Yes, a gob-smackingly vile ghoul.

Many people have disdain for the Bush Administration: 41% approval

They can cover the bodies, they can try to cover their asses, but they will not cover the truth.

I see. Bad poll numbers for the president gives license to photograph and use the dead as props in one giant political power play.

Decency doesn't enter into the equation at all?

Got it.

This administration has never shown decency in the treatment of this nation's growing class of poor.

Uh, huh...

Yup.

Political disagreement with Bush = permission to violate the social taboo of photographing the dead.

Keep it comin'.

What is showing photographs of the dead going to accomplish, anyhow? I mean, even if Bush himself had personally gone through New Orleans chopping up babies himself, showing photographs of the remains would accomplish nothing.

In this case, the only reason people want this is to use them as a political club against Bush. Which is an awful, awful way to honor the memory of the dead.

The social taboo against photographing the dead is something that you just made up, or perhaps it is something peculiar to your small community, but nationwide and worldwide, in general, there is no such taboo.

Aren't you a Christian? You know that that guy hanging on the cross in the front of the church is dead, right? I mean maybe he supposedly came back to life or whatever, but he's dead there on the cross.

You have an entire religion based on the viewing of a dead body. I really don't know why you care about having a few pictures on the evening news.

Really? How many dead bodies do you see splashed on the front page of your daily paper?

Better yet, next time there's a funeral in your town, take a camera to the viewing and note the response.

And Ray, so you are aware, it's mainly Catholics that display "that guy" on the cross. Most Protestant and Evangelical denominations display an empty cross.

Slublog,

As far as seeing pictures of dead people in the newspaper, I saw the body of Rehnquist on the news day before yesterday and the body of Pope John Paul II was pretty prominently displayed when he died a few months ago. As far as I know you can still go to the Vatican and see it any time you want, along with the remains of many of the previous popes, and various and sundry saints and martyrs. Photography may or may not be permitted.

Pro-life groups display photos of aborted fetuses. These seem to make the news fairly often.

I grew up looking at pretty graphic images of World War II. Many of these were originally from Life Magazine, one of the most popular magazines in American in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Maybe you have seen some of these pictures from the battlefield or concentration camp? They made me uncomfortable at the time, but I believe that World War II was an important part of our history and this documentation was important, just as the documentation from New Orleans is important.

On your specific point of taking a camera to a funeral, there are people in my town who do that. They are called photographers. Apparently this is not a custom you practice, but in some cultures it is common to take pictures of the deceased. The picture goes home after the funeral in a frame and dwells in a place of honor in the home surrounded by flowers.

So, overall, your claim of a taboo of photographing the dead may apply to you and your social group, but don't assert that it is a universal phenomenon, certainly not a taboo.

To be concrete, if it were my body, the body of my child, or my parent lying dead in some New Orleans street, I would want it photographed. I would want someone to bear witness to what had happened. I would want the photograph on the nightly news and in every paper in the land. I would want it seared into the brain of every American. Then, perhaps there would be some chance of bringing those responsible to account.

This isn't about the dead bodies. There have been ample opportunities to see the dead in the media. In some cases we have and in some cases we haven't. If you could point to some case where the media has shown an identifiable person's body and some family member has objected, maybe you would have a case.

What is happening is that FEMA is using this as a pretext to keep the media out of New Orleans because they are covering their ass. It's not that they don't want individual photographs of the dead. They don't want the storm of photographs that they are expecting of where and how the dead died.

They were incompetent in the days after the hurricane and now they are concealing the effects of their negligence.

They are seeking darkness for their actions.

Doesn’t that make you in the least suspicious?

Hal,

Thanks, I am aware that Catholics are more likely to include Christ on the cross than Protestants, although Episcopalians do it some and it is very common it see depictions the bloody body of Christ in Orthodox imagery. Most people consider Episcopalians and Evangelicals Protestants and Orthodox Christians as Christians, but not everyone does. Or maybe they are Christians, but not saved or born again or whatever the kids are calling it these days. The Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventists are still out though, right?

In any case, Christianity is still based on a bloody death. "The blood of the lamb," etc. There was a film out last year called "The Passion of the Christ." It was pretty much a celebration of Christian gorenography. It was certainly more vile and more repellant than anything that you are going to get on the evening news or in a daily newspaper from New Orleans. Protestants (including Evangelicals) flocked to it in droves. They took their children.

