Federal trying to block photos of Katrina victims

Reuters -

NEW ORLEANS (Sept. 6) - 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.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, heavily criticized for its slow response to the devastation caused by the hurricane, rejected requests from journalists to accompany rescue boats as they went out to search for storm victims.

An agency spokeswoman said space was needed on the rescue boats and that "the recovery of the victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect."

"We have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media," the spokeswoman said in an e-mailed response to a Reuters inquiry.

The Bush administration also has prevented the news media from photographing flag-draped caskets of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, which has sparked criticism that the government is trying to block images that put the war in a bad light.

The White House is under fire for its handling of the relief effort, which many officials have charged was slow and bureacratic, contributing to the death and mayhem in New Orleans after the storm struck on Aug. 29.

---------------------

Banning photos of flag-draped coffins is despicable media manipulation.
New Orleans corpses is different. Someone might recognise their loved one, even by the clothes they are wearing and from the back, and this might be the first time they achieve certainty. And it seems it is a request, not a legal ruling.

Its difficult Juro, but on balance perhaps consideration for the individuals does overweigh the public need for full information, in this particular instance. Surely no-one should find out like that ?

Do people think not ?

I dunno.

Dead is dead.

I understand the need to be compasionate, but I dont think compasion extends to blanket bans on photographing dead bodies. All that leave you with is a kind of "it's ok if the death is really interesting" kind of policy, because you know if it's important or interesting they will show them anyway.

I think it's rough, but that kind of censorship does not really help anyone.

They may be saying it to protect their own rears possibly, but I do think they have a point. The media is a bunch of vultures--they need to be kept at bay because they'll put practically anything they think will get ratings on the air, as long as they don't feel it'll provoke outrage. So, I don't trust the media's judgement here.

I'm torn on this one.

My father was killed in a fire, and as a result, his body was burned beyond recognition. I have seen a few pics of Katrina victims, and they aren't pretty either.

Therefore, the wake and funeral were closed casket.

My brother got it in his head he wanted to see him one last time - something the morticians tried hard to discourage him from (as did I, and the rest of our family). He fought with them (in his usual ultra-stubborn manner) and got his way.

That was 1989. He confessed to me about five years ago, that he has been dealing with terrible nightmares ever since, because of what he saw. And of course, I do realize it was his choice to insist on seeing dad in that state.

Just a little food for thought, and, as I said, I am torn on the issue, so I will have to ponder it for a while before I come to any sort of conclusion, if I can at all.

I think that it is reasonable to prohibit close-up photos of victims or where a face might be recognized (not likely considering the bodies have been sitting in water for days). I think there's a balance that could be struck w/o resorting to censorship.

I'd just say, be careful not to automatically assign the worst possible motive to what people do, even if they do seem to reap some benefit of their own from it. It's hard to judge what motivates people, and appearances sometimes decieve.

I'm certain you are right, and its frustrating. But this faulty motivation of theirs cannot over-ride what is right or wrong morally for us in our own consideration of the issue. Though I do agree it's finely balaced.

I'd have to agree with the ban on photographing the dead from NO. My only reason is why I think they would be photographed. I'd see it as lurid titillation in a grab for ratings.

"Look at the dead bodies!! Film at 11:00!" "Hundreds of week old dead bodies, only on FOX at 10:00!"

bleh

FEMA has the right to make such a request. And photographers have the unabridged right to ignore that request. That's what it means to have a free press; sometimes you're going to see things you wish had been kept discretely under wraps.

Not to fret; I'm sure the administration will soon start "embedding" reporters with National Guard units so they can control what gets shown and what gets swept under the rug, and denying access to the area to anybody who doesn't want to play ball.

Yes, FOX would show executions on live TV if they were allowed. However, that there are some (many?) yellow journalists out there doesn't mean that they all are.

I should like to think that responsible photojournalism had a large part in galvanizing the US people against the Vietnam war and utlimately helping to bring about its end. It does not take highly skilled photography or editorial selection to show human suffering and widespread devestation without making the dead personally identifiable.

Someone had mentioned that one shouldn't jump to conclusions about the motivations behind request from FEMA that the press be more "compasionate". When failing to do so will be used to limit the press' access to future governmental foibles, this treads a mighty fine line between faux sensitivity and prior restraint.

The administration has every reason to be ashamed of their failures. If only they felt the same shame regarding a free press, we'd probably be in better shape.

The current administration understands that point all too well. The Vietnam experience was probably the early impetus for the neocon "coopt or smear" war against the independent press. A free press is an incalculable danger to people knowingly engaged in official hippocracy... or inept bungling.

Before showing pictures of the dead you have to have a good reason. I have no desire to see a dead body for its own sake, but there are times when it makes an important point. What would I consider a legitimate use? When you need to make people understand what is really being done by a government and to make sure it doesn't happen again, especially when cruelty is involved. To that end, the pictures of the dead during the vietnam war or images from liberated concentration camps after WWII, although sickening, make an important point. Showing victims of disasters or accidents is generally not a good use ( I could think of exceptions, but they're rather contrived). On the other hand showing body bags or caskets could serve a legitimate (albeit political, which is their privilege) purpose.

Bleh, there's a subtlety i'm tryign to get across, but after reading this, I don't think I've done a good job...

Anyway, I don't want to see it, kthxbye.

Those of you who view journalists as heartless ghouls will no doubt be relieved to hear that many reporters and photographers are being roughed up and having their equipment taken from them... not by lawless mobs, but by soldiers and police who apparently don't want to have their activities revealed.

Yet two posts previously...

Sorry Garoad, couldn't resist!