Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

January 31, 2007

NY Times Shows Video of Dying Soldier

From the Houston Chronicle (via Sweetness & Light, h/t learner):

WASHINGTON — A photograph and videotape of a Texas soldier dying in Iraq published by the New York Times have triggered anger from his relatives and Army colleagues and revived a long-standing debate about which images of war are proper to show.

The journalists involved, Times reporter Damien Cave and Getty Images photographer Robert Nickelsberg, working for the Times, had their status as so-called embedded journalists suspended Tuesday by the Army corps in Baghdad, military officials said, because they violated a signed agreement not to publish photos or video of any wounded soldiers without official consent.

[...]

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington, said the incident was typical of the dilemmas that face news organizations in war.

"The fact that a photograph upset people, even family members, is not always sufficient reason not to run it," Rosenstiel said. "Editors may decide that there is a compelling public interest in running a photograph precisely because it does upset an audience."

The agreement that journalists are asked to sign as a condition of embedding has 14 rules. Rule 11 covers military casualties: "Names, video, identifiable written/oral description or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without service member's prior written consent."

The ground rule goes on to say, "In respect for family members, names or images clearly identifying individuals 'killed in action' will not be released." The rule says names of soldiers killed can be released a day after family notification, but it does not address photographs or video images.

From what I gather, the video and photo that were released clearly identified the soldier, in violation of the ground rule.

As Steve from S&L notes,

If Sgt. Leija had been a POW, publishing photos of his dying would have violated the Geneva Conventions.

The legality of the photos/video can be decided by the powers that be. However, it's interesting to note who the media worries about offending, and who it doesn't.

The New York Times and many other news outlets would not post the Muhammed cartoons in order not to "offend" the sensibilities of Muslims. This, in spite of the fact that by the time the MSM had the opportunity to show them, they had become an important part of what was becoming a major international story, not just a gratuitous poke in the eye. The reason? Muslims are becoming a protected class Western society because of the fear of violent retribution they have managed to instill in the hearts and minds of many. (One Canadian town is taking a stand.) It's unlikely that Sgt. Leija's family will send a suicide bomber into the NYT's offices in order to get revenge for being offended.

In the aftermath of 9/11, news outlets stopped showing pictures of people jumping out of the windows of the Twin Towers because the images were "upsetting." Are the relatives of 9/11 victims more prone to being upset than by the relatives of slain soldiers?

Soldiers are not high on the list of respected people for leftwingers, and the MSM is highly populated with leftwingers. The MSM has been doing its level best to give us a negative picture of the war. To heighten that negative view, they chose to show Sgt. Leija's last tragic moments as a "lesson" in the brutalities of war and why we should pull out now: to avoid more such tragic ends to "children" whom are being "sent" into war. Therefore, his relatives are not worthy of the consideration due to the families of other people who meet a violent end.

Surely the memory of Sgt. Leija deserves better.

UPDATE (2/1/07, 3:05 pm): Here is Michelle Malkin's take on it.