« Wiz-Boo and Insta-Statistic | Main | I'm Ape Over This »
Does Tabloid Blogging Uphold Freedom?
All those site hits on Heart of Canada coming over from Wizbang. How pleasant. Perhaps people coming here will get some perspective on why they shouldn't watch, link to, or upload the snuff video of Nick Berg's murder.
It's interesting that people think watching the video or enabling others to watch it protects their freedom. You know, just because you're free to do something doesn't mean you should do it. You have the freedom to engage in ethical decision making and personal restraint, too, and doing so in no way compromises your freedom. In fact, deciding not to do something can be an act of freedom as much as deciding to do something might be -- the freedom is in the capacity to decide. People who post the snuff video argue that everyone should have the freedom to decide on their own. Let's explore that idea.
One person, in defending "freedom" through watching snuff called me a "canuck." He said:
Tabloids are filled with lies and exaggerations. Wizbang has posted something that is the absolute, unadorned and unedited truth. If you don't want to see it, fine. Feel free even to attempt to convince people they shouldn't see it either. But for the love of Freedom...Get over it you canuck. Oops, I think I pulled my angry mussle...it's been busy lately. Posted by Tom May 14, 2004 11:59 PM at Wizbang.
Saying "you canuck" to me really went a long way towards convincing me that his arguments were reasonable. Uh-huh. Sure it did. I'd point out that watching the video doesn't give anyone the "unadorned and unedited truth" for the simple reason that people don't really know what they're watching. Sure they see the murder, but what they don't see is the propaganda or other intentions behind the video's creation, including the symbolic meanings or gestures that might be contained in the video and how the video fits into a larger plan for terrorizing others. There are many other things that people who see the video might not understand, not the least of which is that they might not appreciate how war propaganda really works.
I wonder if the people who make the "watching snuff films protects your freedom arguments" have thought about how people who make these videos, like the one of Nick Berg or the one of Daniel Pearl, do so for reasons of propaganda. Posting links to the videos de facto becomes a means of furthering the group's propaganda. Here's a short article about that, in particular the use of these kinds of videos for fear-mongering, recruitment, and demonstrations of power (as I said yesterday). I'm wondering if Al Qaeda is happy that the video is being released so broadly. I'm guessing they are because they're the ones that posted it in the first place. If they like the results of what they've done and how people have reacted, they'll probably do it again. You can argue that Americans who watch the video might become "enraged" and support the war more -- or not. Conversely, some might just become utterly overwhelmed by the sick nature of all of it -- the war, the video, everything. In that way, this video is a type of psy-op on anyone who watches it.
I guess Tom didn't like me saying that Wizbang was turning itself into a tabloid blog. He says tabloids are filled with lies and exaggerations. Perhaps, but they are also sensationalistic and exhibitionistic. So, Wizbang, if the shoe fits...well, just call me a canuck, then. It would fit with that other thing one of your readers said -- you know, that people who think what happened recently at Abu Ghraib is abuse are all "women," "girly-boy," "pansy-ass crybabies" who would have "moved to Canada." Remember that? I mean, readers are entitled to say what they want in comments, but I didn't see anyone over at Wizbang trying to correct or temper these views either. By the way, don't interpret what I'm saying as being anti-war. I'm not a pacifist, but I am against murder, snuff, torture, and abuse in all its forms, as well as the sensationalizing of these despicable acts.
Marianne Pearl called the publicizing of Daniel Pearl's murder despicable. USA Today reflected on mainstream media's decision not to show Nick Berg's murder. Not everyone feels that showing snuff films is right. Not everyone feels that limiting the release of the video is a violation of anyone's freedom. With great freedom comes great responsibility. Do you feel, for example, that you have the "right" to invade other people's privacy? Perhaps in watching Nick Berg's death, this is exactly what you are doing -- disrespecting his privacy and his dignity -- do you feel you have the "freedom" to do that? His father suggested that publicizing the details was an invasion of privacy -- he was hoping the details of Nick's death weren't going to be made public (let alone the actual video). The video, after all, isn't just about history; it is about one moment in a person's individual life -- the video doesn't even tell a good story about that person, and people watching it can very easily end up objectifying Nick instead of seeing his humanity and personhood.
