A decision put into place 18 years ago has recently come back onto the fore front of conversation as President Obama makes another change in his first one hundred days.
Along with massive bailouts, giving the war in Iraq a new direction, and changing the rules for which foreign countries we give aide to, the Obama administration has lifted the ban on taking pictures of our fallen soldiers' caskets returning home. This decision has been met with much debate; and though there are two sides to every story, this decision seems long over due.
On February 26, 2009, Defense Secretary Robert Gates lifted the near 20-year ban put in place by Dick Cheney during George Bush Sr.'s Presidency. The ban took away the right to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets returning home from war.
Before the various issues involving this subject are even discussed, it is important to know the history of this ban. This ban was not put into place to protect privacy. It was not put into place because family members of fallen soliers had asked for it. The ban was put into place by George Bush Sr. after he was seen on a news station's split-screen laughing about something as caskets of our dead soldiers were being unloaded at an air force base on the second screen.
This moment made Bush Sr. seem insensitive and out of touch with the reality of war, so in an attempt to manage his public relations, a ban was placed on photographing the caskets of soldiers.
It is incredible that such a bold move to manipulate reality and the news was successful for so long. The issue was turned away from an issue of censorship and was made into a matter of "privacy". The arguements we hear now about the family's right to privacy and stopping left-wing anti-war propaganda were never really an arguement until the pictures made Bush Sr. look bad.
Though they weren't the real reasons this ban was put into place, it would be good to address some of these excuses for censorship now. Privacy versus the public's right to know is a main factor in the present-day debate over war time pictures and what the media can and should publish.
Privacy is important to everyone. It is important to protect the soldiers' family's privacy as well as the privacy of our soldiers. However, pictures taken of caskets are just that... caskets. This ban does not give reporters the right to follow the families home, go to the soldier's funerals, open up the caskets and snap a shot, etc.
Our nation's war-time coverage is PG-rated, to put it nicely. We are not exposed to the carnage of war, the vivid images of death, homelessness, and starvation war often causes. We do not witness the injured women and children, the demolished homes and schools, or the missing limbs of the elderly.
We don't witness these horrific images because CNN, FOX, and NBC don't feel like they pass the "breakfast test", where you could see the images while eating your morning meal without regurgitating your cereal all over your kitchen table.
We are censored from seeing these images and are given a rediculous arguement to chew over instead, on whether or not photographing a casket is appropriate or not. Maybe if we get all worked up over casket photos we will forget about the real issue of censorship, death, and needless wars... at least that's what the government is hoping for.
Naturally it worries the government that if the American people see the number of American soldiers dying, they will lose support for war. This idea brings me back to my childhood. One of the many lessons my parents tried to teach me was that if you're doing something you think you need to sugar-coat, lie about, or cover-up, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
This idea seems to be fitting in a lot of different areas, including the government and media censorship. If the government feels the need to hide pictures from the people in order to keep public opinion up, then something is probably wrong with what the governement is trying to do.
Aside from government accountability, the way the media handles its reporting of war doesn't fit with reporting standards for other news. The media is constantly reporting an unproportional amount of violence in the news. Murder, robberies, and kidnappings are eaten up my the big news stations. The more dramatic a story is the better, even if it is not a real representation of current crime trends.
The news will talk for days about the mutilation a chimp causes to its neighbor, but start to get into coverage of a war where more than 4,000 troops have died, and the media is suddenly put under a silencer.
Sure the news outlets will give a nice watered-down update of the war's status, casualties, and new changes, but until we are able to see the images war produces, the caskets of our soldiers being brought home, we will not grasp the reality that people are dying. Our brothers, husbands, and fathers are dying.
A child has to be accountable to his parents, a husband to his wife, and a government to its people. And our country cannot live in a false reality where we don't see the true cost of our actions. By lifting this ban, President Obama is finally bringing back a measure of accountability and reality that is owed to the American people.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
No Loyalty to Potter
Loyalty, 'eh? Oh, loyalty... what a pain in the ass. You see, loyalty is nothing but one big problem... it hinders us from just being able to do whatever the hell we want to do without feeling bad about it. It's always a struggle in life to find the middle ground; to decifer between what is right and wrong, what's ethical or immoral, and where our boundaries and loyalties lie.
