« Wal-Mart...Good? | Main | Carter V. Bush »
September 07, 2005
The Iron Curtain
Earlier today, we found out that the Bush administration had barred all shots of the dead. Too much for America's delicate constitution to take. But -- showing real leadership -- Bush realized that this was too soft a response and now they're turning away all press.
They're trying to control the information out of New Orleans. The findings of the free press were too politically damaging, so now they're shutting down the access. If pictures of the dead were too much for America's delicate constitution, they've now decided to submerge America's actual Constitution.
Please, one of you conservalibertarian types, justify this one for me.
September 7, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8348b1fa969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Iron Curtain:
Comments
Are they physically hampering the rescue effort? That's the only possible justification I can think of. Otherwise, gah.
Posted by: Brad Plumer | Sep 7, 2005 3:13:18 PM
We can hope that the many national network reporters that went in well ahead of FEMA and the Natl Guard will keep us informed, but I guess the next step will be to expel them, or at least the ones that don't prop up the party line.
Posted by: sprocket | Sep 7, 2005 3:25:00 PM
There is still risk of further looting and property damage, as well as people who need to be evacuated. That needs to be protected before rubbernecking is aided.
Posted by: dan | Sep 7, 2005 3:32:37 PM
"The U.S. government agency leading the rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina said on Tuesday it does not want the news media to take photographs of the dead as they are recovered from the flooded New Orleans area."
Not quite the same thing as 'barred.' I guess you think that pictures of the dead would serve some sort of public good that would over ride the tradegy of someone finding out a loved one has died on National News. I don't see any purpose in putting up these pictures for public titilation, perhaps you can explain why you think they should be.
As for turning away press. I would expect that to happen, in a dangerous situtation. I also highly doubt that this is a result of any orders from Bush or any attempt to 'censor' what is going on. If you can find a reputable media link about what is actually happening rather than the one you posted we could perhaps better analyze what is happening.
The idea that they are trying to control information out of New Orleans or hide what has happened is ludicrous. Anything that the press has reported on that would damage the Bush administration on this matter hasn't even come out of New Orleans, but from Washington or the staging grounds for the relief efforts.
This sort of paranoid conspiracy theory is better suited for Democratic Underground than this blog, which is usually reasoned and sensible. Perhaps you should take a deep breath.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Sep 7, 2005 3:40:41 PM
I'm not seeing anything very convincing here. All I'm seeing are raiotnalizations for why the Bush administration might not actually mean to be trying to squeeze off info coming out of NOLA, but nothing showing that they aren't. Brigham watched TV crews being turned away, the LA Times was told they can't publish pictures with the dead...this seems fairly open and shut to me.
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 7, 2005 3:48:59 PM
The idea that they are trying to control information out of New Orleans or hide what has happened is ludicrous.
It doesn't help that FEMA actually, purposely cut an emergency communication line.
(about halfway down page)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179790/
Posted by: sprocket | Sep 7, 2005 3:53:06 PM
If the federal government can prohibit press coverage of the N.O. disaster, free government and free press are in terminal death throes.
There is NO reasonable basis for denying the press' coverage. This is clearly prior restraint, which has been found to be unconstitutional over and over.
It will be interesting to see which media orgs take this to court for an injunction.
Just move along here.... nothing happening.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 7, 2005 4:09:03 PM
control and spin is all the bushies know, so they shut off the cameras and turn away the press to make it easier to shape 'reality' into something more favorable to them.
those who still support him after this point are essentially enablers, driven by fear, or by hatred of liberals, or by fantasies of shared power.
the nihilism of these folks is a cancer that eats at the heart of the nation.
Posted by: the shreeking ape | Sep 7, 2005 4:11:08 PM
justify this one for me
I can't. This is just one of a long list of issues that I have with Republicans. So what? I have to like everything the Republicans do? Do you like everything the Democrats do?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 7, 2005 4:37:14 PM
This supposes there's still a press to censor.
