Freedom versus Privacy
Feb. 26th, 2009 02:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sevendeadlyfunI don't make many political posts. I had a political blog for awhile, did several editorial spots both in print and on the radio, and I believe I changed exactly three peoples' minds about some firmly held political belief or other. One of the reasons I enjoy fanfiction is that while my audience may not enjoy my writing, it is unlikely that dislike will be based on their fervent opinions of public policy.
Recently, the Pentagon, in accordance with the orders of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and at the urging of President Barack Obama, lifted its ban on media coverage at Dover Air Force Base. Secretary Gates has said that media cover of the return of military remains will be judged on a case by case basis, the basis being the wishes of the family. The impetus for this policy change comes in the form of a lawsuit by a professor of journalism at the University of Delaware.
I'm sure that professors of journalism don't read Livejournal and if they did, they certainly wouldn't be watching fanfiction journals, which is what this (mainly) is, so I doubt Professor Ralph Begleiter will see this piece. But if he does, or if you are someone who agrees with his statement that the coffins of military personnel are "biggest single aspect of the cost of war. For that aspect to be invisible, undebated, undiscussed by American people is just wrong", I have a question for you.
By what right is my private pain your public business? Certainly, as Americans, we enjoy a free press and the right of free speech. However, we also share a common belief that the death of a private person is protected from public curiosity. We know that death brings out the ghoul in all people, that the tear tracks of grief and the mourner's keen draw our gaze, ineluctably, towards the spectacle. So much of modern television news is based around just this kind of disaster porn. But while my husband may engage in a public service occupation, his death should not be politicized.
I do not want my husband lauded as a hero, lampooned as a statistic or in any other way thrown as a bone to the hungry crowds of sensation. His death, if it occurs in the line of his duty, will be recorded and announced to the public. He will be part of some headline somewhere, "X number of soldiers killed" and I believe that is where the publics interest should end. I do not want the President to call, I do not want the prayers of a grateful nation.
My husband will be dead.
Very few, though certainly not all, military families have lobbied against this change in media access. If you have grieved the loss of a loved one, you will understand why. Can you imagine doing your grieving in the presence of cameras, grinding away and recording your every tear, your every expression? I understand that some families will feel different and certainly they have the right to speak to the media, on their terms and in their own time. But their decision is not my decision and I resent the idea that my husband is public property, in death as well as life.
The ban on media access at Dover does not prohibit the media from talking to military families. It does not stop them from reporting on the war, on its success or failure, on the number of casualties from each branch of service and precisely how those brave men and women died. All it does it prevent them from cheapening those deaths. It prevents them from using the flag draped coffins of military personnel in their nightly ratings wars or as props for their arguments in the blogosphere. It keeps sacred the last few moments of a military career cut short by death, keeps private the faces of their families as they are reunited with their loved ones.
Professor Begleiter, I agree with you that the American people should know the number of casualties suffered in this, or any other, war. They should see the faces of the dead, hear their stories, know something about the men and women who have died on the altar of their country. They should not have to see their bodies nor do I believe it to be their right. The remains of military personnel are just that: all that remains. Grant that their families have sacrificed enough and leave them the privacy that is rightfully theirs to mourn their dead. Do not make a public spectacle of their private pain.
All quotes derived from this article on msnbc.com, as reported by the Associated Press. The article was retrieved February 26, 2009.
Recently, the Pentagon, in accordance with the orders of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and at the urging of President Barack Obama, lifted its ban on media coverage at Dover Air Force Base. Secretary Gates has said that media cover of the return of military remains will be judged on a case by case basis, the basis being the wishes of the family. The impetus for this policy change comes in the form of a lawsuit by a professor of journalism at the University of Delaware.
I'm sure that professors of journalism don't read Livejournal and if they did, they certainly wouldn't be watching fanfiction journals, which is what this (mainly) is, so I doubt Professor Ralph Begleiter will see this piece. But if he does, or if you are someone who agrees with his statement that the coffins of military personnel are "biggest single aspect of the cost of war. For that aspect to be invisible, undebated, undiscussed by American people is just wrong", I have a question for you.
