Homocon

In an e-mail explaining the request that photographers not indulge their more macabre tendencies, a FEMA spokeswoman wrote: "The recovery of victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect, and we have requested that no photographs of the deceased by made by the media."

Sounds right by me. I can't imagine any purpose beyond mere sensationalism that a bunch of photos of dead bodies might serve. I have no doubt that "Now how am I going to get my Pulitzer?!" is screaming through the heads of news photographers, but have these same photographers become so completely voyeuristic about the pain and suffering captured in their lenses that any notion of respect or dignity for the dead, and the families of the dead, is beyond their ability to comprehend?

Perhaps.

Take this, for example: "media monitors" are correlating this request by FEMA with the request by the Bush Administration that news media outlets not publish photos of flag draped coffins of the military dead being brought home from the war in Iraq. A stink, a hue, a cry and a major hissy fit were raised by the media when the Bush Administration made that request back in 2004, and the media photographers are now resurrecting the issue in a bizarre attempt to make both of these common sense requests for behavioral decency and situational solemnity examples of their own cruel victimization by a big, bad government.

As if.

It's strange to me that media photographers, and leftist propagandists in general, see a "no pictures policy" as an attempt by governmental organizations to shield themselves from criticism rather than the standard of public decency it actually is. Mona Charon, writing for Townhall back in 2004, had this to say about the Flag Draped Coffins issue: "Some members of the press cover every death in combat as if it represents a defeat for the nation. They suggest that if men are dying, there must be a problem with the policy. And they summon pity instead of respect in their reporting. That is probably what the Pentagon and the families of the dead are most eager to avoid. It is a deeply moving and grieving sight to see coffins lined up and to know that young men have been cut down for our sake. But the proper emotional response is sadness, honor and gratitude -- not pity or despair."

Ditto for FEMA. Reporters are eager to show the destruction, death and devastation in New Orleans in order to bring despair and encourage pity in the population at large, a despair that will, they hope (oh god, they hope), translate into defeat for Conservative candidates come the next election cycle -- "See? We told you that Republicans would bring you nothing but trouble!" But the members of FEMA are not interested in gloom-peddlers, as they have rescue work to do and recovery missions to accomplish that take precedence over wallowing in swamps of self-induced pity.

We have one of the freest media's on the planet, and even the photographers who have been denied access to FEMA recovery missions are saying that they'll just simply grab their own boats and take pictures anyway, thank you very much, which can hardly be considered censorship. Censorship is when your cameras are confiscated, your film destroyed and your physical well-being threatened should you continue down the path of taking pictures that an oppressive government has not condoned (see: China). So to turn a polite request from FEMA, and their unwillingness to allow recovery missions to become photographic opportunities for a vulturistic media, into the latest, "Help! I'm being oppressed!" routine is simply juvenile to the point of being absurd in its irrational perspective of the world.

Rebecca Daugherty, of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), had this to say: "The notion that, when there's very little information from FEMA, that they would even spend the time to be concerned about whether the reporting effort is up to its standards of taste is simply mind-boggling . . . You cannot report on the disaster and give the public a realistic idea of how horrible it is if you don't see that there are bodies as well."

Thanks, but no thanks, Rebecca. There are a lot of horrible things in the world that I can easily comprehend without having my nose rubbed in your salacious obsession with dead bodies, and I'm sure that the families of these very dead can do without your Pulitzer-grubbing at their expense.

UPDATE:
Powerline has a quote from Glenn Reynolds that addresses this very issue: "The Press wants to show bodies from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public. I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?"

In a rather shocking twist of events, it appears that CNN has sued the government for access to dead bodies so it can film them. Scott Ott of Scrappleface published a sharp parody of the media: ""While we were petitioning the court to cover the recovery of corpses, some victims were hastily buried," said an unnamed CNN spokesman. "Our viewers have a right to see the decaying flesh of each and every citizen who perished from lack of federal government assistance. That's why the First Amendment exists."

ADDENDUM:
Sympathy from our allies in Germany. With friends like these . . .

ADDENDUM 2:
Congressman Tom Tancredo writes a blistering letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, urging him to bypass Louisiana officials entirely with the federal aid slated to rebuild New Orleans and the surrounding Louisiana area, citing the incompetence and the history of corruption in Louisiana state and local New Orleans representatives and officials.