Does Showing a Horrific Video Serve a Legitimate Journalistic Purpose? 645
HughPickens.com writes: Erik Wemple writes at the Washington Post that Fox News recently took the controversial step of posting a horrific 22-minute video online that shows Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh being burned to death. Fox warned internet users that the presentation features "extremely graphic video." "After careful consideration, we decided that giving readers of FoxNews.com the option to see for themselves the barbarity of ISIS outweighed legitimate concerns about the graphic nature of the video," said Fox executive John Moody. "Online users can choose to view or not view this disturbing content."
But Fox's decision drew condemnation from some terrorism experts. "[Fox News] are literally — literally — working for al-Qaida and ISIS's media arm," said Malcolm Nance. "They might as well start sending them royalty checks." YouTube removed a link to the video a few hours after it was posted, and a spokesperson for Facebook told the Guardian that if anyone posted the video to the social networking site it would be taken down. CNN explained that it wouldn't surface any of the disturbing images because they were gruesome and constituted propaganda that the network didn't want to distribute. "Does posting this video advance the aims of this terror group or hinder its progress by laying bare its depravity?" writes Wemple. "Islamic State leaders may indeed delight in the distribution of the video — which could be helpful in converting extremists to its cause — but they may be mis-calibrating its impact. If the terrorists expected to intimidate the world with their display of barbarity, they may be disappointed with the reaction of Jordan, which is vowing 'strong, earth-shaking and decisive' retaliation."
But Fox's decision drew condemnation from some terrorism experts. "[Fox News] are literally — literally — working for al-Qaida and ISIS's media arm," said Malcolm Nance. "They might as well start sending them royalty checks." YouTube removed a link to the video a few hours after it was posted, and a spokesperson for Facebook told the Guardian that if anyone posted the video to the social networking site it would be taken down. CNN explained that it wouldn't surface any of the disturbing images because they were gruesome and constituted propaganda that the network didn't want to distribute. "Does posting this video advance the aims of this terror group or hinder its progress by laying bare its depravity?" writes Wemple. "Islamic State leaders may indeed delight in the distribution of the video — which could be helpful in converting extremists to its cause — but they may be mis-calibrating its impact. If the terrorists expected to intimidate the world with their display of barbarity, they may be disappointed with the reaction of Jordan, which is vowing 'strong, earth-shaking and decisive' retaliation."
The land of the free and the home of the brave. (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate restrictions apply.
Re:The land of the free and the home of the brave. (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful about the whole "home of the brave" comments. ISIS is trolling, they are doing all they can to entice the US into sending ground troops. That is a trap. Please don't fall for it. Thankfully most leaders can see and are avoiding the trap.
If the US or other western nations send in ground troops the region considers that an ISIS victory.
The instant the US or other western nations commit to ground attacks ISIS can make stronger claims of legitimacy within the region. It is no longer "ISIS versus everybody", it becomes "Another US/Western war against Muslims".
Unlike the US, Jordan can do this. They are in the region, sharing borders with Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. When Jordan strikes out they are seen as "Muslims fighting with other Muslims", which does not polarize the issue. If Jordan attacks it is seen as an ISIS loss.
Re:The land of the free and the home of the brave. (Score:4, Interesting)
But ISIS is sliding on a very slippery slope. They had so far managed NOT to overtly piss off the local powers enough to where the political costs of going after them have been overcome by the revulsion of the body politic (whatever it happens to be). They made a big mistake toasting a local as this brings on the internecine warfare that they have been avoiding so far. They have hard line Muslim clerics after them on purely religious grounds. That is pretty much their only claim to legitimacy. This one is going to be hard to put into back into a bottle.
Re: (Score:3)
Even Fox gets it right sometimes (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, Fox posted this likely for no reason other than to draw eyes - and with them, hopefully money - to their website. So much like Ron Paul, Fox News is most often wrong but on rare occasions right for the wrong reasons.
Re:Even Fox gets it right sometimes (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually think that it is important for those interested to see this video. At the very least, know your enemy. Those who are _not_ disgusted by the video were already lost before they saw it. I saw it. I cannot believe what some people will do to one another.
Related discussion on Stack Exchange:
http://islam.stackexchange.com... [stackexchange.com]
Re:Even Fox gets it right sometimes (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually think that it is important for those interested to see this video. At the very least, know your enemy. Those who are _not_ disgusted by the video were already lost before they saw it. I saw it. I cannot believe what some people will do to one another.
Related discussion on Stack Exchange: http://islam.stackexchange.com... [stackexchange.com]
ISIS isn't my enemy. They are disgusting, evil, horrible, shit-lickers. But they are not my enemy and we (the US) can't fight someone else's civil war because we will fuck it up. We will use outrage and compassion to send in troops, but the goals won't be humanitarian. They will be "national interests." We will make alliances with people diametrically opposed to true freedom and democracy in the the interest of "stability" and access to "resources." We do it every single time and until we learn not to do that, we should stay the hell out.
In summary, we are really bad at liberating people. I wish that was not true, but it it. We're great at liberating resources and we're really good at destroying stuff. Sadly that won't help "make us safe."
And we should tell the whole truth. Show videos of Saudi Arabian women being beheaded for "infidelity." Show the returning body bags (few though they are in comparison to the collateral damage.) Show what life is like now that we "liberated" Iraq.
As others have pointed out, showing this video is propaganda because of all that is not shown.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The debate in my mind is this... sure it's important to see the barbaric nature of the ISIS group, but on the opposite site, you know there are people in the world who get off seeing this kind of stuff. So the issue is one of "do we show the truth, in an effort to raise sympathy for the victim, when it will inevitably become a source of enjoyment for some, and a source of sympathy for the enemy for others.
