 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>The Washington Post (and other major media) within the last few weeks
>>had an article about the press being restricted from access to Dover
>>AFB, where mortuary flights come in.
>>
>>While I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's interesting none the less.
>>When some government functionary makes some decision due to good
>>intentions, the results are often less than stellar. And it feeds the
>>conspiracy fringe elements...
>>
>>[rest snipped]
>
>Who began this media restriction Clinton or Bush? Hint....it wasn't Bush.
>Interesting that its now being spun as a Bush initive, mostly by people who
>know that's not the case.
>
>

Notice that I didn't put a spin on the info, i.e. who started the
policy. My main point was that a press restriction does exist, at
Dover and other places.

While DOD's interest is supposedly in helping the affected families,
and to not have photos pop up in the media "out of context", the end
result is that the US public does not see any photos of rows upon rows
of caskets coming back from Iraq.

John Hairell )

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On 01 Jan 2004 02:55:14 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:
>
> >>The Washington Post (and other major media) within the last few weeks
> >>had an article about the press being restricted from access to Dover
> >>AFB, where mortuary flights come in.
> >>
> >>While I wouldn't call it a conspiracy, it's interesting none the less.
> >>When some government functionary makes some decision due to good
> >>intentions, the results are often less than stellar. And it feeds the
> >>conspiracy fringe elements...
> >>
> >>[rest snipped]
> >
> >Who began this media restriction Clinton or Bush? Hint....it wasn't Bush.
> >Interesting that its now being spun as a Bush initive, mostly by people
who
> >know that's not the case.
> >
> >
>
> Notice that I didn't put a spin on the info, i.e. who started the
> policy. My main point was that a press restriction does exist, at
> Dover and other places.
>
> While DOD's interest is supposedly in helping the affected families,
> and to not have photos pop up in the media "out of context", the end
> result is that the US public does not see any photos of rows upon rows
> of caskets coming back from Iraq.

Maybe because for the most part there are no "rows upon rows of caskets
coming back from Iraq". We are losing on average what, maybe one fatality
per day to hostile fire? Kind of hard to make one or two caskets fill "rows
upon rows". "Rows upon rows"...juts more hysterical and over-sensationalized
claptrap.

Brooks

>
> John Hairell )

[BUFDRVR]

>Notice that I didn't put a spin on the info, i.e. who started the
>policy. My main point was that a press restriction does exist, at
>Dover and other places.

No, your point (if you were the one that started the thread?) was to say that
the Bush administration was attempting to censor the news so that the public
doesn't get too upset at his "illegal war".

The problem is, the artical posted even mentions Clinton's role in instituting
the ban.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[John Hairell]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:35:19 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>Maybe because for the most part there are no "rows upon rows of caskets
>coming back from Iraq". We are losing on average what, maybe one fatality
>per day to hostile fire? Kind of hard to make one or two caskets fill "rows
>upon rows". "Rows upon rows"...juts more hysterical and over-sensationalized
>claptrap.

What makes you think the bodies are brought back one at a time?
I've seen a recent photo taken at Dover which showed just what I said,
a row of caskets. Maybe not multiple rows, but one row is more than
one or two caskets.

BTW, I don't have an agenda, and I'm not taking a pro or anti-Bush
stand. All I was stating is that DOD does have an existing policy of
not letting caskets of U.S. casualties be photographed by the civilian
media as they enter CONUS. That's a fact, not a supposition.

BTW, I'm a veteran and not given to "hysterical and
over-sensationalized claptrap".

John Hairell )

[John Hairell]

On 02 Jan 2004 23:20:58 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>Notice that I didn't put a spin on the info, i.e. who started the
>>policy. My main point was that a press restriction does exist, at
>>Dover and other places.
>
>No, your point (if you were the one that started the thread?) was to say that
>the Bush administration was attempting to censor the news so that the public
>doesn't get too upset at his "illegal war".
>
>The problem is, the artical posted even mentions Clinton's role in instituting
>the ban.
>
>

I didn't start the thread, which you would have seen if you had
bothered to look back at the postings.

And the point I was trying to make was that there is indeed a press
restriction (which others denied), and even basic research will show
you that the press restriction existed prior to Clinton being in
office. My main comment had to do with the unintended consequences
of press restrictions, and that often restrictions imposed on the
press with the best of intentions backfire and end up feeding the
partisan and conspiracy mongers of both mainstream political factions.

Political discourse in this country has gotten so polarized that even
stating known facts causes name-calling.

John Hairell )

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:35:19 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >Maybe because for the most part there are no "rows upon rows of caskets
> >coming back from Iraq". We are losing on average what, maybe one fatality
> >per day to hostile fire? Kind of hard to make one or two caskets fill
"rows
> >upon rows". "Rows upon rows"...juts more hysterical and
over-sensationalized
> >claptrap.
>
> What makes you think the bodies are brought back one at a time?
> I've seen a recent photo taken at Dover which showed just what I said,
> a row of caskets. Maybe not multiple rows, but one row is more than
> one or two caskets.

So your "rows upon rows" was an admitted exaggeration. Fine.

Brooks

>
> BTW, I don't have an agenda, and I'm not taking a pro or anti-Bush
> stand. All I was stating is that DOD does have an existing policy of
> not letting caskets of U.S. casualties be photographed by the civilian
> media as they enter CONUS. That's a fact, not a supposition.
>
> BTW, I'm a veteran and not given to "hysterical and
> over-sensationalized claptrap".
>
> John Hairell )

[Gene Storey]

The body in a casket is copyright, so you'll have to ask the person inside
the casket for permission to use his image. Or his next of kin.

Then you'll have to pay residuals each time you play the photo.

[[email protected]]

"Gene Storey" > wrote:

>The body in a casket is copyright, so you'll have to ask the person inside
>the casket for permission to use his image. Or his next of kin.
>
His next of kin might object to being used though.
--

-Gord.