Obama reviewing ban on photos of coffins

Personally, I don't like the idea of stock footage.
I think that if you use stock photos/video, it isn't honoring the person that JUST gave their life. I guess what I'm trying to say is hard to explain. I'll put it in better terms if I can think of how to do that.

I can see where you are coming from though.
 
unitedstatesAFA2013 said:
LITS, you can't say that because a few people think that death camps were a conspiracy and that 6 mil Jews never died doesn't mean that 90% of the rest of the world doesn't know better than that. There are also people who are "undecided voters" up till now and don't know who they could have chosen for last year's election. I have intense feelings for both groups.:
Click to expand...



Concur. I hope we use that train of thought when assuming that the only way the American public would know that service men and women had been killed was by filming their caskets.
 
Packer; I know exactly what you're trying to say. And you are correct that stock photos cheapen the concept of HONORING a fallen military member when the photo isn't portraying the actual person. However; realize that my position is from a certain angle.

1) One of the ARGUMENTS of the Pro-Media side of this discussion is that there WOULD BE anonymity because no one would know WHO EXACTLY was in the coffin; and therefor taking pictures of the coffins WOULDN'T BE EXPLOITING THEM. (This is right from the arguments in this thread)

Therefor; if the caskets are anonymous, and we DON'T KNOW who is in the caskets, then aren't we just honoring ALL MILITARY MEMBERS IN GENERAL who gave their life for us. Therefor, would a stock photo not be just as effective? (Again, based on the Pro rational)

2) I also DON'T CONSIDER the photos or filming of coffins coming off a plane or lined up in a hanger a MEANS of HONORING our military men and women who gave for their country. That is a time for the families to BRING HOME their father/son/mother/daughter/sister/brother/husband/wife. It's also a time for the family to come to terms and reality if they haven't done so or they choose to. No matter what; it's a time for the family.

The funeral service; the memorial service; the procession to the cemetery; etc... these are times to HONOR the fallen. There's a time for EVERYTHING in life. The time to Honor is not coming off the plane or in the hanger. That's a time for part of the mourning process. And NO; no one can convince me that the PUBLIC is mourning the fallen coming off the plane or in the hanger. They can honor; they can sympathize with the family; they can be thankful; they can feel sorry; they can feel anger; etc... They can feel a lot of things. But unless you KNOW the person, you aren't mourning them. People will try and play semantics with the words, but the truth is, mourning is something you do for someone that has a PERSONAL connection to you. That obviously can extend to the loss of a president, politician, well knowm celebrity, actor, musician, pope, etc... All of these people could have had direct personal impacts on your life. A military member that you don't know personally; or don't know the family of; or similar, is not someone you mourn in the traditional sense. That is why I believe the tarmac, hanger, first arrival of the casket/coffins, etc.... is a time for the family to mourn and receive home their departed loved one. There will be a time to HONOR following that. Funeral, ceremony, procession, etc....
 
This whole discussion would have meaning ~if, the media weren't biased and without an agenda.

I'm just saying...
 
LineInTheSand said:
Concur. I hope we use that train of thought when assuming that the only way the American public would know that service men and women had been killed was by filming their caskets.
Click to expand...

Not about convincing those few who don't believe, but about informing us who do about what is happening. Just saying, we shouldn't base our opinions on certain groups of people.
 
And you believe photos of caskets will "inform" the "knowing" that people die in war? :confused:
 
Maximus said:
This whole discussion would have meaning ~if, the media weren't biased and without an agenda.

I'm just saying...
Click to expand...



Haha, agreed. If that were the case, I'm not sure if this conversation would have gone on this long.
 
This conversation wouldn't have even existed. If the media was responsible, they never would have been banned from taking photos during certain times/events. They would have been considerate of the families. They would have asked permission prior to invading other's rights and private lives. Just like "Most" of us are considerate of others when we do things, if the media did the same, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But instead, the many in the media believe that their constitutional right to freedom of speech somehow trumps everyone else rights and privacy. And we wonder why certain celebrities go weird on the world with all the paparazzi all over them. The only difference between the traditional media and the paparazzi is that we don't mind the paparazzi because they follow celebrities and we think that because they make a lot of money, that they should have to live with it.
 
Personally, the most applicable part of the above story:

Some families of fallen troops also support allowing the news media to photograph and videotape the ceremony, or at least letting the families decide whether to permit it rather than continuing the government ban.

"I would have loved to see them fly my son back in and give him a full salute," said Janice Chance of Owings Mills, Md., whose son, Marine Capt. Jesse Melton III, was killed Sept. 9 in Afghanistan's Parwan province. She said she is in favor of media coverage of the return ceremony.

"As long as it is done in good taste, and they are showing that the people here in the United States are welcoming them back and saying job well done, that is what I would like to see," she said.
Click to expand...

Let the families decide, sounds fair to me.
 
Sounds like the general sentiment of many of the posters here. The general concern was also echoed.

The government CANNOT tell the media, "only cover the pretty parts and ignore everything else."
 
JAM,

I saw that article from Newsweek myself today on the Early Bird. Glad you posted it -- very thought provoking.