In my mind, I think you can show enough video to prove that it really happened, such that it raises th
Re:Even Fox gets it right sometimes (Score:5, Insightful)
and seeing a short clip of it isn't proof enough to stir up the national outrage to finally put a stop to it, no amount of video will.
How many videos did it take for Jordans outrage? Do you include the videos that murdered citizens from other countries? You have exactly what you describe, a short clip that caused a national outrage. Or do you think that flooding the internet with American and Japanese journalist beheadings would swing Jordanian politics to "earth shaking response"?
Fox showing the whole 22 minute clip is the same as showing the 30 seconds of screaming as a man is burned alive. They are giving you the choice to watch it all, in part, or none. I think, giving the audience the whole clip is better than only the 30 seconds because Fox is not deciding what is the most important part to see. Is it the actual murder? Or the response from the people in the streets (even if coerced)? Better to see propaganda for what it is then what someone else thinks is the important message.
Re: (Score:3)
It has to do with FOX, and their motivation for showing the whole thing. What is their purpose in showing any portion of the clip, and what is their purpose in showing the whole thing?
Motivated by clicks, ads, and profits. But that motivation doesn't change even if they didn't show any of the video.
If you say that 30 seconds is the same as the whole thing, then you truly don't understand ISIS and you truly don't understand evil.
I understand fine enough. I think I mistyped in my previous response and missed a "not" (stupid negations), sorry. I meant to say that showing only 30 seconds is not the same thing as the 22 minute because "Fox is not deciding what is the most important part to see. Is it the actual murder? Or the response from the people in the streets (even if coerced)? Better to see propaganda for what it
Re: (Score:3)
1. Many people get off seeing scantily clad women dancing on bad music. Yet, this gets broadcasted everywhere.
2. Nobody's FORCED to see anything. Seeing it is entirely optional.
Re:Why not? It's the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
I think people in general are getting pretty sick of having islamic terrorists do horrific stuff and then the first thing the media does is point its finger at us saying "and don't you retaliate about this". In fact we don't, as individual citizens retaliate about this at all. There may be some instances here or there of poor treatment of muslims from some people, but they're constantly berating ALL of us to "not judge".
I think people are through with that, sick of being scolded for things we're not doing, while our leaders are developing habits of NEVER calling out these murderous islamic terrorists and stating that they are completely unacceptable in our world. They are only yelling at us to not ever respond in any way.
The answer is pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask yourself this... How effective would such videos be if nobody saw them? If people didn't know they existed. Would they keep making them?
ISIS is slaughtering thousands of people not on video also. Burning them alive, crucifying them, stoning homosexuals to death, holding women as sex slaves...
The list goes on and on and on. Plainly without the video they would still do these things, in fact if anything the video makes them more "civil" to some degree as they try to provide external justification for the actions they take - internal murders, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
So then it follows that the fewer people who see them, the better.
It would only follow if there was a single class of viewer, but there isnt a single class of viewer.
Let me try a real argument along your lines:
So far these videos have been censored by the western press yet the terrorists keep making them. Therefore we can conclude that the west is not their target audience and therefore there is no reason to believe that they benefit when the western press starts showing them. It may even hurt them.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm... the child porn argument, more or less.
Re: (Score:3)
It's one thing to know that someone was brutally executed and quite another to see it.
You can be assured... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You can be assured... (Score:5, Insightful)
...that if a right-leaning group committed "atrocities" anywhere (perceived or otherwise), MSNBC, Salon, Mother Jones and their ilk would have it on front page infinite loop 24 x7.
ISIS leans further to the right than any other group in existence.
Re:You can be assured... (Score:4, Insightful)
The terms "left" and "right" are mostly meaningless. ISIS is socially conservative AKA "right" and economically liberal AKA "left." You can't just label someone left or right without qualifying what topic they are left and right on. Most people are not conservative on all topics, or liberal on all topics.
Heck, the terms "conservative" and "liberal" change meaning over time. In the US, the founding fathers are often considered "conservative" but in their time, they were economically and socially liberal. They had wacky leftist views like "the King doesn't have absolute power" and "people can worship Jesus any way they want." ;-) When Bill Clinton was in power, "conservative" Republicans believed that government shouldn't be able to snoop on its citizens and that we should mind our own affairs and stay out of foreign wars. Today, those same "conservative" Republicans believe that government should get access to anything without a warrant, and that wars that kill bad guys in other countries is a good thing.
While people are welcome to change their views, it is confusing that we seem to redefine the terms to suit whatever we believe at the time. Even stranger, when someone important redefines the terms, people change their views accordingly!
(Disclaimer: I gave my "economically liberal" assessment based on an AC who posted "they have been nationalizing businesses, tearing down banks, demanding tax from the rich, and giving to the poor. ")
Re: (Score:3)
But religious fundementalism is a right wing thing!
Oh whatever shall we do?
A clue: quit with the bullshit partisan flag waving, and accept that the terms "right wing" and "left wing" aare nearly meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
Left-leaning new sites absolutely refuse to take a stance against Islamic terrorism because it doesn't fit in their worldview
I disagree. As far as I can tell, left-leaning people hate terrorism. The difference is that some people believe that "most current terrorists are Muslim" means the same thing as "most current Muslims are terrorists", and some see that those statements are different.
I hate terrorism. I'm not fond of Islam, but then I'm not fond of Christianity either. Both want to control how I live and who I can marry. But I don't blame Islam for terrorism; I blame terrorists for terrorism. Which do you blame?
