posted
Feds Call for Ban on Photos of New Orleans Dead (E&P) The move by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is in line with the Bush administration's ban on images of flag-draped U.S. military coffins returning from the Iraq war. CJR Daily: Sensitivity for the dead and their family members is paramount, no question. But the press also needs to be careful that the administration doesn't take political advantage of this sensitivity in order to shroud from the public the most tangible outcome of governmental ineptitude, writes Gal Beckerman. Philly Inky: Networks won't be dictated to by FEMA, writes Gail Shister. WaPo: Prime-time news shows devoted to Katrina drew big audiences in last week's Nielsen ratings race. Salon: Why has it taken thousands of hurricane fatalities to finally wake up reporters, asks Eric Boehlert. Seattle Weekly: Following the media trail of Dubya's Katrina blunders. LA Weekly: TV journalists were let off their leashes by their mogul owners, writes Nikki Finke. Seattle P-I: Media must kick tires, take names, find heroes, be our watchdog, writes Colleen Patrick. Chicago Trib: Defining the people of New Orleans has become a linguistic challenge, writes Don Wycliff.
IP: Logged |
Rockville, Md.: Dear Ms. Priest, The federal failure to respond fully and comprehensively and in a timely way to the disaster in New Orleans bodes poorly for our national response to future terrorist attacks. Or does it? Would you say that the Katrina response is or is not indicative of national preparedness? Can the major expenditures on "homeland security" still be justified in light of this failure? -- Clearly the money has not had the full desired effect. Thanks!
IP: Logged |
posted
Dana Priest: Katrina has given us a vivid and, unfortunately, deadly example of what people in Washington "security circles" have been saying for a long time--that DHS is a hollow bureaucracy. Filled with dedicated and hardworking people, yes, but created sort of like a third arm. It's not working and hasn't been for a while. Adding and reorganizing the boxes just isn't the answer.....more on this later re: intel reorg.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: Do independent observers believe that national security spending is driven more by political considerations (e.g.. not wanting to be blamed for another terrorist attack) or by rational calculations of the probability of known threats?
Dana Priest: First off, it is unusually hard for independent observers to make educated assessments these days because so much of this spending is classified. Add to that a new phenomenon: anything goes, just about. Better CYA than to have another attack and get blamed. A lack of accountability is built into this system, structurally. Congress doesn't help because it's still not willing, either, to rationalize spending. To say no to stupid ideas and wasteful spending in this area.
_______________________
Anonymous: Do you foresee an independent investigation into the Katrina response? Do you agree one is necessary?
Dana Priest: I'll just give you a gut-level reaction (which I'm not supposed to do often). I bellowed "What!" at the news. It's just too early and too much of a diversion and too much of a political football---and most importantly, too many people need the government's entire attention now! Including those members of Congress who got elected because they are supposed to be leaders and will be sitting at these hearings instead of coming up with mid- and long-term solutions for people in their states.
_______________________
Knoxville, Tenn.: Hello, does Iraq have at best, a paper constitution, a paper government and hapless security services?
Dana Priest: I don't think it's that bad. It's a government that can't function the way it should or is intended to function. But it's more than just on paper. Security services are more than hapless, although some units probably fit that description. Others not at all.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: How are the IC agencies helping with Hurricane Katrina?
Dana Priest: Mainly, I think they are trying to stay alert to the terrorist threat. To state the obvious, this is a vulnerable time here with everyone paying attention to Katrina's aftermath.
_______________________
Va.: Whatever happened to the CIA domestic office in La.?
Dana Priest: Hmmm. I doubt they had one there. They are usually located in greater commercial hubs; NY, Chicago, DC, Los Angeles. But if they did, I'd guess it would be gone too. Please fill me in if I'm in the dark here.
_______________________
Lyme, Conn.: I have a question on the security guards protecting business interests in Iraq. They seem to be very close to being military troops without actually being such. Are they essentially a private army, or do they coordinate their activities with Defense Department efforts?
Dana Priest: They are private armies and their coordination with the military has been extremely ad hoc. It sort of depends on the military commanders in a given area and how much they want to coordinate. So of this depends of personal relationships with the men in the private companies, who are generally former military and may know people in uniform on the ground. In the beginning, there were really no runs of the road, not standardized rules of engagement and no real way to hold accountable private security people who broke the law or killed people by mistake (or not by mistake). This is still not a high priority. On the other hand, given the insecurity in the country, many sectors--including the Iraqi government, US diplomats and CIA officers and private foreign and Iraqi businesses--could not function without them.
