"A Coffin, a Flag, a Photograph" and the right to see it

It is clear that, since Obama took office, many changes have been put into effect. One such change was the removal of the ban on news media access of returning war dead, which was put into effect during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. This past Sunday evening, the Pentagon allowed the media to cover the return of Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip Myers. Those in favor of the ban believed censorship of such events would prevent the media from using deaths in a purely political way. In 2003, it was announced that reporters would be embedded within the army to report the war.  Initially, the media portrayed this in a positive light since the Pentagon seemed to agree that the war news should not be told by means of censored articles or censored footage. However, the fine print of the agreement stated that, "If media are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information, they should be briefed after exposure on what information they should avoid covering." The debate over the ban's relation to broadcast of the returning dead mainly dealt with the right of privacy to the families vs. the First Amendment right of the press to report newsworthy information. 

However, as discussed in class, the media makes things newsworthy by reporting it. While "...critics point to the First Amendment and have accused the government of trying to keep the public in the dark about the human toll of war," is true, I do not really see how this differs from the media reporting war deaths in general when looked at in a political aspect. I remember coming home from school each day after 9/11 and seeing lists of names on the television screen and watching as they scrolled across the screen as the reporter explained yet another bombing in Afghanistan had resulted in loss of life. I remember thinking how strange it was that when four soldiers died, there was a report on each one's life and how their families were coping-- but when thirty soldiers died, suddenly the news played into the flash-attention span broadcasts. The higher the number of deaths, the less the media cares about who died. 

By this reasoning, the media really only does what they wish to do with the news that comes there way. In that sense, maybe they don't deserve to report such political deaths as it is not for public interest that they do it, but rather to lead into their next story about how they feel about the war efforts, thus supporting the past ban's reasoning.

Additionally, reporting a death with pictures and background information gets the same message across to the public without grand emotional injury to the families as can be caused by a prime-time showing of their loved one being carried from airplane to hearse. 

However, such thinking is exactly why we have a First Amendment. It does not matter that I disagree with the way in which the reporters bring to light the deaths of citizens and soldiers. What matters is the ability for such news to come to light in any way.

Wars provide for much media coverage but usually result in fewer human rights and more censoring than ever. The movie Vantage Point I think demonstrates this quite well while Transformers nudges the issue in a comedic way. In summary, Vantage Point is a story of the assassination of the President, a plan concocted by numerous people of citizen to FBI qualifications. The beginning depicts a reporter arguing with her boss that she is reporting everyone is hopeful at the scene of a treaty while in reality the majority of people are protesting the President's presence. At the end, a reporter states that the one assassin had been killed. Transformers ends with the lead's mother stating that if there was something going, the government would definitely tell everyone so they could duck and cover. War causes more censorship as the government wants the public to support their decisions and believe that the war is a downhill battle. While this is a whole other issue to debate, such censorship does put Americans in the dark and so no censorship has to be the blanket decision to promote that free and unrestricted sharing of ideas.

For the Harper v Showler case, Robert Showler filed against Harper Magazine after the publication of open-casket photos of Sergeant Kyle Brinlee. Reporters were given consent to be present at the funeral and the funeral was "newsworthy" as the Sergeant was the first Oklahoma National Guardsman to be killed in the line of duty since the Korean War. After reporting the death of soldiers, it can be viewed that the actual filming of the return of the deceased is not needed to make such a report. The families are very distressed and if the deaths can simply be reported on the news, the public does not need to see the actual return of the soldier.

Then again, First Amendment cases are not decided based on the feelings of the plaintiffs. If the average reasonable person would not be upset by having their beloved's casket coming off an airplane be aired on prime-time television, then gosh darn it, it's going to be allowed on prime-time television. Honestly, though, what person can be considered the "average reasonable person" as any moment they are going to see the body of someone they love? The families and friends are very upset and most likely less reasonable than they usually are at such a moment. This shouldn't mean their feelings count for nothing, though. It should actually have the opposite effect: No one is truly rational during such a proceeding and so the "reasonable person" defense cannot be used. But then again a picture of a happy, living soldier with a capture stating his death is not quite as riveting as seeing his lifeless body before crying family and friends. If you're against a war and want people on your side, the later is definitely the way to go. But then I think your getting into using this event in a more commercial sense. No, there is no product being sold, but if you are anti-war and this is your station, you are selling your opinions.

This is slightly random but I just saw it and had to share. The New York Times posted numerous articles about Obama's unannounced visit, etc...But always call him "Mr. Obama," while they always referred to Bush as "President Bush"...I thought that was a bit strange, but it does emphasize my point that the Press can report things however they wish for people to view them. Personally, I think the article's lack of the use of "President" is disrespectful and that is just from one word.