Another good reason for limiting the release of the video is that people don't necessarily appreciate how viewing it will affect them. This isn't like watching a horror movie with special effects. Once you see a film like that, it can affect you for the rest of your life. If you surf around the web, you'll read people's accounts of how they became physically ill, tormented, haunted, horrified, traumatized, and more by watching the murder.
For mental health and psychological reasons, then, the right to see and show the video should be tempered with the responsibility for appreciating how watching the video could actually be psychologically harmful to people -- not to mention the fact that unsupervised children and youth might end up seeing it. I know, some of you are going to say, "well their parents should be watching them." However, the sad reality is that not all parents do that. You can also say that my point is true for anything on the web; however, I'd argue that this particular video, being snuff, exceeds the horror of anything else online. Snuff is in a category all by itself. If some other snuff film were circulating on the web, likely ISPs would refuse to show it. So, in showing the video, you (and the ISPs) take on some responsibility for its effect on others, even if that responsibility is moral and ethical rather than legal.
Some media have shown non-violent stills, video excerpts, or audio excerpts of the snuff video without showing the murder or linking to the entire film. I'm neutral about that -- this is what news shows do, and they usually do it in a responsible manner. A very short, non-graphic excerpt or still doesn't do much to advance the film as propoganda or hurt anyone, but showing the entire video does.
MuDandPHuD says that people looking for the video are looking for "honorable reasons." I don't know how he feels he can make that judgment. I also don't know if there are many "honourable" reason for watching this film -- people in the media might need to watch it to decide whether it can be shown or to help them guide discussions or edit articles about the murder. However, to say that all those millions of people who are looking for the video over the net are doing so for honourable reasons seems like a bit of a stretch. Of course, if you read my post yesterday, you'll already know how I feel about that.
People who have come to my blog in the last few days have found it a number of ways, many by these search terms:
actual video of nick berg execution
actual video nick berg
nick berg and murder and commentary
"watch the video" nick berg
berg execution video
head of nick berg pics
nick berg's execution video
i have seen the nick berg video
nick berg video pics
nick berg video
actual nick berg video
nick berg video pics
'actual video' nick berg video
"nick berg video"
nick berg + video
nick berg execution pics
"nick + berg + video"
nick berg is seen here
nick berg video file
nick berg cover-up
actual video of nick berg's death
berg's father insane
live video of nick berg viewing
nick berg scream
I wonder what the honourable reason was for searching out "head of nick berg pics" or "berg's father insane" or "nick berg scream."
By the way, you know all the kerfuffle in the media about the double-standard in not showing the Berg video but continuing to show the Abu Ghraib photos? First of all, they're hardly comparable, since one is snuff and the others are not. I've already expressed my view in an earlier blog post that the faces of humiliated or deceased prisoners of war should never be shown. In any event, however, there probably is a double-standard going on in the media -- the Abu Ghraib pictures probably shouldn't be dwelt on so much, particularly since the military is also doing good things in Iraq. Balanced reporting is always welcome, so some of each should be shown and discussed. One purpose of the press in a democracy is to criticize public institutions, so posting the photos does that, as long as balanced reporting remains the order of the day.
11:57 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83420840853ef00d83420b91a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does Tabloid Blogging Uphold Freedom?:
» Stop Calling It "Snuff". from small dead animals
Theresa at Heart Of Canada; All those site hits on Heart of Canada coming over from Wizbang. How pleasant. Perhaps people coming here will get some perspective on why they shouldn't watch, link to, or upload the snuff video of... [Read More]
Tracked on May 15, 2004 10:20:12 AM
» Tabloid Blogging from Classless Warfare
Thanks to today's warblogger tizzy over a Toronto Star journalist's skewering of them (and I love the response: she's fat! she's Canadian! Rachel Lucas is back so you better watch out!), I discovered an excellent, thoughtful piece and follow-up regardi... [Read More]
Tracked on May 17, 2004 8:09:45 AM
» Snuff Films As War Propaganda from Trish Wilson's Blog
I have not watched the Nick Berg movie, nor have I subjected myself to the chest-thumping patriotism of the warbloggers who are promoting that movie that Jane at Classless Warfare is talking about. I saw the Daniel Pearl movie. That [Read More]
Tracked on May 19, 2004 4:50:15 AM
Comments
Looking at a sadistic video of a fellow countryman is all about freedom? Pleeze! I'm sure Nick Berg would love to know that people are gawking at him while his head is being severed. Talk about a lack of dignity. Personally wanting to watch a death of anyone is sickening.