Posted by: SamAm | Sep 7, 2005 4:38:46 PM
Ezra,
You are the one making the extraordinary accussation, I think it would behove you to have the extraordinary evidence. I am sure that some press have been told not to go to some places. I have also seen 24 hour news coverage on several channels from New Orleans. If this is a press blackout, it is the worst one in histroy.
sprocket,
I don't think that a transcript of a allegations by a Aaron Broussard, apparently that he learned of third hand, is much evidence. I will give those allegations the same wait you give Sec. Chertoff's protestations that FEMA and the Federal Government by and large responded appropriately. Perhaps it will come out in time that Broussard's allegations are accurate, but I wouldn't bet on it, and I would certainly bet that they don't tell the full story.
Jim,
There will be absolutely no media orgs going to court for this. That is because they have been asked not to publish pictures of the dead, not required by law to not do so. At least that is all that the evidence I have seen so far, and I very much doubt you will find any that is different.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Sep 7, 2005 4:51:15 PM
Long Reuters article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050907/ts_nm/censorship_dc
Posted by: Ugh | Sep 7, 2005 5:12:50 PM
I don't think that a transcript of a allegations by a Aaron Broussard, apparently that he learned of third hand, is much evidence. I will give those allegations the same wait you give Sec. Chertoff's protestations that FEMA and the Federal Government by and large responded appropriately. Perhaps it will come out in time that Broussard's allegations are accurate, but I wouldn't bet on it, and I would certainly bet that they don't tell the full story.
I am curious to know why you would accuse Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard of making up a phony story about his sheriff, and his deputies, and a strained situation with FEMA on a nationally televised program that also included Chertoff and other commentators. Really, if you think Broussard is a liar, I would like to know why you think so.
Posted by: sprocket | Sep 7, 2005 5:53:03 PM
The idea that they are trying to control information out of New Orleans or hide what has happened is ludicrous.
Dave, I don't think the word "ludicrous" means what you think it means. If you were paying any attention, you would be well aware of the Potemkin President and his lying shitsack of an advisor Karl Rove. There have been multiple reports of the firefighters who were sent to LA in the hopes that some of their magic would rub off of Bush, and make him look all manly and prepared even though he showed up several days too late for thousands of American citizens.
And sprocket, the only reason why Dave Justus doesn't trust Andre Broussard is because anyone who complains about the president makes Bush fans lose their erections.
Posted by: maurinsky | Sep 8, 2005 1:15:04 AM
Dave Justus says:
The idea that they are trying to control information out of New Orleans or hide what has happened is ludicrous. Anything that the press has reported on that would damage the Bush administration on this matter hasn't even come out of New Orleans, but from Washington or the staging grounds for the relief efforts.
...
There will be absolutely no media orgs going to court for this. That is because they have been asked not to publish pictures of the dead, not required by law to not do so. At least that is all that the evidence I have seen so far, and I very much doubt you will find any that is different.
Here's some quotes from today that seem to make your self-confidence about no censorship by BushCo premature (or more likely, flat out wrong):
Political Animal/Washington Monthly
I don't think anyone is suggesting that photos that show the faces of the dead are appropriate, but the public should be able to see piles of wrapped bodies.
Even more important, for the government to halt all media access is not just censorship, it is the mark of a totalitarian regime.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Sep 8, 2005 3:52:22 AM
sprocket,
I don't accuse Broussard of lying. I expect that he doesn't have the full facts and is passing on rumors. From what I can tell from the transcript, he didn't witness personnaly the events he alleges took place. I expect that he didn't even talk to anyone who witnessed the event that took place. Anyone who has played the game telephone can understand how information can be miscommunicated, even in an orderly environment.
Maurinsky,
The article on the firefighters being used for PR clearly states that that was what they were originally called for to do. This may be a misuse of those resources, but isn't entirely unwarranted. The PR we are talking about isn't talking to TV stations, it is interfacing directly with the public, those who were affected by this disaster and informing them how to get help and what they need to do. This task needs to be done. Firefighters are a decent choice for this job, from what I understand, because they already have completed background investigations and are easy to be Federally credentialed. We don't want FEMA giving a temporty badge to a sexual predator for example, and having that person telling victims what they need to do to get help.