I'd call this a graphic "prop" and strong evidence that the "social taboo" that Slublog invokes is a figment of his imagination. I look forward to his condemnation of the Christian religion, but I'm not holding my breath.

Well, Ray. Where I come from - you're right - they don't take pictures of dead bodies at funerals. I've been a reporter and I have a friend who is a reporter. He once covered an accident where a boy was hit by a truck whose driver was negligent.

Should he have taken a picture of the boy's mangled body, so we could all see what negligent driving leads to? I once found myself at the scene of a suicide. Should I have allowed the photographers to take pictures of the body so that people could see it wasn't a good idea to jump off buildings?

I think there is a line, that's all.

I'd call this a graphic "prop" and strong evidence that the "social taboo" that Slublog invokes is a figment of his imagination. I look forward to his condemnation of the Christian religion, but I'm not holding my breath.

You're right. I'm not going to condemn my faith. Take that however you want.

By the way, I'm not a big fan of the 'aborted fetus' pictures form of protest. I'm pretty sure I've spoken out against it on this blog, but couldn't find it.

What is happening is that FEMA is using this as a pretext to keep the media out of New Orleans because they are covering their ass. It's not that they don't want individual photographs of the dead. They don't want the storm of photographs that they are expecting of where and how the dead died.

In a storm, you mean? With the wind and the rain and the flooding?

Or are you thinking of those who were told to go with the Superdome by their Mayor and were given no food, no water, no facilities and no security? Trust me, I'm just as infuriated as you that victims were preyed upon by those who took the opportunity of a storm and the social breakdown that resulted.

I also don't think they should announce the "total dead" figure . . . any mention of the number of people who died is very disrespectful to the dead. It is better if we all just closed our eyes and ears and that way, evil would disappear . . .

I also don't think they should announce the "total dead" figure . . . any mention of the number of people who died is very disrespectful to the dead. It is better if we all just closed our eyes and ears and that way, evil would disappear . . .

Yeah, that's exactly what we believe. You've really nailed us.

Sheesh.

Ray, thank you for discussing this, by the way. Sometimes it takes a commenter like Bryce to make one realize how nice it is to have a debate instead of a talking-points exchange.

Sublog,
Is there any situation that has or might happen in which you feel the showing of dead bodies would be acceptable?

I know Ray brought up Concentration Camp footage previously. Do you have any problem with that footage being shown on the history channel? Does the passage of time make it more acceptable?

I know Ray brought up Concentration Camp footage previously. Do you have any problem with that footage being shown on the history channel? Does the passage of time make it more acceptable?

Actually, yes. I think it does. Maybe that's a double standard, but it seems to make sense in my own mind.

I'm not against showing pictures of the dead from Hurricane Katrina (which are likely being taken by MEs) at a hearing to determine what happened in the response. Once we've determined cause of death and such, showing them in that situation makes them evidence.

I think the concentration camp example focuses tightly on why some people are so upset about the bodies being shown. Not to be cynical about it, we showed the dead Jews as propaganda: we were at war, we wanted people to believe that Hitler was evil, and we used the bodies effectively as persuasive evidence. The purpose of the shocking photos was to reinforce the culpability and inhumanity of the Nazis.

When the MSM does the same thing, showing dead bodies, it can be argued that its effect is to set up Bush as the new Hitler. The guilt of the federal government in the Katrina response, however, is much more ambiguous than the Nazi guilt in the Holocaust. The MSM's purpose in showing the bodies, of course, is debatable, but this ambiguity is why so many people feel like the MSM is trying to use the dead bodies to pin the blame on Bush. In other words, many feel that the guilt of Bush is not certain enough yet to invoke pictures of dead bodies.

Sublog - Sorry if you thought I delivered a talking point. It was hard for me to take an argument that we should not show pictures of the dead in possibly the worst disaster in American history seriously, as at first glance it seems an issue of such overriding national interest and not ghoulish curiousity. It sounded like a rationalization to me, but hey, if it is a seriously held position that pictures of the remains of people killed in disasters should not be allowed, then I applaud you for it. I would also expect you to condemn the use of images showing the removal of human remains at the WTC site in campaign commercials, as well as the publication of photographs of the remains of Saddam's sons. If that is your position, God Bless, and sorry for appearing to trivalize your position!