I'd have to wonder how the viewers would feel if it was their father, brother, uncle or son. Can you in all honesty say it would be okay to pass around for people to watch? In the name of freedom of course!
Posted by: Kim | May 15, 2004 1:57:06 AM
I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: tz | May 15, 2004 9:38:28 AM
I couldn't agree less.
I dont think the hosting of the video has a thing to do with "freedom".
We are currently witnessing a breathtaking double standard in the media. It is not about the images. It is about the perpetrators. If it were not, there would over 30 headlines about Berg in the NYT and WaPo, as there have been about prison abuse. The prison abuse story was broken in January. They reported it then. There has been no new information that can be revealed by photographs, but it hasn't stopped them from exploiting them. They weren't concerned about the allegations of abuse or the clamour would have started 4 months ago when the DoD announced the investigation.
They wanted to "dirty" pictures.
a) It is not a snuff film. Snuff is created for sexual gratification. This is a taped execution, committed for political purposes, by an established group, who have take responsibility for it. Who we are at war with.
b) The argument being put forward by the media over not airing or publishing details is shown to be lie through their endless parade of prison "porn" photographs. That the Boston Globe and aothers have been eager to display genuine porn and misrepresent it as American and British misconduct gives proof to that. Most of what has been released amounts to nothing more than different camera angles. It's a feeding frenzy - not responsible journalism.
c) The argument about "honourable reasons" is irrelevant - or equally applicable to the prison photographs. You cannot have it both ways.
There was no dignity in his death. None was intended. He was a political sacrifice. Hiding that truth, attempting to create dignity where there is only barbarism and subhumanity is dangerous and naive.
If this were a single isolated murder by an outraged lover or sadistic serial killer, the argument not to show the video would be sound.
In this case, it is not. This is the face of our enemy and we need to see it.
Posted by: Kate | May 15, 2004 10:09:27 AM
1. Snuff doesn't necessarily involve sexual acts, and it's never about sexual gratification, just like rape is never about sexual gratification. Snuff can involve sexual or non-sexual torture or other acts leading to death. Many have argued that snuff films are an urban legend and don't really exist. Obviously, they do -- Nick Berg's murder is an example of snuff. The video is also a terrorist's tactic against westerners. I raised the point about "freedom" because I was responding to "Tom," who said that the issue of making the video available was an issue of freedom.
2. We know with whom we are at war. People in Canada disagree with each other about how to deal with that war, but there's very little question about who those people are, what their intentions are, and what they're capable of doing. If a person wasn't convinced by 9/11, then the Berg video probably wouldn't convince that person any more. By the way, do you also feel that media should have shown people impacting the ground as they fell from the towers on 9/11 -- would seeing that somehow have explained more to you about the enemy -- or was just knowing what happened, seeing some of but not all of the events, enough for you?
3. Your having seen the snuff film doesn't mean that you somehow understand the enemy better than someone who hasn't seen the film.