By what right is my private pain your public business? Certainly, as Americans, we enjoy a free press and the right of free speech. However, we also share a common belief that the death of a private person is protected from public curiosity. We know that death brings out the ghoul in all people, that the tear tracks of grief and the mourner's keen draw our gaze, ineluctably, towards the spectacle. So much of modern television news is based around just this kind of disaster porn. But while my husband may engage in a public service occupation, his death should not be politicized.
I do not want my husband lauded as a hero, lampooned as a statistic or in any other way thrown as a bone to the hungry crowds of sensation. His death, if it occurs in the line of his duty, will be recorded and announced to the public. He will be part of some headline somewhere, "X number of soldiers killed" and I believe that is where the publics interest should end. I do not want the President to call, I do not want the prayers of a grateful nation.
My husband will be dead.
Very few, though certainly not all, military families have lobbied against this change in media access. If you have grieved the loss of a loved one, you will understand why. Can you imagine doing your grieving in the presence of cameras, grinding away and recording your every tear, your every expression? I understand that some families will feel different and certainly they have the right to speak to the media, on their terms and in their own time. But their decision is not my decision and I resent the idea that my husband is public property, in death as well as life.
The ban on media access at Dover does not prohibit the media from talking to military families. It does not stop them from reporting on the war, on its success or failure, on the number of casualties from each branch of service and precisely how those brave men and women died. All it does it prevent them from cheapening those deaths. It prevents them from using the flag draped coffins of military personnel in their nightly ratings wars or as props for their arguments in the blogosphere. It keeps sacred the last few moments of a military career cut short by death, keeps private the faces of their families as they are reunited with their loved ones.
Professor Begleiter, I agree with you that the American people should know the number of casualties suffered in this, or any other, war. They should see the faces of the dead, hear their stories, know something about the men and women who have died on the altar of their country. They should not have to see their bodies nor do I believe it to be their right. The remains of military personnel are just that: all that remains. Grant that their families have sacrificed enough and leave them the privacy that is rightfully theirs to mourn their dead. Do not make a public spectacle of their private pain.
All quotes derived from this article on msnbc.com, as reported by the Associated Press. The article was retrieved February 26, 2009.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2009-02-27 12:52 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-02-27 01:11 am (UTC)Sheryl
no subject
on 2009-02-27 01:45 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-02-27 03:25 am (UTC)My best wishes and heartfelt appreciation to your nephew. Tell him to stay as safe as he can! Much love to all your extended family as well. :)
no subject
on 2009-02-27 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
on 2009-02-27 03:31 am (UTC)I agree that the families wishes should be paramount. My fear is that the media will not act respectfully, or will use inappropriate pressure at a time when people are most vulnerable. We can only hope this doesn't happen.
no subject
on 2009-03-22 03:52 pm (UTC)Not showing coffins has been portrayed as an attempt, by the Bush adminstration, to hide war deaths. I'm sure you know that since this topic is important to you.
I hadn't thought about it any deeper than that. It hadn't occurred to me to wonder how the families would feel if the media showed up at a loved one's funeral. You're right. My own mother passed away less than two years ago and it was terrible, in and of itself. I got to be the responsible one, the person who handled everything and I totally fell apart.
I'm losing my ability to express what I want to say. So. Simply. I had not seen it this way before but you have convinced me.
no subject
on 2009-03-24 09:49 am (UTC)If they really wanted to portray the cost of war, shouldn't they be concentrating on the person who was taken from us - who they were, what they did, who they left behind - instead of a funeral/wake/casket that barely manages to even portray the family's grief, let alone the high cost that's been paid?
That question asked, may I now rant...
How *dare* they use our grief to manipulate the public?! Because that's what it comes down to. Printing numbers and stories aren't getting the reaction they wanted so now they want to publish more. You don't see these vultures hanging around BAMC, wanting interviews with all the wounded to show people the cost of war. Guess being alive but blinded isn't enough of a tragedy for them. But then, having been around those guys for almost a year and how... bloody optimistic they can be. How *happy* they are to simply be alive and home with family, even if they did come home missing a limb... the media's never been interested in showing just how strong our boys - our heroes - are. All they want is a damn story.
Well, bugger them with a barbed spear.