One of the hardest parts of being loyal is that your loyalties change based on the situation you're in. I think this was a main point the book was trying to hit on, especially in the area where it discussed the problems with having loyalty as a single ethical guide. You can have your loyalties, but that loyalty can and often will be taken advantage of, and at that point in time it is your ethics, standards, and morals that matter... not your loyalty. Loyalty is just the fog that makes ethical decisions so tricky.
"A spirit of democratic cooperation is needed for Royce's view of loyalty to result in ethical action." In order for loyalty to help in making the right decision, by Royce's standards, we must be sheep. Sheep. Blind, majority-following sheep. As annoying as this is, it is even more annoying that Royce gives "no way to balance among conflicting loyalties." So, Royce has layed out a map of loyalty... be a sheep, and if you have a problem, well, I'm not really sure about what to do then... Thanks Royce, that's just what we rebel college kids wanted to hear. Screw a revolution, let's float around with the majority! Who cares if "the majority" wants to bring back seperate-but-equal for homosexuals, our loyalty is to the community and therefore the majority; so if the majority hates the gays and gives a shit less about real civil rights, that's what the majority wants, then so be it! ...
WHAT?!?!?!?! Sorry Royce, I disagree. Loyalty is not always to the majority, or to who you think it should be to, or to who you would have thought you'd be loyal to. Loyalty plays a role up and until ethics have to take over. So I guess the real issue is that hopefully people are only loyal to trying to make an ethical decision based on the given situation.
I think the Potter Box tries to make this ethical-decision-making-based-on-loyalties stuff a little easier, but it may be making a simple process a bit too complicated. Instead of a near "12-step program" for journalists needing to make decisions, why not just weigh over the pros and cons? What happened to the good 'ol two column list of good vs. bad? Maybe that was a simpler day in age, back before loyalties were taken advantage of and manipulated. There is always a gray zone though, I will give the Potter Box credit for taking that into account, but I don't think I will think to go through the Potter Box next time I'm stuck trying to figure out who's side I'm really on or where my loyalty really lies...
One of the hardest parts of being loyal is that your loyalties change based on the situation you're in. I think this was a main point the book was trying to hit on, especially in the area where it discussed the problems with having loyalty as a single ethical guide. You can have your loyalties, but that loyalty can and often will be taken advantage of, and at that point in time it is your ethics, standards, and morals that matter... not your loyalty. Loyalty is just the fog that makes ethical decisions so tricky.
"A spirit of democratic cooperation is needed for Royce's view of loyalty to result in ethical action." In order for loyalty to help in making the right decision, by Royce's standards, we must be sheep. Sheep. Blind, majority-following sheep. As annoying as this is, it is even more annoying that Royce gives "no way to balance among conflicting loyalties." So, Royce has layed out a map of loyalty... be a sheep, and if you have a problem, well, I'm not really sure about what to do then... Thanks Royce, that's just what we rebel college kids wanted to hear. Screw a revolution, let's float around with the majority! Who cares if "the majority" wants to bring back seperate-but-equal for homosexuals, our loyalty is to the community and therefore the majority; so if the majority hates the gays and gives a shit less about real civil rights, that's what the majority wants, then so be it! ...
WHAT?!?!?!?! Sorry Royce, I disagree. Loyalty is not always to the majority, or to who you think it should be to, or to who you would have thought you'd be loyal to. Loyalty plays a role up and until ethics have to take over. So I guess the real issue is that hopefully people are only loyal to trying to make an ethical decision based on the given situation.
I think the Potter Box tries to make this ethical-decision-making-based-on-loyalties stuff a little easier, but it may be making a simple process a bit too complicated. Instead of a near "12-step program" for journalists needing to make decisions, why not just weigh over the pros and cons? What happened to the good 'ol two column list of good vs. bad? Maybe that was a simpler day in age, back before loyalties were taken advantage of and manipulated. There is always a gray zone though, I will give the Potter Box credit for taking that into account, but I don't think I will think to go through the Potter Box next time I'm stuck trying to figure out who's side I'm really on or where my loyalty really lies...
