After the initial wave of stories detailing the Abu Ghraib tortures, there was much debate whether the media was acting responsibly by publishing photos and providing detailed accounts of the abuses. I’m of the belief that the media did indeed act responsibly. The abuses may have continued if the story was not broken and our leaders need to have accountability to the world. If the media provides that accountability, I’m all for it.
But enough is enough already. The Washington Post ran a cover story this morning that it’s discovered that unmuzzled dogs were used to intimidate the prisoners. Now, I’d be as scared as an unmuzzled, vicious dog as the next guy, but is that form of torture worse than what’s already been reported, including various forms of sexual torture? What’s the news here?
We screwed up and it’s clear that this wasn’t an isolated incident from a few rogue soldiers (not that that should let those soldiers off the hook). Maybe it’s time that the media moves on to covering how this was allowed to happen and who should ultimately be responsible… my votes are for Rove or Ashcroft! Those have to be the two creepiest guys in the history of the White House.
On a completely unrelated topic, and I think I’ll devote an entire entry to this at some point, but does anyone else find it odd that Bush picked for his Attorney General a guy that lost to a deceased person in his run for Senate a few years ago. That’s right, John Ashcroft, America’s Top Cop, who was the incumbent at the time, lost to a candidate that had died several weeks prior to the election. You’ve got to be an unbelievably hated person to lose to a dead person, especially when you’re the incumbent.
Looking for a laugh? Check out this link… http://www.whitehouse.org/ask/jashcroft.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32776-2004Jun10.html
Headline Quote Movie of Origin: Swingers
Character: Mikey (John Favreau)
Setting: Sue has just pulled a gun on “House of Pain” after they “stepped up on him” as he didn’t want to lose his “rep”. Mikey and the rest of the crew are exasperated with Sue’s actions. Mikey says, “haven’t you seen Boyz N The Hood? Now one of us are going to get shot.
The quote is relevant to this story how?: Mostly I just wanted to use a Swingers line, but the Boyz N The Hood theory works. The debate around the media’s responsibility in the Abu Ghraib affair revolved primarily around the fact that showing American abuse of Iraqis and insurgents would lead to an “eye-for-an-eye” retaliation from the Arab world.
Contact El Duderino at jaipf@hotmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hartmann... thanks for the reply/comment. I'm interested in this line, "they could have told us what was happening and not had to flood every newspaper, news program, magazine... "
I'm not sure I understand how "they" (which I'm assuming is the government) tell us what was happening without using the media. The abuses had been occurring in Guatanamo Bay for two years and the Red Cross reported abuses at Abu Ghraib much before CBS ran the story. I think if we're assuming that the administration would have voluntarily provided the general public with this information, I'm just not seeing that happen (regardless of which party political party is at the helm).
If you're only referring to the "visuals" of the abuses, the Internet has changed how the media reports. If I can get forwarded a picture of some co-ed passed out naked in her own vomit, then surely the pictures that were reported on by the media would've made their rounds at some point.
And El Duderino returns volley... I wasn't aware of the showing of prisoners as being against the Geneva Conventions. If it is indeed against intnernational law, I agree with your assertion 100 percent. But if not, I think the power of the visuals was what enacted change... changes to the system, which cannot be denied.
The Washington Post actually ran an interesting article yesterday on the changes that have occurred. From Slate's "Today's Papers" section... "The Post interviews a handful of the hundreds of prisoners released from Abu Ghraib and says things are much improved since the photos came out and the media began focusing on the abuses. "The Army is good now," said one newly released detainee." Here's a link to that Post story... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41842-2004Jun14.html.
In terms of the media showing only Iraqis prisoner's being abused... I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to see the bodies, especially those who believe that the US is succeeding and doing the right thing. If we want to maintain some semblance of support, I don't think that's the way to go.
The NY Times did show on its front page the charred bodies of two American civilians that had been hung from a bridge a month or two ago. I nearly broke out in tears when I saw the picture and then got noxious. It was at that point where I most questioned our involvement and strategy in Iraq. It seems to me that the more we see our own dead, that the more we'll question our involvement and the more that people will try to connect Iraq to Vietman (which I agree is a completely erroneous statement... but it's already been discussed at some length).
Post a Comment