Bush has obviously used Firefighters and other rescue workers for photo-ops. This is somewhat distastful to me, but hardly unique. I recall several pictures of a similar nature of Clinton touring disaster areas. Obviously a politician will try to manage their image and present themselves in a good light, with whatever props they can manage. As I said, this is distasteful, but hardly evidence of Bush's unique evil.
Jim,
Recycling the same quotes from a different web-site does not constitute further sourcing.
Bottom line is, that it is alleged that the Bush Junta, through some mystical and as yet unrevealed means, has communicated to the various national guard troops to censor all access from the press because they want to keep America from seeing what is happening in New Orleans. The fact that we are getting tons of coverage from New Orleans does not seem to matter to this hypothesis.
This is wild-eyed conspiracy stuff guys. It isn't happening. Oswald shot Kennedy, America landed on the Moon, Cheese sandwiches are not molded by divine intervention into the likeness of the virgin Mary, and Bush has not imposed a media blackout on New Orleans.
For those of you who absolutely must see pictures of the dead to be happy, here is one, and here is another.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Sep 8, 2005 2:40:14 PM
Dave Justus,
Completely aside from the question of whether or not the media are being directed not to do things, are you able to see that there's a difference between restraining the media and the media having restraint?
Posted by: TJ | Sep 8, 2005 2:47:52 PM
That is exactly the difference. However, do you think it inappropriate for government officials to ask them to show restraint?
I don't. I also think that if John Kerry was President right now, government officials would be asking the exact same things.
Show me evidence of anyone being fined or prosecuted for publishing pictures of dead bodies (which as the links above show is happening) and I will enthusiastically join in comdemning that.
Asking me to believe a giant conspiracy and to equate asking the press to behave responsibly with censorship is something else entirely.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Sep 8, 2005 3:40:10 PM
The TV media isn't even showing pictures of the dead anyway and when they do its a body underneath a blanket. So you can't actually see anything. I'm not sure about the print media, but I haven't see it there either in the limited times I've glanced at a paper.
They use their own restraint, what they deem to be in good taste. Hence, there is no need for the government to intervene.
Posted by: Adrock | Sep 8, 2005 3:45:38 PM
Hey, Dave,
What do you think the left's reaction would be if we all started taking pictures of those who died of AIDS to use as a political tool?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 9, 2005 9:36:00 AM
Dave Justus,
However, do you think it inappropriate for government officials to ask them to show restraint?
The government officials should ask the media to show restraint. They should do it openly. Doing it in a half-assed, secretive way is a bad idea.
Posted by: TJ | Sep 9, 2005 3:04:40 PM
So taking pictures of the flood victims is an attempt to use them as a political tool?
BTW: I'm sure that Fred Phelps would use pictures of AIDS victims if he thought it would get his 'point' across. Perhaps someone should e-mail him and suggest it to him.
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | Sep 10, 2005 12:17:35 AM
I think Broussard twisted the truth.
The Wal=Mart story isn't a plain-bald face untruth.
He probably was angry that water Jefferson county could have used was determined to be in greater need elsewhere.
He turns that into a petulant "They said we didn't need it."
He cried about Rodriguez's mother waiting for four days after the storm for rescue that would never come. Except, she drowned at St. Ritas nursing home on the 29th in the immediate aftermath of the storm. (The nursing home owners had refused to evacuate despite the fact the nursing home is in a low lying area in St. Bernard Parrish, depsite being offered vehicles and assistance. ALl the other nurshing homes in the parrish were suvvessfully evacuated prior to the storm.)
Posted by: SarahW | Sep 14, 2005 6:51:20 PM
Crimsonlink is leading Bug Tracking Software Issue Tracking Software Defect Tracking Software
Posted by: Issue Tracking Software | Apr 1, 2006 2:17:43 AM
We are expertise in Information Technology Outsourcing and Development
Posted by: IT Outsourcing | Apr 1, 2006 2:18:21 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
