Earlier, we reported the decision of the Secretary of Defense in regards to the Media's insistence at being able to photograph the "human cost of war." Robert Gates demonstrated that he is a politician in making his decision. He chose to make a policy of compromise that sounds reasonable on the surface. I agree that the families should be afforded final decision on the media's attempt to politicize their loss in a time of grief.
“I have decided that the decision regarding media coverage of the dignified transfer process at Dover should be made by those most directly affected -- on an individual basis -- by the families of the fallen,” Gates said at a Pentagon news conference.
The new policy sounds like it affords the family that opportunity, but it has a negative embedded in it, one which Secretary Gates either did not realize or chose to ignore for the sake of political expediency. Because I generally respect SecDef Gates, I'm going to assume he simply didn't think this through, but that's why WE pay him, to think his decisions through, before he commits to them.
What is the great flaw in the
new policy? The jackals called journalists. While there will always be a chance that these jackals will find out the names of the fallen before the family is notified, DoD does a reasonably good job of being the first to notify the family and doing so personally and respectfully. The problem is that the next knock on the door is likely to be a pack of journalists hounding the family for permission to photograph their grief as their fallen Warrior is returned home.
I've dealt with these jackals in precisely this situation and from my words I'm sure the readers understand "respectful" was not the value of the day. They surrounded the family's house and forceably occupied their neighborhood. They sought out minor children for "interviews" in places where the surviving parent was not expected to be present.
Had it not been for a strong defense by a close knit circle of friends and extended family, these jackals would have caused even greater harm to a family in a period of great grief. As it was, it took a sacrificial lamb of the family being sent out to give the media a statement before they finally departed from the occupation and siege of the neighborhood. It took two days before the family was willing to send out the emissary but it proved to be the only way to ward off the jackals.
What Secretary Gates has just done is to sick these jackals on each family of future fallen warriors beginning with those reported in the last week. This is a politically expedient decision which gets them off his back for a few days but is bad leadership. We pay him to deal with the media, not to sick the media on the families of the fallen so he can have a few days without answering the hard questions of whether or not it falls under the "Right of a Free Press" to photograph the caskets of the fallen.
Secretary Gates claims that he has never liked the old policy, but I can't help but think that this statement is as much political expediency to appease his new boss as his silence on the matter was to apease his last one:
“I had asked about changing the policy in Dover over a year ago and, although when I got the response that I did -- which recommended no change -- I accepted that at the time,” he said. “I must say I was never comfortable with it.”
Freedom of the Press is an important and fundamental right of the American People, but it does not afford journalists a right to access any place or information they desire. It does not afford journalists the right to libel, slander, trespass, or put others' lives in harm's way. It does not afford the press the right to break the law. As an organization and as individuals, they are bound by the same laws as every other American Citizen.
In fact, they have greater responsibility, which they have continually shirked, to be honest and objective, to prove their words before they publish them. As I've said elsewhere and regularly, the media should abide by the same moral and legal codes as do our courts. Journalists are analogous to lawyers, prosecutors and defense attorneys that argue their case in the court of public opinion. Editors are analagous to judges and should filter the arguments and evidence in that court for provability and objectivity. And we, the people are the jury, hearing/reading the cases they make.
To say I'm dissapointed in this decision would be an understatement. I have no faith in the media to be objective, respectful, nor honest. My lack of faith in them is based on experience in dealing with them, in seeing the news occur and in seeing their reports on it.
Insomuch that this site also falls into the category of the blanket of "journalism," it is a bit of a self-indictment, but also an examination of the ethics which we attempt here.
And in that, I expect we are part of the death of the current main stream media. I expect and I hope that the advent of the internet will afford others with the same ethics and morals to report on their areas of expertise, as does this site. I hope that this combination of internet and a return to ethical reporting by internet journalists will bring the sensationalist and profit-motivated established media to their knees, forcing them to return to ethical reporting or out of business.
War on Terror News©2009, ARM, all rights reserved.
Other Veterans speaking out on this issue:
"My Opinion: Had I died over there, my Dad would have made the decision (my mom died the day I joined the Army.) Now, I love my Dad, but we discuss 2 things, New England Sports Teams, and the weather in Maine. My Dad was a delegate for Ted Kennedy. To his credit, my Dad would NEVER openly say something about the War in front of me. And when I had a flag flown over Bagram on the day the Pats won the Super Bowl, my dad refused to fly it from the front porch, but instead went out and hired a guy to put a huge flag pole in the back yard. My Dad loves me, loves the country, but he’s a liberal, and he knows little about what I would have wanted. I would like to think he would have told them to screw off, but I don’t know. "
"Mr Wolf: Now for MY opinion: Just as I suspected, the absolute worst groups imaginable have persevered to get this opened. Now, in some fashion, pics are going to come in from Dover on this. I hate to say it, its ugly to do so, but dammit, it's going to happen- pictures are going to go up on disgusting, infuriating, inflammatory sites that are going to totally disgrace a grieving family."
Blackfive of Black Five
"However, not one of my fallen brothers, and not any of my friends in the war zones now, would ever want their death to be used by the media, their families, or anyone else that might reduce their sacrifice or the effort to win the war. Would Casey Sheehan have wanted that? From what I know about him as a soldier, I highly doubt it."
"I support the media having access, however with parameters and rules. First let me address why, which is because I think the American people need to see the honors that are bestowed on our fallen by all people."..."
Now to address some of the rules and policies that I think should be followed are the following (I am sure there are more that apply, but these are what initially stand out to me):
1. No cameras mounted in C17s to take impersonal pictures of a plane full of coffins....."
Stumble It!