Note th
Re: (Score:3)
Left-leaning new sites absolutely refuse to take a stance against Islamic terrorism
Bull.
Effing.
Manure.
Re: (Score:3)
Our society needs to quit playing partisan games and starting calling out evil, regardless of who the perpetrators are.
Couldn't agree, more.
I think Langley and the Pentagon probably deserve about 800x the airtime as ISIS perpetrated evil, but hey. If you show us blowing little children to bits, or their flaming bodies running from wrecked buildings, then you stray too far away from propaganda and into the realm of journalism.
We need the enemy to be irrationally violent. We don't want them to appear like a group of people who have suffered countless deaths of their innocents against fire dropped from the sky and have been
deeper pile of sh.. (Score:4, Informative)
Even better. Faux "News" claimed it was to educate the viewer about ISI(L/S), but did not put a translation of the 20ish minutes of ranting before the murder.
Re:deeper pile of sh.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. It serves a crucial purpose. (Score:5, Insightful)
Showing these murders serves as a gut punch to the free world. It enables us to have a visceral reaction to this brutality, forcing us to acknowledge and deal with the fact that there are people in this world who are willing to use any means to achieve their end attempt to force their beliefs on others through fear and control them through the same. Unfortunately, I don't think enough it makes the evening news or online news feeds. Like the press coverage of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, somehow the modern press has developed its own misguided ethos over what the American public should or shouldn't see. Should there be a sufficient warning so that children or those who don't want to see it can choose not to? Yes. But, that's all that's needed. Fair warning.
Ultimately, it's not the press's responsibility to censor violent video. It's their responsibility to show it. It's their responsibility to objectively report the news.
There are those who will argue that Fox was doing ISIS's PR work for them. That's bunk. Has not showing the carnage that Boko Haram has inflicted on the people of Nigeria stopped them for doing it? In fact, when terrorists killed a handful of people in Paris, it was plastered all over the news for weeks. We all saw the wounded police officer shot in the head. Yet, long before that, tens of thousands of people were murdered, entire towns leveled and atrocities beyond even that were committed by Boko Haram -- yet that has received and still receives a tiny portion of the news coverage that the Paris attacks had. That's the greatest disservice of all by the press.
I would argue it does the opposite (Score:3)
Far from helping ISIS's message, it hurts them in most of the world. Never mind how angry it had made various Middle Easter nations (Jordan the most of course) it is the kind of thing that'll hurt their recruitment with western youths. It's much harder to glorify them as valiant freedom fighters when you see shit like this. When the killing is impersonal it is easier to write it off as just "war against the infidels" or whatever. When you see cruelty up close, it makes it a hell of a lot harder to ignore.
Re:Yes. It serves a crucial purpose. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly why the video should not be shown or viewed. Our reaction to terrorism should NOT be an emotional one, for a number of reasons:
1) It screws with our understanding of how likely a situation is to occur. People "feel" that their children are more in danger of being abducted now than 20 years ago precisely be because there is more graphic reporting of abductions, not because more abductions occur. Similarly, graphic evidence of violence influences our perception of how likely that violence is to occur.
2) It's screws with how we respond to such incidents. Juries that are presented graphic imagery of a murder are far more likely to convict than those who are not, even if the crimes are identical. Citation [researchgate.net]
3) It gives our government far too much power. The reason so many draconian measures were easily passed post-9/11 is EXACTLY because it had a massive emotional reaction from the people. Our reaction should be based on reason, not a our "visceral reaction to brutality".
I'm not worried about Fox doing ISIS's work for them. I'm worried about them influencing the militant "let's glass the whole middle east" segment of America.
Re:Yes. It serves a crucial purpose. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if we don't look at it we can pretend it doesn't exist, right?
I commend Fox on this. As a consumer of news I want the CHOICE of whether I view this or not. I do not want the news provider to choose for me. As a point of fact, I have up to this point chosen not to view the video.
I am actually not upset a Fox for this, I am upset that the New York Times are such cowards that they won't show Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Who cares about 'purpose'??? Fuck 'purpose'! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just don't censor it. If somebody wants to put it up, let them. It is nobody else's business. Censorship is always the worst option.
Re: (Score:3)
BTW what does this topic have to do with censorship? The question is one of judgment, not law.
Facebook and Google are censoring posts with the video. 'Censorship' doesn't require a government actor. 'Government censorship' does.
It's just definitional.
These corporations have no duty to carry the video, and their users have no duty to find their services suitable for free discussion of ideas.
For myself: (Score:3)
I don't know if there is journalistic purpose in this. I only know what I feel about it. I've not watched it (or there other videos) and have no desire to.
I've seen people dying and badly injured before in real life as well as video. I'm not very squeamish about it, but it's unpleasant.
ISIS desperately wanted people to see this and have it burned into their memory. I have no desire to help them get something they want. The couple of stills I saw from it simply confirmed my opinion of them.
Beyond that, I have neither time nor memory neurons for either them or their "snuff" videos.
Should journalists actively HIDE news from people (Score:5, Insightful)
Does hiding news from people serve a legitimate journalistic purpose?
Frightened people are easily led and make bad deci (Score:3)
Watching videos of the 2nd 911 plane crash into the WTC
over and over and over,
slow motion, up close
seems to have reduced people's capacity for critical thinking to this day.
Suddenly the most paranoid person in any given room was considered a national security expert.
These videos seem to perform the same way.
I refuse to watch them for the same reason I refuse to watch snuff films.
But I know people who watch them with ghoulish fascination.