I apologize for my earlier snippishness.

While I think it was okay of Bush to use 9/11 imagery in his campaign, the particular image he chose was, I believe, inappropriate.

Saddam's sons?

The UNFORTUNATE thing is not that there will be pictures of the dead, but that you and your selfish ilk and the policies you promote are largely responsible for the loss of these HUMAN lives. Blame ME for the photgraphs if you want. I blame YOU for the actuality of the dead.

Hm. Not much to say to that, is there?

Somehow, I get the feeling no matter what I say, it's not going to change your mind.

as a british network war cameraman of many years, i can tell you finding yourself knee deep in rotting bodies as as god awful as it gets.
any decent shooter tries his damndest to respect the dead in how he frames the shot. the art form...sorry, but there's no other way to say it...is in the suggestion of violent death and horror, so the viewer feels something of the truth of the situation.
damn right we want people to take the blame.
you see enough men, women and children blown to bits or chopped to pieces, you get mad.
we respect the dead in how we do the job. a close up face shot of a swollen rotting corpse is going to make viewers turn away...shooting a body from a distance is respectful. and it's how we grab viewers by the neck and drag them into the terrible worlds lying politicians create.
this is the same shit bush has been doing in iraq. no shots of coffins allowed...now it's bodies. but please, take as many pictures of george with his arms around crying black children as you please because hey, the most important thing is to let the world know, above all else, that lonesome george cares for black people.
wake up america. there is nothing new here. your politicians and your tv networks have been censoring you for years.
if it's any comfort, you're not alone.

what a blatantly unfair and intentionally dishonest misrepresentation of sullivan's argument. the point isn't that he gets off on seeing dead bodies and is mad that someone is denying him the pleasure. the point is that the administration should not be allowed to shield us from the true horror of what has happened. i think you could fairly frame an argument that that is still wrong (i would disagree, however), but don't call sullivan a shameless and overwrought ghoul and think that that has any validity at all.

Sorry. A few months ago, I would have been far more kind to Sullivan. I'm no longer in the mood to treat his erratic arguments with any respect. The man is simply too overwhelmed by his grievances against the president to show rationality when dealing with this administration. And, honestly, I don't think his arguments in this case are particularly compelling.

If you believe the admin want(ed) to censor the pics out of respect for the dead, and not to minimize perceived damage to Bush, you are naive. You so easily talk of others being partisan.....Slu...you're a smart decent guy. Take a long look in the mirror.

I hope you are that naive - it could be considered a compliment. If not, you're just another Bush jingo tool.....IMHO, just naive.

Ya, and no pics of US troop coffins were out of respect for the ....coffins? 9/11 victims in campaign commercials ok though? Don't jive Slu.

Bill

Bill, read my earlier comments.

While I think it was okay of Bush to use 9/11 imagery in his campaign, the particular image he chose was, I believe, inappropriate.

I feel the same way about pictures of 9/11 jumpers - I don't like seeing them.

hey i feel bad 4 them ppl

I personally believe that the key point of this issue is not politics. If you like or hate bush doesnt play into any of this. Some people like having there image displayed. Others dont. Some people would like to have their corpse photographed. Others would not. Most would like their body to be displayed well in most cases. A few would like to appear grotesque. The real issue is that these bodies are people. Even if you blur out their face, it is still a person that you are seeing, and this person has not given his permission to be displayed in this manner. I know that if I were a corpse floating in a pool of water I would hope, at least for my family's sake, that I would not be plastered on the news or in a paper (face blurred or not).

I think Bush is the worst presidnet that we have ever had. We need a new president let's impeach this jerk and give back to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

I hate george bush he gets on my nerves. I think it is stupid that we have to have someone like him running our country. I honestly think my dog could do a better job, but that is just my opinion.

this is so boring u guys need to ut more detail and all that good stuff..theres no pictures so it makes the article look gay gay gay gay .. i think u guys need to leave the country and go hide somwhere else cause this really sucks oh man i need some shit like sex story or porno pix or websites where i can get all this