I was ready to let it go, when this just occurred me, where are The Iqari and The USAn Soldiers' relatives, when Dictator Bush (and his dictator administration) campaigns infront of retired or on very short leaves current soldiers? Think about this Dictator Bush (and his dictator administration) was never elected yet took their relatives to death for a war that was sold through proven (sp?) lies and extended thier stays way pass the promised/usual times. This Dictator Bush (and his dictator administration) allows merchanaries (sp?) to be hired (at a higher salary) through USAn tax money to kill for no acceptable/legal reasons. Such allowances only get more of their loved ones killed or if they are extermely lucky maned. Do not get me wrong, again I understand to a length of greiving (sp?) their right to privacy; however, where is the outrage the other direction? Where is the call for impeachments? Funny considering there should be another term used instead of Impeachment because he was placed in office, instead of elected.
I would also like to point out that this story is covered in Public Radio, I have heard it no where else yet. That is good for us that Public Radio got it; however, it is also bad that I am sure Mr. DePalma felt like this was the only place he could get it out with out it being spun or deluted through non-related issues. Next time, he should have contacted 'Air America' first (maybe he did), because unlike our Public Radio they do not lean to the right. If he has not contacted 'Air America' or vise versa, please make it happen, so I can get the whole story. Plus, I wish he did not get so emotional in the interview (my only complaint with Mr. DePalma), one gets emotional and weakness his or her thinking towards the interview.
I would love to see the same financiers or Director Brian De Palma's bosses speak up for The USAn Soldiers' other rights (Health Care, freedom of expression and etc) and Iraqi's citizens' other rights (basic needs). When it is financially benefical to the financiers or Director Brian De Palma's bosses they jump to it; however, when it is just right to do, I have heard nothing at all! Basically, Mark Cuban (one of the financiers cares more about his basketball players well being then the soldiers.
I understand the dead Iraqi's and dead USAn Soldiers' relatives' want to have right to privacy, especially for the Iraqi's relatives who might be put in danager, if the other side saw thought their dead relative was working with The USAn soldiers. How long does it take for The relatives to heal from their deaths. If the photographs are only a couple months old, then I would hope Mr. De Palma would not include the faces, however, he should be allowed to show everything else, no matter how old. I have never seen the film and do not know the dead soldiers or Iraqis that were in the movie; however, if they had committed an illegal act (Iraqi terriorists or like contractors killing innocent Iraqis) then they lose those privacy rights. If the letters come from the USAn Soldiers' relatives and Interviews (if possible) of Iraqian relatives point to not using the faces (including the above requirements), then okay. However, if it is simply the financiers or Director Brian De Palma's bosses then no way!
It seems that DePalma is trying to bring home the point that war is hell (no kidding) and that American soldiers are pigs (DePalma’s opinion in this free country, not mine).
I should like to point out the brutal actions and gross disrespect towards women is not something these young Americans learn in basic training – rather it is a product of our culture as portrayed in films like DePalma’s Dressed to Kill.
In this segment, Brooke Gladstone and Brian DePalma decried how major media outlets "censor out" horrific images of pain and suffering which might turn Americans against the Iraq War.
A truly objective selection of images might equally have a very different effect. Imagine the reaction if the viewing public had been subjected to images of Iraqi children suffering from US actions, but also to images of Nick Berg being decapitated, of the bodies of US contractors mutilated by an Iraqi mob, the dismembered remains of US military and civilian personnel captured by the insurgent, of the immediate results, with clear attribution, of horrific suicide attacks launched by insurgents against Iraqi civilian.
Surely a balanced depiction of war's images would not solely induce just feelings of shame and revulsion, but could also stoke the fires of rage and vengeance. If the media's objective is objectivity, then it must surely show the whole story. Such heightened emotions on both sides of the issue do little to help the American people arrive at a policy.
As much as we would all like the killing simply to stop, we still have to decide who, if anyone, we want to save; who we are willing to see die, and how much US blood and treasure we are willing to spend to attain these ends. Raw pictorial appeals to elemental emotions offer no helpful answers to these questions.
Brian DePalma said distorting reality in his film was for "a greater truth" and that there is no difference between using real photographs of dead persons to make a movie and using real photographs for reporting news. "It is all entertainment" claimed DePalma. ( I bet he would slug a photographer who constantly photographs and publishes his every move) .
Afterward, James Boyle said "litigimate public interest " trumps privacy rights if photographs educate the public .
Some lawyer on the John Walsh Show (years back) defend a pervert's right to secretly photograph under women's skirts because otherwise there will be censorship of news photographs such as the famous photo of the injured, Vietnamese girl escaping a bomb, (a major example regarding freedom of the press) .
But when "Holla Back" was formed ( a anti sexual- harrassment organization) people who would not defend " privacy" regarding "upskirting, " were now shouting that posting a harasser's photo on the internet , is big-brotherish and intrusive.
Yes, how can privacy laws be considered ''less important'' because photographs of unconsenting individuals, are for "public knowledge" when no "public education" involved (upskirting); and the same does not apply when there actually is "the greater good" (exposing sexual predators )?
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
On The Media is funded, in part, by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
the Overbrook Foundation and the Jane Marcher Foundation.