4. Nick Berg didn't die "with dignity," but now that he has died, we can and should treat him with dignity.
5. Honourable reasons are never irrelevant. For example, people who need to see the video as part of their jobs or in order to determine whether it should be shown publicly are viewing the video for honourable reasons. However, many people want to see the video just to "see" it -- but you'll have to read my two blog posts about this to see my full argument; I won't repeat all that here. Showing prison abuse photos is not equivalent to showing snuff; however, as I said before, the photos should be shown as military or institutional criticism but not constantly shown. The photos are important to the American media because they might be evidence of American military misconduct, so of course the news will focus on them -- misconduct is a very serious matter for a country that says it upholds human rights. However, news should be balanced. Yes, the media is over-focusing on the photos. That doesn't mean they should show the Berg video too. Perhaps media didn't discuss the Berg incident enough -- I don't know -- I read about, listened to, and saw a lot of coverage, but it is true that some people would have liked more. That still doesn't mean media should show the video.
6. The prison photos do involve nude people, although not everyone would agree that the photos shown so far are "pornographic" in nature -- that's not to say that pornographic pictures don't exist, but no actual ones (as opposed to bogus ones) have been published yet. The photos shown so far certainly are humiliating and degrading. The media I've seen who show the photos cover the genital/anal areas, but I feel prisoner faces should be covered too.
7. The taped murder is meant to hurt Westerners. The murderers are using Western media against us in a psy-op kind of activity. People who keep showing the video promote that psy-op. Nobody's trying to hide the fact that Nick Berg's murder was political, but watching the video doesn't make that knowledge any more apparent either. We don't "need" to see it. Also, because we don't fully know the motivations behind that video, we should leave it alone and not allow it to be a psy-op on us by whoever put it out. Honour Nick Berg, hope his killers get caught, and don't publicly obsess over the video. Don't give the video makers the public attention they want.
8. I agree that feeding frenzies are never responsible journalism.
Posted by: tz | May 15, 2004 6:42:59 PM
A few questions for everyone who has decided they had to watch the Nick Berg video outside the context of any job or military role which required you to do so:
If a bunch of Al Qaeda knocked on your door and said,
"Hey, we're about to go saw Nick Berg's head off. Wanna come watch?"
what would you say?
Would you say, "Yes. I want to come with you and watch you saw off Nick Berg's head so I can witness history"?
Would you say, "Yes. I want to come with you and watch you saw off Nick Berg's head because it will help me understand you more"?
Would you say, "Yes. I want to come with you and watch you saw off Nick Berg's head because I am free, and this will help show everyone that I value personal freedom"?
Would you say, "Yes. I want to come with you and watch you saw off Nick Berg's head because [insert 'honorable reason' here]"?
Or would you say, "Hell no! That's sick! What kind of human being do you think I am? And what kind of human beings are YOU?"
I am hoping, for the sake of the future of humankind, that your answer would somehow resemble the latter.
Now...having answered those questions, tell me: What's the difference between the above scenario and your decision to watch the video?
I'm waiting to hear your reasons, honorable or otherwise.
Posted by: TheChort | May 15, 2004 7:17:49 PM
"If a bunch of Al Qaeda knocked on your door and said,"
If a "bunch of Al Qaeda" knocked on your door, it's not a video screening they want you for.
The nature of our enemy is being sanitized - by refusal to show them for what they are, by moral relativism (Palestinians blowing up schoolchildren being hunted down by Israeli soldiers is called "tit for tat").. by political correctness.
It's not about the video, even. To the best of my knowledge, only one media outlet - a Texas paper - showed the after photos of Nick Berg's head being held aloft.
The same media decided we should not see the jumpers at the WTC, and have now decided we shouldnt' see the planes crashing into them anymore.
Nick Berg is a symbol. Not for how Al Qaeda is determined to undermine us, but for how our self-loathing left wing, apologist media will not face the fact that they are wrong, and that the US is not the moral equal of Islamic fascism.
Posted by: Kate | May 16, 2004 3:59:42 PM
Kate: Talk about avoiding the question and putting in your own agenda. The media is not the enemy and Nick Berg is a man not a symbol. Why do want everyone to see such gore.
"The same media decided we should not see the jumpers at the WTC, and have now decided we shouldnt' see the planes crashing into them anymore."
So what. Do you need to see those pics over and over? You probably have copies of them anyway so look at them yourself or buy a book about it. Why does your point of view have to win? That's what it is. You have to win don't you. You have to be right for everyone. You won't be happy until your point of view wins. That's called intolerance.