I'd defer to whatever the man who died wished (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't watch this video, and I suspect the motives for Fox News here is not pure. But ultimately this is a personal moment for the man who is suddenly faced with a horrific death. These are the last moments of his life, and I believe they should belong to him. Since I didn't watch it, I don't know what it contains, but I would suspect they do not show the man at his best. If we could know his wish in the matter, I'd want to defer to that. But since we can't I'd defer to the less morally ambiguous choice which is to keep the moment as private to him as is possible.
Re:I'd defer to whatever the man who died wished (Score:5, Insightful)
We may not know his wishes, but we have a pretty good idea at what his next-of-kin think. Before his barbaric execution, they were firmly opposed to action against ISIS. Now, they want heads to roll.
Something tells me they'd want it seen.
Re:I'd defer to whatever the man who died wished (Score:5, Interesting)
Since I didn't watch it, I don't know what it contains, but I would suspect they do not show the man at his best.
The video shows that man at his absolute best. I could never be as brave as that pilot watching the flames come for him. You _think_ that you've seen brave people in movies. This was a real brave person, handling a certain-death situation with more dignity than I've ever approached a problem in my life.
If you ever wonder what "dignity" and "bravery" mean, you'll have to watch that video. We see not only humans at their absolute worst, but we also see one human at the absolute best that a human could be.
The terrorists want you to be paralysed. (Score:3)
Had this debate some time ago (Score:3)
One of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing was being interviewed. She insisted to reporters that the name of the bomber that was still alive, Tsarnev, not be used during the interview (PTSD is the presumed reason).
I recall that because I feel I have to reiterate my answer on that here.
Whether you feel some sort of trigger from that sort of thing or not, if the information is available, it must absolutely be part of the discourse on the subject. Yes, it is rather an ugly part of history, one that, I think, most people would like to forget just as soon as they hear about it. But, despite your comfort level, that piece of information is part of history, and it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that it should be omitted from discourse on the subject.
If you don't want to see it, hear it, or think about it, that's fine. But it still happened. And suggesting its availability doesn't have a "purpose" gives the false impression that it isn't significant. Unpleasantness should not immediately be grounds for censorship.
As an added thought for this particular situation: what I fear is the beating of a war drum to a threat that I haven't been exposed to. If I am not allowed to judge for myself what brutality has happened, I fear being lulled into a false sense of having to trust politicians and journalists who inject their own biases into situations and off the cliff into skirmishes that I might have a different perspective on if given all available evidence of the subject.
Summary of the video clip (Score:5, Informative)
Searched for the link again, found it this time ... ... ...
The last time I had that sort of a chill run down my spine was in that one short shot in "The Ring" - were you see the girls face. ... That was a *long* time ago. No, I don't watch horror movies.
Summary of the videoclip: ... Very well funded indeed. Or they all "dressed up for the occasion". Probably a bit of both.
The pilot is chaged in a well built cage, as if on display for this exact purpose. It's smack in the center of a court among combat ruins. Roughly 10-20 soldiers standing around in a Mad Max aestetic setting, some further up on open floors of what looks like a half-bombed building. With very clean and neat combat gear, resembling a solid desert-spotty-camo US armed forces ripp-off.
You hear the cheasy allah sing-sang whawha pop chanting we've heard so much of lately build up as the clips soundtrack and see composited videosnippets and "news-bulletin" effects flying about. ... Don't know if that was Fox or not ... wouldn't be suprised if it was the video makers though, because:
What instantly strikes the viewer - me and anybody else I bet - is that the video is *very* well made. No shaky-cam stuff, but what appears to be corrected and composited top-quality HD footage, perhaps even 2 or 4HD. Cut together in a sort of MTV-videoclip aestetic, with extra room for the camera man to move about. A cut-up of closeups putting the victim front-and-center, to allow the viewer to get close to im and build a relation ... very smart. Think "Britains go talent" style personal engagement. The whole video is a barrage of quotes on western news/reality TV and action movie style quotes. ... These guys have done their homework and their message is for us, no two ways about it.
He's wearing clothing that pretty much resembles the orange/red clothes we see on all those Guantanamo pictures. Mmmmh, could this be a little "wave with the telegraph mast" as we say in Germany? ... I wonder. Anyway, the clothes are wet, obviously from the inflamable liquid they sprayed on him. He's pretty calm, standing in the center of the cage. Note: We're still seeing all this in a montage of shots in MTV/reality TV aestetic.
They show a shot of him praying, then a fighter in desert ski-mask (all of them have one) lighting a wooden torch and holding it to a stip of flammble. Bad guy action movie style it very much is. Intended, I bet ... After a few moments the man starts burning, waving his arms in pain, then flailing and running to and fro in the cage bumping into the bars, completely engulfed in flames. He goes down and unconscious after about 10-20 seconds. Couldn't really say exactly, it seemed like an eternity, and I sure as hell have no intention watching that again.
They give it another 10-20 seconds with a close-up to his face/head crisping in the fire - he's not feeling it anymore.
We do the same thing with dead animals on the barbeque, so if you think me putting it that way is cruel, think about your eating habbits.
They stop the fire and bury him with a wheel-loader dumping a load of debris and dirt onto the cage, crushing it, extinguishing the fire and burrying him all at once. The wheel loader is filmed with what looks like a seperate cam, shots change throughout the action. The whole procedure from start to finish looks very well rehearsed
Conclusion:
This stuff has happened throughout history. We know it.
What's new is that anybody - that includes the scariest of religious fanatics - can take a high end cam for a few bucks from a convenience store and make this sort of video of it.
My judgment is out:
These guys are serious. Not Nazi Germany serious - praise the heavens not - but like 14th century serious. Curely, fanatic and not to be reasoned with. A few more of these videos and I'd vote for two dozen
Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it serve a journalistic purpose?