Thursday, February 19, 2009
New Semester, New Class, ANOTHER Blog...
This Blog post is going to be an incredible work of deep "independant" insight from me... After reviewing Chapters 1 and 2 from the only book Amazon decided to send me I came up with the following conclusions...
I though that Bok (a girl... who I thought was a boy... oops!) was interesting with her focus on alternatives. I think it is a great idea to look at what the options are when deciding ethical issues (obvious don'tcha think? Okay, I'm sorry about that improper grammar... Sarah Palin is still tormenting me) and I was glad that right off the bat the book made it clear that ethical decision making is not cut and dry with a right or wrong answer. There is always grey area, and a lot of it.
I felt like Aristotle's evaluation of ethics made the most sense. His focus on practicality and middle ground seemed the most "practical" and helpful when it comes to ethical decision making. I liked when the book said, "Seeking the golden mean implies that individual acts are not disconnected from one another, but rather that they form a whole that a person of good character should aspire to." By seeking this "golden mean" one can make a good decision while keeping focus on the two possible extremes.
Though I like Aristotle's model, I align mostly with Kant in the way I make decisions. I've always tried to live by the golden rule. Acting in a way you would want others to act is a good way to keep a sort of system of checks and balances; unless, of course, a given bowl has more ice cream than the next, and in that case I can't say that the golden rule applies. There is the problem, however, of people having very differing ideals of what is right and wrong and what is okay to do to others and oneself.
Should we be suprised though that I think Mill is kind of a &#@$ head? I think this ethics model is an easy way to devalue individual rights and basic ethics. When you start trying to decide if the end justifies the means you get atomic bombs dropped on foreign cities killing thousands and spreading radiation for years. Though the end result has to be considered it can be a slippery slope in enabling people to dismiss certain ethical standards.
I thought Ross has a good point that coincides with what I said about grey area with Aristotle where there is "more than one ethical value simultaneously competing for preeminece in our ethical decision making." There's never a right or wrong when it comes to ethics. Usually just a kind of good-slash-kind of crappy vs. another kind of good-slash-kind of crappy outcome.
THREE CHEERS FOR COMMUNITARIANISM!!!!! Another shocker, right? "Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions, understood not as disconnected choices but analyzed as the impact of the sum of the choices on society." And I sure think that's a great thing to consider! This also goes along nicely with what Kant talked about. Do unto others as you would want them to do to you and realize it's impact on society... this should be the golden rule and ethical plumbline of the 21st century.
And now onto chapter 2... I loved the paragraph that explained what a contradiction journalists face these days in having to try to be "neutral, yet investigative". I believe pretty strongly (though this opinion could probably be swayed) that objectivity is dangerous to truth in journalism. I think that when an opion is put into a piece of work it gives people something to think about. People don't hold their beliefs in the "middle of the road". We make opinions and we argue our points, research our topics, and look at what the other side is saying. The differing of opinions is what is valuable truth in journalism. Not the faking of objectivity to allow people to "make up their own minds."
Another part of this chapter that stood out to me was the section titled "Packaging the story: News as Manufactured Product". While I was reading the part about T.V. news being based on the best video clip I pondered what that meant for politics, laws, and the role the media plays in keeping people uninformed. The making of laws, and what's in such laws isn't very glittery or fun. And it's definitely not a great video clip. And therefore is not really reported on very thoroughly and in turn keeps the public uninformed, which is a very sad outcome. So then is T.V. reporting a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not really sure.
***In the same section there was a sentence that read, "reporting an election as a contest fails to focus on the policy issues, which is what democratic elections are supposed to be about." This single sentence made me think entirely differently about the way we follow elections. It is kind of bogus to report the polls as often as is done.***
And finally on page 33 (4th paragraph) the book talks about a study done to see how different journalists feel about different ethical situations. The data seemed to line up with Aristotle's idea of ethical decision making. The journalists, for the most part, seemed to have a sense of looking for practicality and middle ground.
Now as much as I love to passionately blog, my kitty wants to play fetch and I have an ethical decision to make... Quit blogging and sadden my readers but spare the wrath of a little feline OR go play fetch with the cute fur ball and suffer the audiences backlash... FETCH IT IS!!!
