The brutal execution of Nick Berg has raised the question of whether the media, particularly CBS News, is partially culpable for his death. Numerous critics, including Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly, believe the prison abuse story could have been covered without releasing the photos of the prisoners. Jonah Goldberg even goes so far as to claim, “The revelation of those humiliating pictures and the political opportunities they created lead to Berg's beheading.”
Although CBS News was the first to break the story and show the photos, the network made the surprising decision not to air the video of Berg’s death.* The official explanation given by corporate officials for not broadcasting the clip in its entirety was that it would violate FCC regulations against indecency. But this excuse rings hollow considering what CBS has shown in the past.
As RatherBiased points out, CBS News already has a precedent of showing such images. During the Vietnam War, the network aired graphic pictures of a U.S. allied South Vietnamese soldier shooting a Vietcong officer in the head. The report even included a play-by-play narration by one of its correspondents.
CBS News hesitancy to air the footage is also peculiar considering they would likely not have had the same qualms about videotaping the incident.
In a 1989, PBS aired a panel discussion on “Ethics in America.” The moderator presented a hypothetical question to 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace: what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit?
Wallace said he "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover" and was bewildered when Peter Jennings claimed he would warn the Americans. “I'm a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story," said the CBS correspondent.
The moderator, Harvard professor Charles Ogletree Jr, asked, “Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?" Without hesitating, Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty... you're a reporter." (This convinced Jennings, who conceded, "I think he's right too, I chickened out.")
When panel member Brent Scowcroft pointed out that "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second", Wallace was taken aback. "What in the world is wrong,” he asked, “with photographing this attack …on American soldiers?"
As co-editor of 60 Minutes, Wallace is partially responsible for the newsmagazine's decision not to air the video of Berg’s death. What is his reason for refusing to show the execution? It can’t be because he is leery of showing “snuff footage.” In 1998, 60 Minutes broadcast a videotape showing Dr. Jack Kevorkian injecting lethal drugs into a terminally ill man (Wallace is so proud of the story that he even includes it in his online bio). Besides, Wallace believes it’s his ethical duty to film American soldiers being slaughtered. Why would he have any problems holding the camera when an American civilian is beheaded?
As I’ve said before, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. And when it comes to Iraq, CBS News is the chief bricklayer.
*Note: I’m not arguing that CBS News – or anyone else for that matter – should show the footage of Berg’s execution. I think refraining from showing the video is the right thing to do. It does, however, expose a double standard that is prevalent in the media.
Update: Jared Brides has an excellent post on the media's responsibilities:
In an attempt to be unbiased in reporting, CBS and the other media who have sensationalized the photos have played more than an impartial role.
As we saw from the cowardly acts of yesterday, there is more at stake than just a presidential election. Impartiality does not equal "against America." The media is not responsible for Nick Berg's death—that dishonor goes to his hooded murderers, but the media do need to realize that there is a difference between ability (to show photos, etc.) and obligation.
1
Because showing the video would offend the Religion of Peace (TM), increase support for Bush's War, and help That Evil Tyrant Bush Who Stole The Election keep the White House from The Great Hero JFKerry (who by the way Served In Vietnam), and we can't have that, can we?
Except for radio talk shows playing the audio with comments, it's already gone down the Memory Hole, unevents refs unpersons (doubleplusungood).
posted on 05.12.2004 11:52 AM2
What a strange country we live in.
The same conservative Christians who go nuts when an entertainer's nipple is shown during a live performance on network TV have the same hissy fit when network TV refuses to broadcast a video, widely available on the Internet for anyone who wants to see it, of a man being decapitated. The argument this time: an alleged "double standard."
In making your argument for the "double standard", Joe, I note that you fail to recognize or appreciate the fact that the networks have thus far presented this war as a largely bloodless affair. That is a great courtesy to the Administration. I wonder if the average American has any idea how many Iraqi civilians have been killed thus far? How many orphans created? How many children blinded and crippled? How many fetuses have been blown out of their mother's wombs by shrapnel from U.S. bombs? Surely all these events happened numerous times. Such horrors are inevitable in any war.
The networks have not shown any of this.
Your "double standard" argument is specious. At least you might mention the fact that Berg's family was emotionally destroyed when they were told of the existence of the video.
posted on 05.12.2004 12:35 PM3
Hisham,
The same conservative Christians who go nuts when an entertainer's nipple is shown during a live performance on network TV have the same hissy fit when network TV refuses to broadcast a video, widely available on the Internet for anyone who wants to see it, of a man being decapitated. The argument this time: an alleged "double standard."