_______________________
Detroit, Mich.: Does the ban on taking pictures of the dead in New Orleans (& Iraq) violate the 1st Amendment? Why haven't news agencies tried to use that to report these tragedies? I'd rather see horrible pictures and have the rest of America realize what is really going on, then letting them live in lala land. Freedom of the Press? Freedom of Speech?
Dana Priest: It's not really a "ban" with legal consequences. FEMA won't allow photographers to take pix of bodies they are transporting, etc. But, as you have seen each day in the papers and on TV, those picture are very much a part of the story. Including that amazing picture in our paper yesterday (Page A10) by The Post's Andrea Bruce---which I would have put on the front page (and that's probably why I don't run the paper). It's a picture of a dog sitting next to the blanket-draped body of his male owner who has been dead for five days. Unbelievable. Can you imagine the body of a dead American soldier in Iraq being left out on the street for even a day?
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: Dana, welcome back to the Web chats!
I read The Post's article on the Zarqawi insurgents' seizure of an Iraqi border town with a sinking feeling. In your opinion, what is the extent to which Zarqawi's forces are in control? Do you think that the loss of this town to the insurgency signals a forthcoming trend?
Dana Priest: I was incredulous, given the emphasis the US military has put on the border area. But I would expect another offense there to take it back, and snatch as many Zarquawites as possible.
_______________________
Harlingen, Tex.: Pete Hoekstra, Chairman of the House intelligence committee gave a talk on leaks at the Heritage Foundation a couple of days ago that sounded remarkably like what Sen. Shelby was saying five years ago. (I suspect someone in the intelligence community has a script that they hand out when the opportunity arises.) He says he's going to hold hearings on leaks later this year, which could be interesting.
Do you see another attempt to pass anti-leak legislation coming any time soon?
Dana Priest: Yep. I've interviewed Rep. Hoekstra about this and he does, indeed, hope to pass such legislation. He also says he recognizes the constructive role that "leaks" can play in exposing wrongdoing and pushing government to account for its actions. So I hope he will incorporate that into his thinking because such legislation could be extremely harmful. Look at what all the secrecy surrounding DHS has gotten you.
_______________________
Wilmington, N.C.: You referred to an investigation into Katrina response as a "political football". While I understand that is the current atmosphere, doesn't that just seem like the wrong frame? It seems to me an urgent matter of national security that this performance is improved upon in the inevitable next crisis. Can we risk even the possibility of a repeat? As for waiting, who's to say that next crisis will wait?
Dana Priest: Fair enough. But there's such a critical need still right now. Why not put it off several months. Nothing will get "fixed" quickly because of an investigation, it's just divert attention.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: Does FEMA operate under different rules in the event of a "national security emergency" vs a "national disaster emergency"? e.g.....if the breeching of the levees and flooding of 80% of New Orleans had been the result of a terrorist attack rather than a hurricane, could we have expected a better response from FEMA than what we have been seeing so far?
Dana Priest: Because FEMA has been incorporated into DHS, all disaster reactions are supposed to be the similar, but tailored to the triggering event. Obviously if we're under an attack by someone--terrorists, foreign government, etc, different laws kick in. Mainly, the military can do lots more in the United States if the US is under attack than it can after a natural disaster.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: In the summer after the U.S. invaded Iraq, you took my question in one of your chats about whether one of the "real" reasons Bush invaded Iraq was to build permanent military bases there. Your answer was a definite "No". Now I understand that we ARE building permanent bases there. Do you now think this was the administration's intent from the beginning, but just kept from ace reporters like yourself? Or did the decision to build bases come later? Thanks -- I always enjoy your chats.
Dana Priest: This question comes up all the time---still. Since my colleague Bradley Graham was kind enough to help me answer it with an exclusive, in-depth report on the subject, I'll just have the computer wizards post his article:
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: Commanders Plan Eventual Consolidation of U.S. Bases in Iraq.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Dana:
I hate to pile on, but after the Katrina fiasco I don't feel that the federal government can actually respond to any sort of a national security threat at home. Imagine a similar sort of thing done by terrorists with no warning, but in more than one city. It'd be easy enough to blow up a couple of seawalls or other important points of infrastructure. And I fear our response would be as half-hearted and confused as the Katrina response.
Yes, I'm sure the local and state folks could have done better. But ultimately it's a Federal problem, as that's what we have a federal government for.
Your thoughts?
Dana Priest: I think the military would have been mobilized in large numbers and immediately---not in dribs and drabs after several days. That would have changed the situation. But in general, I agree. And I'm sure the feds will be "studying" the response to Katrina for years to come.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: Reading about Saddam's upcoming trial made me wonder...is there zero chance that a team of insurgents could free him from captivity ?