Posted by: anon | May 16, 2004 10:43:06 PM
Well, I watched it because I wanted to look evil in the face. Killing is an integral part of human culture, whether it is done with a knife, a tank, or an economic embargo, and we must face the grisly reality of murder if we ever hope to stop doing it. The best way to honor Mr. Berg is to stop doing to others what was done to him. The video is a bloody, screaming lesson in why we should not kill any person, for any reason, period. People *should* be shattered when they see the video---the video is a witness to evil, the same evil that is behind every act of violence on the planet, whether committed by "us" or "them." To avert our eyes it to abandon the late Mr. Berg and all victims of violence. I wanted to bear witness. "Listen, your brother's blood is crying out to me from the ground!"
Posted by: Sylvia | May 16, 2004 11:26:52 PM
"I wanted to bear witness."
Well, given the number of people still looking for the video on the net, I can't say you're exactly in the minority.
Posted by: tz | May 17, 2004 12:56:10 AM
' "If a bunch of Al Qaeda knocked on your door and said,"
If a "bunch of Al Qaeda" knocked on your door, it's not a video screening they want you for.'
Is avoiding the question the best you could do? But then, I suppose criticizing the media is easier than turning your gaze inward.
Posted by: TheChort | May 17, 2004 1:42:38 PM
"The video is a bloody, screaming lesson in why we should not kill any person, for any reason, period. People *should* be shattered when they see the video"
I totally agree but unlike a lot of you, I was able to feel and was shattered without having to bear witness.
Posted by: Kim | May 17, 2004 2:52:31 PM
"unlike a lot of you, I was able to feel...without having to bear witness"
Beware of feelings of moral superiority---that's what leads to this sort of violence. America's sense of moral superiority supposedly justifies the murder, maiming, and destruction in Afghanistan and Iraq (etc.). The terrorists' sense of moral superiority supposedly justifies bombing and beheading. It's a slippery slope, hence biblical exhortation not to judge.
My experience has been that there is a world of difference between imagining or thinking about what happened to Mr. Berg and seeing it for yourself. What you didn't hear is the sound of the murderers invoking the name of their god, over and over again as they killed the man. As commonplace as human sacrifice to a deity has been in human history, and as much as I have learned about this subject in particular (thanks to the work of Gil Bailie and Rene Girard), it is surprisingly chilling to hear it for myself. I'm not recommending it to others, I'm just saying you can't fully "feel" the impact of it without seeing and hearing it.
Posted by: Sylvia | May 17, 2004 11:28:43 PM
when i saw the video of the senseless murder of berg i was left wondering what pain that had to be. But im sure nick ( the same guy that was a small time comedian and loved to help people) would not want the same pain done to other people that was done to him. the people should view the video to stop killings.
Posted by: Makingapoint | May 18, 2004 5:31:21 PM
there is one reason to watch the video that no one has yet mentioned in this discussion: to determine whether it's authentic. after all, it's a video - videos can be faked, actors can be used, scenarios can be staged... such creations could be of great use as propaganda, by any political party currently involved in this conflict.
Posted by: jam | May 20, 2004 6:06:45 AM
MuD&PHuD here. Since I was mentioned in this post I thought I'd reply.
I'll tell you exactly why I said (here and here by the way) that I thought people were looking for the Nick Berg video for honorable reasons. It's pretty simple...they told me so. I offered a link to the video on a per-request basis (as I did not want to link to that particular site from my own). I got a lot of emails and nearly all of them from people who took the time to express their reasons for wanting to see the video. Hope that helps shed some light on what is otherwise a pretty assumption-filled reference to my comments.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 21, 2004 6:28:28 PM
Well, for the number of people who told you they were looking for honourable reasons (whatever those were), I can probably show you a greater number of site hits looking for "photos of Nick Berg's head." I started keeping track, at one point, but stopped because I was too disgusted. If you don't like this post, then you probably won't like the other one I wrote on the subject either. Now I'd ask you...how many beheading videos do you think should be shown before people don't honourably need to see them anymore. (1) Daniel Pearl (2) Nick Berg (3) Paul Johnson...or would you just keep showing them all? At what point do you become an agent of propaganda?