First of all, I personally didn’t go nuts or raise a hissy fit over the Janet Jackson incident. And second, as I noted, I don’t think that anyone should show the video.
In making your argument for the "double standard", Joe, I note that you fail to recognize or appreciate the fact that the networks have thus far presented this war as a largely bloodless affair.
While I don’t agree with your claim, it is irrelevant to this present discussion. Neither the incidents in the Iraqi prison nor the beheading of Berg are part of the overall war effort. They are both anomalous events and neither is reprersentative of the true course of the war or the reconstruction.
That is a great courtesy to the Administration.
This war is America’s war not the Bush Administration's. I’m growing rather disgusted by the way every event in our country is politicized and blamed on the Bush Administration.
I wonder if the average American has any idea how many Iraqi civilians have been killed thus far?
Do you mean before or after we liberated the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam. I suppose that you would have preferred that America do nothing and allow those atrocities to continue. Is that what you wanted to happen?
How many orphans created? How many children blinded and crippled? How many fetuses have been blown out of their mother's wombs by shrapnel from U.S. bombs? Surely all these events happened numerous times. Such horrors are inevitable in any war.
In Iraq, these things were inevitable in peacetime as well.
Your "double standard" argument is specious.
Why is it “specious?” Wallace says he would film American soldiers getting ambushed. So why is it specious to wonder why he wouldn’t air the footage of an American civilian being killed?
posted on 05.12.2004 12:57 PM4
I'm not ready to assign the blame of Berg's death to CBS, because I think that he would have been killed by those goons regardless. That being said, showing the photos was definitely unneccesary. They could have described them (and the ongoing investigation) without needing to pull them out at all. I think I read something on KausFiles/MSNBC today along similar lines.
posted on 05.12.2004 1:48 PM5
Why was Daniel Pearl beheaded? The Iraq war hadn't started yet.
Why did they crash the planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center? There were no prisoners in women's undies then.
Mr. Berg was beheaded because he was picked up by a band of psychotics, even by militant Muslim standards. Which only serves to illustrate that we cannot allow such men to return to power. After all, were they willing to do as much with long knives, what would they do with chemical weapons? For that answer, let's ask the Kurds, if we can find any.
posted on 05.12.2004 2:26 PM6
joe:
i'd like to preface my comments by noting that i am entirely annoyed with destructive partisan bickering and i'm not trying, in any way, to contribute to that atmosphere.
having said that, i'm going to have to respectfully disagree with your assertion that this is america's war. the war in iraq was a war of choice, a choice encouraged by and ultimately made by the current administration and supported by only a slight majority of americans. i, for one, don't want to be implicated in the decision because i didn't agree with the idea from the beginning.
this does not mean, however, that i think ignoring saddam's atrocious human rights record (or that of several other nation states) would have been a feasible option. unfortunately, the argument always seems to be framed as an either/or. either we go to war to rid iraq of its tyrant or we simply ignore him.
there are several nonviolent options that were never tried, all of which could have avoided the tragedies described in hisham's post above. regardless of our intent, the consequences of using violent means to reach an end is that you can never undo the unintended violence that inevitably happens along the way.
posted on 05.12.2004 2:41 PM7
"Which only serves to illustrate that we cannot allow such men to return to power."
Which is why we provided Muslims (and others) around the globe with even better reasons to distrust our "good intentions" ...? Love the logic, Kevin. I can always count on you. I'll ignore the fact that al Qaeda was never "in power" of anything except one of the poorest countries on the earth. So scary! After the knocked down those buildings in New York City I was afraid they'd take over the whole country! Lions and tigers and Arabs, oh my!
"Mr. Berg was beheaded because he was picked up by a band of psychotics"
Also known as "religious fundamentalists."
"were they willing to do as much with long knives, what would they do with chemical weapons? For that answer, let's ask the Kurds, if we can find any."
Al Qaeda was behind the killing of the Kurds in Iraq? Tell us more, Kevin.
You might also tell us what the heck your post has to do with whether Berg's decapitation, which is widely available on the internet, should be broadcast on network TV.
Can you stop reciting the RNC spin points long enough to take a stab at that?
posted on 05.12.2004 2:46 PM8
Oh, and Kevin, since you recently assured us all of a Bush victory in November, I would love to hear your thoughts on the latest Gallup poll:
posted on 05.12.2004 3:24 PM