No. A textual description is all that's needed to convey what happened.
Does it serve a persuasive purpose?
Yes. It's a visceral and concrete illustration of the ruthlesness of $THING. (Where $THING can be substituted with whatever religion, racial group, ideology, or institution that serves your persuasive purpose. For Fox's audience, THING="Islam"; for an atheist it's THING="religion"; for a Shia muslim maybe it's THING="Sunnis".)
Should Fox be censored or penalized by the government?
Hell on. Fortunately, nobody's making this argument. Yay first amendment!
Did Fox help ISIS by publishing the video?
Counterterrorist Malcom Nance (the "Waterboarding is torture, period." guy) thinks so, but I'm not seeing a description of why. Perhaps it's a combination of morale boost and being able to exert fear-control over their own territory. Perhaps (as another slashdotter speculated) they want to provoke the West into military intervention in order to further galvanize the Islamic world against Western influence. On the other hand, gratuitous violence is generally a great way to undermine your own cause; it's hard to imagine the video winning them any friends.These are boy-apes, demonstrating dominance and waving their guns at the cosmos, thinking that they somehow matter.
Should Fox have self-censored themselves for the sake of civic duty?
Ah: that seems to be what the debate's really about, isn't it? Those who think Fox abandoned their civic duty long ago will be tempted to "yes". Those who think of Fox as "too liberal" will say "no". Those of us with a good selection of defense industry stocks in our portfolio will also say "no", while trying to stifle a sudden case of the giggles.
Layers of censorship (Score:3)
Its one thing when a news organization decides not to show a video for editorial reasons -- its quite another when you go to the Internet and virtually all of the sources that come up with the major search engines have an edited-down version of the original video -- some of these edited-down versions include the title "FULL VIDEO" and show only the most horrific finale where the pilot is being turned into a crispy critter.
I took a look at the original by downloading its torrent (they haven't gotten around to suppressing that yet the way Hollywood suppresses downloading of their movies via torrents). The things that seem to be actually suppressed on the internet (as well as news organizations) are not the horrific scenes of the pilot burning, but rather 1) the horrific scenes of children/infants mutilated by the bombings, 2) the "testimony" of the doomed pilot describing the details of the bombing operation, and 3) the list of pilots, upon each of which ISIS has placed a 100 dinar bounty.
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:5, Interesting)
i wonder what the public opinion would be if the true "horrors of war" were shown on TV?
You know, soldiers massacrating people (which is what war is, literally).
Would they still call them "boys" as in "bring our boys back home"? Will they be received as heroes?
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:5, Interesting)
And the flipside to that, particularly where ISIS is concerned, is that horrific acts like the burning of the Jordanian fighter pilot to death, easily available online or via the nightly news, might actually serve to inflame the anger of the public in many countries, serving the purpose of creating more support for the anti-ISIS campaign. That certainly seems to be what has happened in Jordan, where ISIS's actions has probably eliminated any desire on the part of the Jordanian government or its citizens to seek some sort of diplomatic compromise.
To me, al Qaeda, ISIS and the other Islamist extremists are like a hyper-virulent virus. They leave behind a horrible trail of death and misery, but they are so awful and so destructive that they essentially burn themselves out. Even Muslims who might in some ways be sympathetic to the extremists' variant of Islam will likely walk away from them because of these kinds of insanely over-the-top displays of cruelty. ISIS shouldn't be worried about shocking and pissing off Westerners, it should be worried about shocking and pissing off their co-religionists.
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You know, soldiers massacrating people (which is what war is, literally).
In military terms the word massacre has a specific meaning which is narrower than the sense you're using it in. The dictionary version is "an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people", however the military version of the word involves a disparity of force. For example, using a machine gun to mow down unarmed POWs would be a massacre (not to mention a war crime), while using a machine gun to kill armed soldiers attacking your position would not. Killing all inhabitants of a besieged city would be a m
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Germany and Japan were just victims.
Total war is an awful fucking thing, which is why we should avoid it. But if you are going to attack major military powers in the age of air power, then you will be bombed, and tens of thousands of your citizens will die, often horribly.
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not apologizing for anything. That is the nature of total war.
And you know what, I'm glad we won. I won't apologize for it. That you don't like the bombing campaigns is irrelevant to me.
The Carthaginians picked a fight with the Romans, and in the end, Carthage was knocked to the ground and its fields salted.
The lesson of Carthage, Dresden and Hiroshima is that you don't take on the pre-eminent military power of your day and then expect that you can be protected by rules of engagement you didn't even bother following when you thought you had the upper hand.
Re: (Score:3)
The lesson of Carthage, Dresden and Hiroshima is that you don't take on the pre-eminent military power of your day and then expect that you can be protected by rules of engagement you didn't even bother following when you thought you had the upper hand.
Not to be pedantic. Well, OK, a little pedantic, but Germany never attacked us and when Japan attacked us we were not the pre-eminent military power of the day. Germany was. They expected us to role over and stop sending supplies to their enemies. And they had reason to think that we might do that.
To be clear, I am not arguing against the US joining WWII, nor in taking the fight to the Germans. That was the right call. Just pointing out that in 1941 the US was not a major military power and had a hist
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Things admittedly get rather slippery when comparing war crimes - but personally I would rank the execution of an enemy soldier, even a horrific execution for propaganda purposes, on a somewhat different scale than the indiscriminate killing of civilians.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, by US military standards I suppose I'd be an enemy soldier - after all I'm of fighting age and might occasionally pass radicals on the street.
