Freedom of the Press?
The pictures of tortured Iraqi prisoners that emerged last week were nothing more than the latest development in a series of setbacks that seem to be steering the course of events to a terrible end. What I found most repulsive and, at the same time, most fascinating about the pictures was their placement within the long line of events, atrocities in this case, that have been captured on film for the world to digest and grow disgusted at all at once. An article in the Asia Times entitled Who Let the Dogs Out? seeks to make the point that we, meaning society in general and Americans in particular, ignore the fact that these types of incidents are occurring any time there in conflict, but they are left out of the collective memory due to a surprising lack of "physical" evidence, in this case televised pictures of the incidents, or, as the writer refers to it as the "stupid box." This may or may not be the case, but it leads me to ask a question that has been bothering me as of late regarding the outlets for these particularly troubling pictures, videos, and speeches meant to incite violence. How, if possible, can society still retain a free press without providing an enticing platform for groups of individuals who exploit this freedom for means that are less than noble in cause?

I'm contending that the reason why there seems to be a much broader usage of the media by terrorist organizations is because these media outlets provide them the forums they seek. Al Jezeera and other media outlets in the Middle East seem to specialize in providing terrorists a forum for their hatred and violence as much as television stations in California provide live coverage for any idiot who decides to lead the police on a high-speed chase through the streets of L.A. The acts themselves and the forum from which they are broadcast go hand in hand. The cause and effect is clear: If you have something to say or do, we'll air it.

This isn't to say that terrorists, or military personnel, would stop committing atrocities if there suddenly wasn't a place from which to broadcast their deeds. This is also not to say that those acting in Iraq on their own or by the orders of higher-ups meant to have their heinous actions broadcast around the world. It does make one wonder what they hoped to do with these pictures if they did manage to leave Iraq with them. In fact, one can argue things might get worse if there wasn't an arena with which to show executions like Daniel Pearl's or the mutilation of civilian contractors in Falluja. Without a camera there to document the action, the effect these incidents have on the world would certainly be lessened dramatically. However, it stands to reason that if outlets decided to take a much more rigorous stand on the types of broadcasts they will air and from whom, it might have dramatic effect on the world and troubled regions from which they originate, which could be either good or bad.