A Gordian knot of a probelm, with lots of emotions from both sides (obviously).

I do like the articles description of how Canada shows thier respect for their war dead. Very touching, and IMO very proper.

And that reminds me; if you have HBO, don't forget "Taking Chance" airs this Saturday night. If it is just half as good as the article it is based on, it will be something you don't want to miss!
 
Bullet - your welcome. I liked it to. and the part about Canada.
I can definitely see both sides of the issue and both are full of emotion. I definitely don't like the idea of media intruding on grieving loved ones. The other side is never showing the loss, the reality of the death nor the loved ones left behind. It all becomes nicely "sanitized" in a formal photo. As we move toward more and more American's never having any familial exposure to the military and the personal and sometimes ultimate sacrifice that those serving make - it becomes less "real" to folks. They just see the numbers on the page - not the reality of the loss.

The other side of all of that of course is the First Amendment. It's not just the question of "do the media have the right to report this" but openness and trust (or lack of) of the government. This case has never reached the Supreme court - but a journalist did lose in a Federal Circuit Court. It would be very interesting to see if it ever gets to the Supreme Court and what the ruling would be.
 
This message is from Debbie Argel-Bastian, Proud mom of Capt. Derek Argel, USAFA grad killed in the beginning of Iraq War.
----- Original Message ----- From: debra argel
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 6:38 PM
Subject: FW: Majority of Military Families Do Not Want Dover Media Ban Overturned



Hi All,
Would you please take a moment to read the attached message and respond. My personal response was sent. Most of us don't go to Dover and don't have a choice in the matter. The captions I have seen attached to these photos usually read, "The Cost of War." If they must be taken, shouldn't they read, "The Cost of Freedom?" Why not remember who they were in life?
Thanks, Deb

Debbie Argel-Bastian, Proud mom of Capt. Derek Argel

For the children of fallen Special Ops Warriors:
www.firstgiving.com/DebbieArgel


From: info@familiesunitedmission.com
To:
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:49:30 -0600
Subject: Majority of Military Families Do Not Want Dover Media Ban Overturned
Dear Families United Members and Supporters,

On Friday, Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission distributed an e-newsletter asking you to send in your opinion on President Obama’s announcement to review overturning the 18-year ban on publishing photos of flag-draped transfer cases at Dover Air Force base. Hundreds of you wrote in to inform us on your position and we want to thank you for taking the time to share your story.

Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission represents over 60,000 military families, including Blue and Gold Star Families and veterans.

According to the respondents:

• 64% believe that the policy should not be changed;


• 21% feel if the ban is overturned then the families of the fallen should determine if the media is allowed access on a case by case basis;


• 12% indicated a desire to overturn the policy and allow all flag-draped caskets to be photographed.



Families United does not support overturning the current ban, but if the Obama Administration is demanding a change then we strongly believe that the decision to permit media at Dover AFB should be, at the very least, left to the family members of the fallen hero. Over the past few days we have heard from hundreds of Gold and Blue Star families and veterans who have a wide range of feelings on this issue. Some families view the presence of media and photographers as a way to celebrate the life of their hero, while many others question the motives behind media access or understandably want to keep that solemn moment private.
Click to expand...

Their story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpzHwXhCWI




Personally, I agree. If it is changed, leave it up to the family.
 
The UK has a situation a bit like Canada, nearly all fallen servicemen are flown to RAF Lynham and to get to the freeway they have to pass through a town called Wootton Bassett, its this sleepy little town but everytime a herse comes through they close the roads and like half the population come out to the streets to pay their respects to the coffins coming through.

In October last year the military held a big parade through the village and awarded them a certificate of thanks for always coming out to line the streets as the fallen servicemen go by. Its sad but also uplifting. There is no ban on photographing the repatriations and coffin pics are ususally published but from what ive seen and what my bro tells me the press are generally very respectful and not over the top with thier coverage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1076878/Tribute-town-cared-Armed-forces-parade-thank-residents-honouring-fallen-heroes.html
 
LineInTheSand said:
My comment to Oldgrad is meant as a reminder....the Secretary of Defense is not in my chain of command, the Secretary of Homeland Security is, however.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I am a little rusty (and too lazy to look it up). Would not cutters deployed to the Persian Gulf be under the DoD Chain of Command?
 
Bullet said:
Now, as to Pima's "Psuedo military" comment. A good example of this. Not meant in dis-respect on her part, but I IMMEDIATELY told her that it was a VERY POOR choice of words on her part, and could (and should) be taken as insulting.
Click to expand...

I don't think insults are the issue in this case. As has been posted repeatedly, we who have 'been there' certainly understand the nuances of 'service'. However, the primary purpose of this forum should be to educate those, and their parents, who have not been there, and do not understand these realities. It is important for service academy candidates to realize that they are not in a college, they they are, in deed, in the military. That the needs of the service become paramount, that personal freedoms no longer exist, and that many rules and regulations apply simply for the sake of good order and discipline. To post otherwise is not in the best interests of those applying candidates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top