Most families allow media to cover fallen soldiers

Socrtease

Verified User
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_re_us/us_casualty_returns

DOVER, Del. – In the weeks since the Pentagon ended an 18-year ban on media coverage of fallen soldiers returning to the U.S., most families given the option have allowed reporters and photographers to witness the solemn ceremonies that mark the arrival of flag-draped transfer cases.

Critics had warned that military families needed privacy and peace activists might exploit the images, but so far the coverage has not caused problems.

Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Myers of Hopewell, Va., who died April 4 in Afghanistan, was the first combat casualty whose return to American soil was witnessed by the media. He was to be buried with full military honors Monday afternoon at Arlington National Cemetery.

With permission from his widow, Aimee, the military opened Dover Air Force Base earlier this month so reporters and photographers could chronicle his return. The mortuary there is the entry point for service members killed overseas.

The ban on media coverage dated back to 1991, when President George H.W. Bush imposed it during the Persian Gulf War. It was cast as a way to protect the privacy of grieving families, but critics argued that officials were trying to hide the human and political cost of war.

"I think it was to protect the government's butt," said David Pautsch, who allowed the media to witness the return of his son Jason, an Army corporal from Davenport, Iowa, who was killed with four other soldiers in a bombing in Iraq.

He said the ban was more about minimizing the political impact of Americans dying overseas.

"I think it was a reaction against the second-guessing of our country's mission," he said.

Since the ban was lifted, 19 families have been asked whether they wanted media coverage of their loved one's return and 14 have said yes.

"That's a pretty good majority," Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, a Pentagon spokesman, said earlier this month, when 16 families had been asked and 13 had consented. He said, though, that it's still too early to tell whether military families favor the new policy.

Rose Alexander, a spokeswoman for the Air Force Mortuary Affairs Office, said reporters have been cooperative and there haven't been any problems.

Media interest has fallen off sharply since almost 40 reporters, photographers and camera operators turned out to document the arrival of Myers' body. At a more recent casualty arrivals, the only media representative was a lone photographer from The Associated Press.

Even if no one from the media shows up, the Department of Defense films each casualty arrival for which consent is given and presents a recording to the family.

Christie Woods initially declined media coverage of the return of her husband, Staff Sgt. Gary L. Woods Jr., of Lebanon Junction, Ky., who was killed along with Jason Pautsch. She changed her mind so family members who couldn't travel to Dover would have the video, according to casualty assistance officer Sgt. Joseph Chapman.

Families must make the difficult decision about whether to allow media coverage, and whether to travel to Dover, within hours of being told of a loved one's death.

The military's long-term goal is to have each service member make the decision before deploying to a combat zone rather than having the family choose after the fact.

While survivors are asked whether they consent to media coverage and want to travel to Dover, a policy memo issued by Defense Secretary Robert Gates states that media contact with family members will be allowed "only if specifically requested" by the family.

Mortuary affairs office officials say they will help facilitate a meeting if a family indicates that it would like to talk with the media. So far, the Pautsch family has been the only one to do so.

David Pautsch said he understands the military is trying to be sensitive but believes families should be asked whether they want to speak to the media rather than having to volunteer their desire.

"We shouldn't be afraid of letting people express their opinions," he said.
 
Yeah, and after all these years of being told that families don't want the media to cover the sacrifices of their loved ones.
 
Yeah, and after all these years of being told that families don't want the media to cover the sacrifices of their loved ones.

The ban on covering returning dead soldiers, like the ban on televising war, was not meant to protect families, but rather protect the government from Americans getting a taste of what we're doing. These were the result of what was learned from Vietnam.

Keep Americans dumb, pregnant with distractions, and happy.
 
The ban on covering returning dead soldiers, like the ban on televising war, was not meant to protect families, but rather protect the government from Americans getting a taste of what we're doing. These were the result of what was learned from Vietnam.

Keep Americans dumb, pregnant with distractions, and happy.
War is sometimes necessary, but the government should never work to remove reminders of the cost.
 
Americans should always be reminded daily of the costs of war.

These soldiers deserve to be thought of while they come home.
 
I think that this particular ban was a mistake from the beginning, it would have helped to personalize the war. These kids gave their all, they should have all the honors due them.
 
I think that this particular ban was a mistake from the beginning, it would have helped to personalize the war. These kids gave their all, they should have all the honors due them.

come on Damo... regardless of whether MSNBC is there to "video" tape the arrival, these kids receive the honors due them.