And no, I don't see that draftees versus volunteers makes a big difference. We could discuss the subtleties of the distinction, but once you've decided to the take up arms (and short of neural clamps, *every* soldier makes that decision), you have become a legitimate target for the enemy. That you made your decision under duress is of no relevance to the soldi
Re: (Score:3)
The "rules of war" can only work when the belligerents recognize that they exist. A number of the people executed at the war crimes trials after WWII were tried, convicted and sentenced because of their treatment of prisoners of war.
Not that the Allies were perfect, but in the case of the more egregious acts against POWs by Japan and Germany, often the orders came from pretty high up, so it wasn't just the odd unit going a little nuts.
Re: (Score:3)
You can argue somewhat over wars of defense fought on your home territory, but generally speaking war is fought for money and power, morality is just the flag the soldiers and populous are rallied behind. Certainly the US hasn't fought a "moral" war in, what, almost a century? You could argue we were drawn into WWI for moral reasons, but the atrocious, unsustainable wealth and power grabs made after the Allies won - that all but guaranteed the outbreak of WWII - quickly put a lie to that propaganda. Not
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seeing it on TV is probably not going to have much of an effect for the same reason that playing violent games doesn't have much of an effect. Vision is a powerful sense, but not anywhere near as powerful as the effect of hearing, smelling and feeling on top of seeing.
It's inevitable that any visual depiction is going to be different from the actual event, no matter how hard the people depicting it try to keep it accurate.
They are different, but it matters. That's why the US won't allow the media to show dead US solder's returning to the US. And that is just a picture of a coffin. A large part of the public opinion about the Vietnam war was do to the fact that the news did show the US bombing and burning villages. Footage of carnage and piles of returning body bags. The US does not allow any of that now.
And Fox News, the mouth piece of the Republican party, is glad to show you the gruesome truth of ISIS, but supports "our troops" and would never fight to show us the reality of our "liberation" of Iraq, or the children and families killed by constant drone attacks in Pakistan. I'm not even arguing against the drone attacks, I'm just saying that images matter and that's why we aren't allowed to see them when they reflect poorly on the US.
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know what happened. It was adequately described. Fox New just panders to the warmongers among us and is trying to rile them up.
I would advance the argument that the function of a news agency is to report the news. Not some of the news or the news you / I approve of. This is what's really happening in the world around us, without protecting us from things we may find objectionable or viewpoints differing from our own. How can we possibly make rational decisions or hold properly informed opinions based on only some of the information about a given situation?
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know what happened. It was adequately described. Fox New just panders to the warmongers among us and is trying to rile them up.
I would advance the argument that the function of a news agency is to report the news. Not some of the news or the news you / I approve of. This is what's really happening in the world around us, without protecting us from things we may find objectionable or viewpoints differing from our own. How can we possibly make rational decisions or hold properly informed opinions based on only some of the information about a given situation?
I have no idea on where this quote came from, but to paraphrase, "Good journalism is presenting news that people don't want to hear".
Re: (Score:3)
We all know what happened. It was adequately described. Fox New just panders to the warmongers among us and is trying to rile them up.
I would advance the argument that the function of a news agency is to report the news. Not some of the news or the news you / I approve of. This is what's really happening in the world around us, without protecting us from things we may find objectionable or viewpoints differing from our own. How can we possibly make rational decisions or hold properly informed opinions based on only some of the information about a given situation?
That's true, but during the Afghanistan war Robert Fisk published hundreds of photos of Afghani civilians who were killed by American attacks, which the BBC, British press, and American press wouldn't print.
News media get much more news than they have room for, so they have to be selective.
I wonder if Fox News ran similar photos of the civilian victims of civilian victims of the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Gaza?
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:4, Informative)
We all know what happened. It was adequately described. Fox New just panders to the warmongers among us and is trying to rile them up.
It wasn't just Fox. Staid button-down CBC, not noted for sensationalism, also made the decision to air the video during the evening broadcast. And no, just describing it is not adequate to convey what happened.
Re:For profit proganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.
While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.
Re:For profit proganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.
While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.
True on both counts, but Fox "News" aired/posted a snuff film - (isn't that illegal?). In their defense, though, it's was probably more to make Obama look bad - for not bombing them further back into the Stone Age - than making Muslims or, more specifically, ISIS look bad.
Re:For profit proganda. (Score:4, Insightful)
> A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.
So no, they didn't post a snuff film.
You think there were special effects use? or that Fox is not in the entertainment industry or in any industry to make money at all?
Re: (Score:3)
> A snuff film is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation.
So no, they didn't post a snuff film.
As far as we know, neither has anyone else. Like many other things that generate outrage, "Snuff films" don't actually exist. As far as we know, no film that fits your definition has ever been made. Some murderers have filmed their acts, but the film was not the reason for the killing, and profit was not the motivation.
Re:For profit proganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope that we learn from this that there are extremists everywhere, from lunatic "barbaric Muslims", to "[bloodthirsty] evangelical Christians". I also hope we look around and notice a large number of muslims and evangelical christians who are not crazy or extreme and simply want to live their lives like everyone else. Even down here in crazy right wing Texas, right on my street there are Hindu's, Muslims, Christians of all flavors, athiests, blacks, whites, and even a gay couple. We aren't killing each other, our kids aren't warring down at the elementary school.
Clearly then, what it takes to put a man in a cage, set him on fire, and burn him to death is not a property of his religion. That man is out of his mind.
Re: InfoOps (Score:3)
This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.
While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.
We like to think that we're free from US Government media propaganda. But vilifying your enemy-du-jour by focusing on tragic, heinous actions is pretty much the only way to drag a democracy into war.