I though that Bok (a girl... who I thought was a boy... oops!) was interesting with her focus on alternatives. I think it is a great idea to look at what the options are when deciding ethical issues (obvious don'tcha think? Okay, I'm sorry about that improper grammar... Sarah Palin is still tormenting me) and I was glad that right off the bat the book made it clear that ethical decision making is not cut and dry with a right or wrong answer. There is always grey area, and a lot of it.
I felt like Aristotle's evaluation of ethics made the most sense. His focus on practicality and middle ground seemed the most "practical" and helpful when it comes to ethical decision making. I liked when the book said, "Seeking the golden mean implies that individual acts are not disconnected from one another, but rather that they form a whole that a person of good character should aspire to." By seeking this "golden mean" one can make a good decision while keeping focus on the two possible extremes.
Though I like Aristotle's model, I align mostly with Kant in the way I make decisions. I've always tried to live by the golden rule. Acting in a way you would want others to act is a good way to keep a sort of system of checks and balances; unless, of course, a given bowl has more ice cream than the next, and in that case I can't say that the golden rule applies. There is the problem, however, of people having very differing ideals of what is right and wrong and what is okay to do to others and oneself.
Should we be suprised though that I think Mill is kind of a &#@$ head? I think this ethics model is an easy way to devalue individual rights and basic ethics. When you start trying to decide if the end justifies the means you get atomic bombs dropped on foreign cities killing thousands and spreading radiation for years. Though the end result has to be considered it can be a slippery slope in enabling people to dismiss certain ethical standards.
I thought Ross has a good point that coincides with what I said about grey area with Aristotle where there is "more than one ethical value simultaneously competing for preeminece in our ethical decision making." There's never a right or wrong when it comes to ethics. Usually just a kind of good-slash-kind of crappy vs. another kind of good-slash-kind of crappy outcome.
THREE CHEERS FOR COMMUNITARIANISM!!!!! Another shocker, right? "Communitarianism focuses on the outcome of individual ethical decisions, understood not as disconnected choices but analyzed as the impact of the sum of the choices on society." And I sure think that's a great thing to consider! This also goes along nicely with what Kant talked about. Do unto others as you would want them to do to you and realize it's impact on society... this should be the golden rule and ethical plumbline of the 21st century.
And now onto chapter 2... I loved the paragraph that explained what a contradiction journalists face these days in having to try to be "neutral, yet investigative". I believe pretty strongly (though this opinion could probably be swayed) that objectivity is dangerous to truth in journalism. I think that when an opion is put into a piece of work it gives people something to think about. People don't hold their beliefs in the "middle of the road". We make opinions and we argue our points, research our topics, and look at what the other side is saying. The differing of opinions is what is valuable truth in journalism. Not the faking of objectivity to allow people to "make up their own minds."
Another part of this chapter that stood out to me was the section titled "Packaging the story: News as Manufactured Product". While I was reading the part about T.V. news being based on the best video clip I pondered what that meant for politics, laws, and the role the media plays in keeping people uninformed. The making of laws, and what's in such laws isn't very glittery or fun. And it's definitely not a great video clip. And therefore is not really reported on very thoroughly and in turn keeps the public uninformed, which is a very sad outcome. So then is T.V. reporting a good thing or a bad thing? I'm not really sure.
***In the same section there was a sentence that read, "reporting an election as a contest fails to focus on the policy issues, which is what democratic elections are supposed to be about." This single sentence made me think entirely differently about the way we follow elections. It is kind of bogus to report the polls as often as is done.***
And finally on page 33 (4th paragraph) the book talks about a study done to see how different journalists feel about different ethical situations. The data seemed to line up with Aristotle's idea of ethical decision making. The journalists, for the most part, seemed to have a sense of looking for practicality and middle ground.
Now as much as I love to passionately blog, my kitty wants to play fetch and I have an ethical decision to make... Quit blogging and sadden my readers but spare the wrath of a little feline OR go play fetch with the cute fur ball and suffer the audiences backlash... FETCH IT IS!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)