Dana Priest: Well, never say never, but I would expect the US military and Iraqi government know this is the nightmare scenario and will plan accordingly.
_______________________
Eugene, Ore.: As a native of D.C., all I could think about watching the coverage of New Orleans was "this is how my hometown will look if anything bad happens."
Any idea if this will be a wake-up call to the many police forces who don't communicate in D.C.? Especially since study after study has proven the city is not able to be evacuated?
Dana Priest: I wish. I too have this thought and then, as I'm driving to work this morning down 16th Street and am half-a mile from the White House, there's a new BMW blocking rush-hour traffic because---its front tire is stuck in a manhole sans cover. Swallowed up entirely. There's a huge back-up. No emergency tow-truck in site. And I'm not even surprised. Almost happened to me last week. DC is soooo far behind with everything, except the price of gasoline. We have the highest in the nation!
_______________________
Richmond, Va.: This may sound like a stupid question, but no one I know knows the answer. Is New Orleans considered to be under "martial law" at this time?
Dana Priest: Civil law. National Guard is under state government control and is assisting law enforcement.
IP: Logged |
posted
I say show 'em all, along with statements (where possible) of how they died. I'd be especially interested to know how many died of thirst while the government sat on its collective a**.
IP: Logged |
posted
That wasn't even close to my point, 4Art. I'm saying some censorship is very good. Showing dead bodies (no matter who's) on the front of a newspaper is inappropriate. This is especially true without consent.
I'm not saying that people should be allowed to see the photos. I'm simply saying that mass media is not place to irreverantly show dead bodies.
Feel free to talk numbers dead and the budget, but photos of dead bodies is quite a personal matter.
-------------------- If you don't sweat the pennies, you're not making any money.
IP: Logged |
posted
I know flagged-draped coffins are supposed to be a big deal, but I don't get it. I think they are usually very tastefully done. It always seems respectful to me.
-------------------- If you don't sweat the pennies, you're not making any money.
IP: Logged |
posted
These people as far as we know have not done anything to anybody. They deserve our respect and should not be used for anyones personal agenda. Just remember they are all someones mother, brother, sister or father ect.. I think, out of respect they should not be shown. IMO
IP: Logged |
posted
A picture of bloated face down half rotted body that isn't recognizable shows disrespect to no one. So, hiding the fact that that person was allowed to die because Bush filled essential positions with political hacks is respecting exactly whom or what?
IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't have an agenda, then a pigs b-tt ain't pork. You are, indeed, trying to argue, rather than admit the facts. You are arguing that the world shouldn't be upset at the disgusting total lack of performance by your Party lackies.
Dignity? Do you provide that to the dead in New Orleans by trying to justiy the way they have been ignored by the Party?
Stop trying to change the topic by attacking those that point to the failure of the Party and answer the question:
" So, hiding the fact that that a person was allowed to die because Bush filled essential positions with political hacks is respecting exactly whom or what?"
IP: Logged |
posted
If my family member died because no one bothered to rescue him/her for seven days, I'd want the world to know about it.
The negligent parties should be severely punished. Not just be allowed to "step down" with some dignity intact, (like Brown) or point fingers at others, (like Bush & Co).
If I'm a hospital administrator and I hire a surgeon who has no experience, and he subsequently kills a patient, am I not responsible?
quote:Originally posted by timberman: These people as far as we know have not done anything to anybody. They deserve our respect and should not be used for anyones personal agenda. Just remember they are all someones mother, brother, sister or father ect.. I think, out of respect they should not be shown. IMO
posted
I'm not making any attacks. bdgee, you've made some points and I just wanted to understand what you were trying to say. I think it's quite ok for me to ask a question. You've asked me questions. And it's ok. That's what we do here. If you don't want to answer it that's fine, but please don't get in a tizzy because I asked a question.
I believe shlik posted this article because he wanted to discuss it's content and the legal issues and consequences associated with banning these photos. I have stated my opinions and feelings about the situation and the included conversation of flagged-draped coffins (congenially I might add).
-------------------- If you don't sweat the pennies, you're not making any money.
IP: Logged |
posted
Congenially, you say? My, my, my... Since when did it become congenial to suggest that someone that asked a question is lacking in a "belief" in "human dignity" or the intellectual cpacity to understand what that is?
And just where did you extend the effort to answer any question? Your respond to questions is to assume the standard attack mode of the Party, by assertions about the character of the questioner's standing as a "proper" member of society?
Try the simple and dignified response of respecting the person's question with an answer rather than attacking their character.
In case you forgot, the question was:
" So, hiding the fact that that a person was allowed to die because Bush filled essential positions with political hacks is respecting exactly whom or what?"
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