Bonus points for actually providing the enemy with weapons in the first place:
http://scgnews.com/the-covert-... [scgnews.com]
This kind of thing has been going on for a long time... you know those WMDs we were so sure Iraq had? We knew they had them because we sold them to Iraq back when we were supporting Iraq vs. Soviet-ba
Re:For profit proganda. (Score:5, Informative)
This is what Fox News' viewers want to see: the barbarity of Muslims.
While this may be the case, there also seems to be that pesky fact they seem to have put someone in a cage, lit them on fire, and burned them to death.
What's the big deal with burning somebody alive? Look what the US Army did to Dilawar in Afghanistan.
They suspended him from the ceiling by the wrists for 4 days until his hands were crippled, and kicked him on the knees until his feet were crippled too and he died of the complications.
The lead interrogator responsible, Glendale Walls, served 2 months in military prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:For profit proganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say, at the very least, ISIS represents an economic threat to the United States, and the United States has dealt with economic threats via military power, even where there was no direct territorial threat, almost back to its beginnings. The US waged the Barbary Wars against North African pirates because the tribute the Barbary Pirates demanded was a threat to US economic interests.
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:4, Insightful)
War has rules.
The only rule to war is to win. Rules of war are there because we have to live with ourselves and our opponent after the war.
Better to think of the conquered/conquerer as gentlemen than a savage. Savagery begets savagery.
Re:There is no legitimate reason to show it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, so lets start seeing footage of the broken bodies of women and children we regularly kill in our raids.
So long as we only show the atrocities committed by the enemy it's not news, it's propaganda.
Re:Too bad about WWII (Score:5, Informative)
This is exactly it.
No one could bring themselves to believe the horrors that the Nazi's did UNTIL the pictures could be seen.
These things are hard to look at, but they must be seen.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, if concentration camp photos were leaked during the war, maybe the Allies would have done more to liberate them quicker or disrupt them so that they couldn't kill as many people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to agree with Fox and think that ISIS wants these videos shown so that people will fear them. I also worry that showing these videos will add fuel to the "all Muslims are evil terrorists" fire. Still, showing the video (in an opt-in capacity) could have some positive results. (Rallying p
Re: (Score:3)
There is still a big difference. Nazis didn't take pictures of concentration camps to generate sympathy for their cause. They deliberately hid the evidence because it would hurt their cause if known to the world. ISIS is intentionally staging these executions, recording it, and sending it to the media to get attention. Fox News just gave them attention. Do you think they might do something even more horrific next to make sure it gets on the news? This video shouldn't have been released because it tells terr
Re:Literally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally I agree. But to be argumentative (NO, not on Slashdot!), I disagree.
Showing horrible stuff allows us to call bullshit on politicians (I am thinking tea party) and their propaganda wing (I am thinking Fox News) who want to claim everything is an act of terrorism. People and groups who would tell you that pressure cookers are 'weapons of mass destruction', and countries that fund real terrorists and flog prisoners in medieval fashion are our friends (I am thinking Saudi Arabia); thereby minimizing what real terrorism and weapons of mass destruction are. This is often so they can surreptitiously push their own agenda.
Being able to see unfiltered events allows us to look critically and say, sure there is an argument that the Boston marathon bombing was terrorism (or attempt at it), but a pressure cooker is NOT a weapon of mass destruction. When we see pictures of dozens and dozens of people killed in chemical weapons attacks by Assad in Syria, we see what WMDs really are so that we take politicians to task for exaggerating things to try to help their own ends.
Or when we see that dipshit on Parliament Hill in Ottawa who killed the cenotaph guard and was killed in the parliament buildings. In his mind he was a terrorist maybe, but Canadians could see him as a radicalized idiot not a terrorist. Panic averted.
Without context, as harsh as it is sometimes to gain, proper judgement cannot be made. We cannot trust the politicians and spin doctors to tell us what something is. We need to do that ourselves and require the information to do so.
I admit there is a danger that people can get desensitized to it, which can also impair judgement. Then we get absolutely fucking ridiculous comparisons trying to demonize people particular interest groups disagree with. For example, people who try to compare Hillary Clinton to Hitler (full disclosure, I lean on the Democrat side, but don't really like Clinton... former director and corporate lawyer for Wallmart, and good friend of the Waltons... not really that different from a Republican except when trying to get elected). What a bunch of fucking nonsense. It completely minimizes the horror that was Hitler's Germany. Any comparison like that is quite plainly, mentally retarded. Being desensitized to the murder of 12 million people and the death of tens of millions in battle and collateral damage from bombings (granted this is partly due to the distance in time) lends itself to unrealistic comparisons. But I think it can be extrapolated to desensitization from over-exposure of items in the news.
Re:Literally? (Score:4)
Re:Literally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Literally? Yes.
No. That is not what "literally" means. They may be helping ISIS's cause by posting this video, but they are not literally working for them unless they are getting a paycheck.
Re:Literally? (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends on your definition of "for", if you mean "for money" then it's not correct usage. If it's "for their cause" as in "not working against them" then yes they are "literally" advancing their cause and message by broadcasting the video.
Re:Literally? (Score:5, Informative)
yes they are "literally" advancing their cause
... and you are figuratively moving the goalposts. "Advancing their cause" is not the same thing as "working for". If you literally work for someone, that means you take direction from them, and are paid for your efforts.
Re:Literally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the purpose of journalism to control the population, or to inform the population?
If it's to control the population, then these discussions are reasonable. If we share the message, how will the population react... will they be sympathetic, will they be fearful, will they be angry?