Posted by: tz | Jun 21, 2004 7:08:22 PM
They should all be shown. Propaganda of this sort only works if the targets (the People of the Free World) are susceptible to it. If we are tough and our resolve is strengthed by the absolute immorality of our enemies, then their videos cease to be 'propaganda' and are simply 'Truth'. As I am not afraid of the Truth I think that all such videos should be shown. Otherwise we risk forgetting.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 22, 2004 6:30:36 AM
As an update, it would appear that the act of showing these videos and images is not have the drastic effect predicted by some.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 24, 2004 11:28:02 AM
I went to the link you gave, which said this: "The NY Post says the fact that terrorists are resorting to beheading one innocent civilian at a time is a sign of their desperation."
I find this statement to be morally bankrupt, and I reject it.
Posted by: tz | Jun 24, 2004 1:41:54 PM
Morally bankrupt? How so? It seems to make a certain amount of sense. Consider two senarios:
1) Terrorists are in full control of their operations and operate freely (i.e., 'winning').
2) Terrorists are being hounded like the dogs they are and can barely stay ahead of the good guys (i.e., losing and becoming desperate).
They are Terrorists in both cases, and therefore will do what they can do terrorize us. So, in which case would they try to strike terror by blowing up large builds in our country and in which would they try to strike terror into our hearts by killing individual citizens in their own country?
I guess I missed the morally bankrupt part. Could you explain that again?
Posted by: Tom | Jun 25, 2004 5:23:34 AM
I'm not against fighting terrorists. I'm against considering the beheading of a civilian in any way a victory for anything.
Posted by: tz | Jun 25, 2004 12:10:49 PM
Would you consider making a choice? We all know that world is not always a nice place. So, given a choice between another Terrorist attack on the order of 9/11/01 and Terrorists killing one person at a time, which would you choose? Which would the Terrorists choose? I think that's evidence that we are, in fact, winning. Believe me, these images make me sick and angry too...but I take the position that we're moving in the right direction, even if the trip is ugly as hell right now.
I think that's the heart of the issue for me. Unless something even more fundamental strikes me, I think I'll leave it at that in this particular forum. Feel free to check out the blog, as I'm sure I'll have more to say on this particular topic.
I appreciate the civility I have been shown here and I am glad for the opportunity to have this discussion. Happy blogging.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 25, 2004 12:19:07 PM
"So, given a choice between another Terrorist attack on the order of 9/11/01 and Terrorists killing one person at a time, which would you choose?"
Thank goodness we don't actually have to make that choice. For me, I would choose neither, which most assuredly would probably make me the target. So, I'd choose me.
Posted by: tz | Jun 25, 2004 6:32:56 PM
The point of offering that question was not to make you choose (from the choices given or not)...but rather to compare your choice to that of the Terrorists, thereby showing that Terrorists are resorting to killing one person at a time out of despiration...and 'proving' that we are in the process of winning.
All you done by answering the way you did is show that you're not interesting in providing answers to my points, but rather twisting the argument into something else entirely.
The fact is that some day we may be able to 'choose' neither. However, we must first hunt these animals down. That takes time, and they don't like it. So, in the process of eliminating Terrorism they are going to fight back. Their effectivness in fighting back should be used as a measure of how successful we have been. So my point stands.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 27, 2004 9:24:18 PM
You should never mistake me for being against elimination of terrorism. I just can't abide description of anyone's beheading as winning anything. We, in fact, don't have any choice in the matter before us except to eradicate the threat.
Posted by: tz | Jun 27, 2004 10:58:36 PM
I hope you don't mistake me as some bloodthirsty nut, but I still see any situation were I judge Terrorists to be desperate and incapable of doing what they'd like to do as a better thing that the alternative (i.e., 9/11-type damage). I do, however, understand what you're saying.
Posted by: Tom | Jun 28, 2004 1:05:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