The policy was put in place so that the nation could avoid or at the very least limit a human emotional spectacle... that does have an effect on our ability to actually wage wars.

Its not meant to "hide" the cost, our numbers of casualties are public record, the media has never had difficulty in finding out how much war costs, especially the human toll.

At this stage after fighting in at least two wars for 8 years and a relatively low casualty count the public to be honest just doesnt care anymore. Thats why its gone relatively without a great deal of spectacle. In fact I dont even think the media shows up now even though they can.

I would imagine they will begin shooting more footage of it once the economy recovers... got to do something for the ratings.

SR
 
come on Damo... regardless of whether MSNBC is there to "video" tape the arrival, these kids receive the honors due them.

The policy was put in place so that the nation could avoid or at the very least limit a human emotional spectacle... that does have an effect on our ability to actually wage wars.

Its not meant to "hide" the cost, our numbers of casualties are public record, the media has never had difficulty in finding out how much war costs, especially the human toll.

At this stage after fighting in at least two wars for 8 years and a relatively low casualty count the public to be honest just doesnt care anymore. Thats why its gone relatively without a great deal of spectacle. In fact I dont even think the media shows up now even though they can.

I would imagine they will begin shooting more footage of it once the economy recovers... got to do something for the ratings.

SR
These past 18 years it was in place did not prove it effective as a tool to prevent what you say it would prevent, but it did make it effectively impossible for a larger, more national, mourning and pride placed in the sacrifice they put forward.

I think that it served to have the opposite effect of its intention, even if MSNBC and its 5 member audience used it differently than most would insist on seeing. The kids gave something for us, there is nothing wrong with having an emotion attached to that.
 
These past 18 years it was in place did not prove it effective as a tool to prevent what you say it would prevent, but it did make it effectively impossible for a larger, more national, mourning and pride placed in the sacrifice they put forward.

I think that it served to have the opposite effect of its intention, even if MSNBC and its 5 member audience used it differently than most would insist on seeing. The kids gave something for us, there is nothing wrong with having an emotion attached to that.

Well, i would argue its hard to say it has been "proven" for anything. Over the past 8 years we have not had image after image on every nightly newscast of coffins arriving. I would say that most logical people would take the position that that has helped the war effort.

Its a common emotional response to mourn the loss of Military members, it is a common emotional response for men like me and you to have pride in the sacrifice they put forward. This cannot be assumed to be the case for everyone Damo, especially when there is a political upside to not demonstrating pride but instead outrage and disgust... which you would be hardpressed to deny that of which has occurred.

This is one of those things where you cant say because it happened its proven to not have the desired effect. I would say that we've been able to fight for 8 years and the vast majority of this nation has not even been touched by these wars. Might be why we've been able to wage them for so long.

It wasnt that long ago that US Congressman were convicting Marines of cold blooded murder before an investigation had even occured (of which one did and everyone was either acquitted, charges dropped, or no charges filed) in response to emotionally driven stories. Lets not try to hide the fact that not everyone demonstrates restraint and mourning when it comes to the emotional aspects of war images. I dont think it will that large of an effect NOW because the nation is used to it, and honestly doesnt care about it anymore.... course once the economy recovers.... something has to take its place.

Dont worry, there will come a time when these images are used for exactly what you wouldnt want them used for. And families will see what can happen and they honestly just wont want to be apart of it. Then Im sure someone will sue to FORCE the images to be shown... its never about the honorable things that you mention Damo. We just dont live in a time anymore where people abide by the values that you might expect.

SR
 
Yet another Bush lie bites the dust.
Actually a lie by both Bush's.
Maybe it is an old family recipe?

Since the ban was lifted, 19 families have been asked whether they wanted media coverage of their loved one's return and 14 have said yes.

"That's a pretty good majority," Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, a Pentagon spokesman, said earlier this month, when 16 families had been asked and 13 had consented. He said, though, that it's still too early to tell whether military families favor the new policy.
 
The ban on covering returning dead soldiers, like the ban on televising war, was not meant to protect families, but rather protect the government from Americans getting a taste of what we're doing. These were the result of what was learned from Vietnam.

Keep Americans dumb, pregnant with distractions, and happy.

My man.

Exactly right on.
 
By showing the details of the losses, perhaps we can finally put more effort into avoiding wars than in fighting them.

There are times that war is unavoidable. But there are too many times that it is completely avoidable and yet we still go to war.

These brave men & women gave the ultimate sacrifice. To try and pretend that it didn't happen or try to remove the human suffering from the equation is just dishonest and disrespectful.
 
Back
Top