Deateline: Home Study

Two articles in today’s Washington Post really makes me question the ability of the news media to think critically. Is it the purpose of news organizations to merely present facts, or should they attempt to interpret them, is an age old question but the problem I have with the media is that they selectively interpret news. On some items they want us to believe they are offering insightful commentary but on others they just report the facts.

• U.S. Officials Condemn Hussein Photos by Josh White and Ellen Knickmeyer
• New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action by Craig Whitlock

Somehow photos of Saddam in prison in his underwear get published and we are all supposed to be outraged over inhumane treatment. Okay, the photos should not have been released and the person responsible for giving them to the press should be found and punished. But, if as the WashPost argues, Iraqis seeing their former dictator in his underwear is so offensive, why then does the Post publish a picture of the newspaper with the photo on the cover? Are they stupid, hypocritical, or both? They then go on to claim that seeing Saddam in his underwear may incite more violence in Iraq because the body is sacred to Muslims and should not be seen uncovered in public.

I’m not going to argue about Islam or Muslims. They have a right to their own beliefs and I respect that. If they are offended by half-clothed people then so be it. My gripe is with the WashPost again. The photos were published in the Sun, a London newspaper, not an Iraqi or even Arab newspaper, so where is the offense? The counter argument would be that the Sun is an international paper and is read by people in Iraq. True, I agree with that argument. But I would also argue that the WashPost is an international paper that it too is read in Iraq. So, publishing the photo in the WashPost makes them as responsible (irresponsible?) as the Sun for publishing the photo. And if you really want to offend someone, look at the advertisement for South Moon Under on page C4 of the Post. Those half clothed women would be enough to really get some red blood boiling.

The greater question is, should we all have one standard for publishing to avoid offending anyone else or should we accept that Western papers exhibit Western values and Arab papers exhibit Arab values? Is diversity of ideas, values, and culture not what we all want? Never mind, the evidence is clear that Al Qaeda does not want that. But really, should the Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Backwater Weekly worry about offending the values of someone on the other side of the world. I think not.

And if the Iraqis are offended by the “Saddam in his underwear” picture, they should never again check their email. Some of the spam email I have received, in living color, would surely give them all heart attacks.

The press problems continue in the article about the CIA helping Swedish officials transport terrorist prisoners to another country. The Swedes wanted to deport these terrorists to their home country for interrogation and solicited the CIA’s help in getting them out of the country before their judges could block the transfer. Well now they are upset the CIA came in wearing masks, cut the clothes off the prisoners, strip searched them, dressed them again, and then restrained them in the Gulfstream V aircraft for transport.

Where’s the problem here? Even the Swedes admit they were amazed at how quickly the CIA personnel removed the prisoners’ clothes, searched them, and had them dressed again. If the objective were to humiliate or degrade the prisoners then why would all of this be done so quickly? The Swedes had already told the CIA personnel that no one was at the airport and that their masks were unnecessary so, if humiliation were the name of the game, why not blindfold the prisoners and march them naked to the airplane? No one would see but it would certainly be humiliating. The Swedes also said the search was unnecessary because the prisoners had already been searched and were handcuffed.

We can believe, as the WashPost seems to want, that the CIA personnel were animals who were out to humiliate and trample as many human rights as possible, or we can believe a more plausible and reasonable explanation—the CIA was concerned about safety and security! Three months prior to this event, terrorists had passed through American, not Swedish, airport security and inspections then boarded large planes with hundreds of passengers. Once airborn the terrorists took control of the planes and flew them into buildings. Perhaps the CIA was concerned that their terrorists had explosives secreted on them somewhere and might attempt to blow up a plane. What’s that? Surely the Swedes would have found any explosives? Right. And you have faith in TSA as well, don’t you? After all, making those 75 year old ladies take off their shoes has those terrorists trembling with fear.

I am worried that we are becoming a nation in which we believe that flying planes into buildings and killing people is something we deserved because we try to help the world and that having a picture of someone in their underwear is a violation of human rights. I wonder, how many pictures of naked women do you think Saddam and his sons had in their rape palaces? And we are to be concerned that pictures published in a Western paper are offensive to Arab values? No, perhaps the problem is not with the pictures but it is with the radical, militant terrorists. After all, how else can you explain the fact that Muslims living in the West have not picked up arms in protest over the photo?