But, if the purpose of journalism is to inform the population, then, showing us things that might make us sympathetic are just as important as things that might make us angry.
I see no larger merit in journalism if it doesn't exist to provide us agency.
Re:Literally? (Score:5, Interesting)
It also takes away the "come fight with us it's a glorious adventure" angle for recruiters, when potential recruits hear only universal condemnation, and (unless they're already beyond reach) even their gut tells them this is wrong.
Plus it's given more legitimacy to bombing the crap out of ISIS.
Re:Literally? (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's stirred up the desire for even more violence. That ought to solve the problem then. It always has in the past.
Sometimes violence is the only option left. With groups like ISIS, I think a fair argument can be made that we've reached that point.
Re: (Score:3)
So it's stirred up the desire for even more violence. That ought to solve the problem then. It always has in the past.
Sometimes violence is the only option left. With groups like ISIS, I think a fair argument can be made that we've reached that point.
Yes, violence is justified in fighting ISIS. By the people and governments where ISIS is operating. Which is NOT North America, last time I checked. We should let the Middle Eastern countries fight their own civil wars, rather than getting involved and muddying the waters with our (I'm a US citizen) "national interests." Once we get involved politics, oil and money trump the humanitarian and democratic aspirations. We need to admit that we are bad at "liberating."
Re:Literally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Turn Syria into glass, and the next guy in line will think twice before fucking with the civilized world.
Irony is, in order to turn Syria into glass you would have to stop referring to yourself as civilised.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it's been a while since the US had to deal with Indian attack on its western frontier.
Re: Literally? (Score:5, Funny)
Before the pilot burned to death video: "A limited measured response is indicated."
After the pilot burned to death video: "Nuking's too good for them. Get out the mustard gas."
Re: (Score:3)
yes they are "literally" advancing their cause
... and you are figuratively moving the goalposts. "Advancing their cause" is not the same thing as "working for". If you literally work for someone, that means you take direction from them, and are paid for your efforts.
Give it up man. Even Oxford updated the definition of the word.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong yet again, Bill.
I know this is Slashdot where we don't care about the meaning of words, but in order for Bil to be wrong, he has to be incorrect first. That's the definition of "wrong" more or less.
In addition, I don't think that playing an ISIS execution video actually supports ISIS. Regimes generally do public cruelty when they're acting from a position of overwhelming strength, like the Roman Empire's ritual humiliation of defeated foes or the Mongols piling up a hundred thousand skulls. It's an object lesson: mess
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the same way that the Republicans are literally working for ISIS by starting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and torturing Muslim prisoners in Abu Grarib, the black sites, and Guantanamo.
Re: (Score:3)
I think if we're getting this specific, I would label that as "inadvertently collaborating with" but I don't disagree with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they're not even inadvertently collaborating with Al-Queda, since they publicly condemned the video. Then again, Fox News' terrorism experts thing Birmingham is a muslim only town.
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think the Muslim nutjobs need any provocation from the West to attack the West? They need the West so they don't appear so radical as to declare war against Muslims. Now they get to hide behind "Defending Islam against the West, anything else is understandable collateral and Muslims should feel honored to be martyred." They are self-agitated regardless of what the West does or doesn't do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think the Muslim nutjobs need any provocation from the West to attack the West?
You mean "any MORE provocation", after, just to make a quick list, the US overthrew the government of Iran and supported the Shah for 25 years, and support Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism, and supported Saddam Hussein at the time he was using poison gas against the Kurds, and imposed sanctions against Iraq that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 500,000 children [wikipedia.org], and then invaded Iraq, overthrew its government, and started a civil war that caused another 600,000 or so "excess deaths", and, in turn, resulted
Re: (Score:3)
I can accurately say that I am working for my family, in the sense that my goal is to provide for them.
Fox News's goal is not to "provide for" ISIS.
If we accept that part of ISIS goal is driving a wedge between Muslims and the rest of us ...
That is not the goal of ISIS. They are trying to drive a wedge between Muslims and other Muslims. The West is just being used, somewhat effectively, as a tool to achieve that.
Re:Literally? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine, if we have to see what they other side is up to, perhaps we should see what we are up to as well. Do you have any idea how many Iraqis were killed during our invasion? I have heard some crazy numbers, but no real death other than a few leaked military videos. How many bombs have we drops, how many families have we burned?
The Jordanian Pilot was shot down, dropping bombs on ISIS/ISIL. He a lot of people in the process. Correction, he probably murdered several people. When you drop bombs on people
Re: (Score:3)
No matter how vile and criminal the content it still has the right to be seen.
If by "it" you mean the video, then I'll remind you that "things" don't have rights.
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
It serves no journalistic purpose. "legitimate concerns about the graphic nature of the video" very broadly misses the point. They don't need to show it any more than they need to show Mexican gang executions. It's lazy sensationalism meant to draw as many eyeballs as possible.
And what is the prevailing view of the drug war in Mexico? Most Americans are far away detached, aside from a few border towns whose sheriff gets shot. Maybe if the news did show the Mexican drug cartels who behead entire towns we would do something to help. http://america.aljazeera.com/o... [aljazeera.com]
The Journalistic purpose is the same reason why there were so many pictures taken of the concentration camps when the allies liberated them. Lets not be ignorant of the world we live in. The news is ment to inform us.
As it stands now, Fox gave you a choice. Many people have died so that we can have a choice. Let's not denigrate their memory by obstructing the choices we have because you feel it is "lazy sensationalism".
Re: (Score:3)
These people are fucking savages, but I don't believe our top brass in the defense-intelligence structure are any better. We're ju