(no subject)

[somedaybitch]

i officially loathe the NY Times, and hope whomever was involved in publishing this burns in hell.

it's video of a soldier dying.

before his family was notified.

i lack the words to accurately convey my disgust.

kudos to the Houston Chronicle for breaking the story.

Comments

[itsazoo.livejournal.com]

I hate embedded reporters and cameramen. Why would they do this?!

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i don't have a problem with the embed concept, as a concept, because i think they *should* have access. it's part of that transparency and i think that's crucial. but this was so.far.out.of.line, not to mention of violation of the very agreements they SIGNED in order to embed in the first place. they did it for the sensationalism, and to back up their "THEWARISEVOLZOMG" perspective. i don't have a problem with them personally believing whatever they personally believe, but i most certainly DO have a problem with them using their positions to feed their agenda. that is NOT what the media is for.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

According to CJR Daily (http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind_the_news/bloggers_enraged_by_times_imag.php) the Times tried to contact the family for consent -- a strategy highly unlikely to actually work till after official notification. So, line 3 of your summation is wrong. (They didn't get the family's consent, but went with it anyway.)

The Houston Chronicle covers the issue here (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4516479.html), and I think it would mention if the Times had blurted "Hey dude! We watched your cousin Die! Wanna see?" It's short-sighted to just assume that this was so, because it's trendy to hate the New York Times.

Debate the ethics of publishing gruseome photos and video -- I'm not sure I'm a fan, but, I can't think that's a reason for anybody to burn in any hells -- but, do so with all the facts.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

i disagree. and it was done specifically in violation of the embed agreement. THEY are not to publish until after the DOD has notified the family. not the press, the DOD.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

If you'll reread the CJR Daily link above, you'll see that the agreement "prohibits the media from showing photos or videos of wounded soldiers without official [DoD] consent."

That's a much broader agreement than "we won't show photos till after you've notified the family." The existing agreement was violated, sure thing, and the reporters got spanked for it -- but nowhere in all of this coverage does anybody seem to be making the claim that the Times published before the family was notified.

You seem bound and determined to focus laser eyes of doom on the Times. That's fine; I don't think I could persuade you otherwise even if it were worth the effort. But, like, blame them for stuff they actually did, you know? It makes your condemnation much more persuasive and effective.

[wishkey.livejournal.com]

Oh, fuck them. Their lack of simple decency is...horrific.

Do you have a link to the Houstan Chronicle article? I can look around for it.

[somedaybitch.livejournal.com]

where i link to has the original link.