ANGUISHED MEDIA HAND WRINGING WATCH

In a not just tragic, but heart wrenching, turn of events, it looks as if the American hostage being held by terrorists in Saudi has now been beheaded. This has not been confirmed by the government (either government, as far as I know) but there is an image of a decapitated head on one of the internet sites used by the the relevant groups.

Already Fox has shown the internet site on air, saying something like, "now, were you to scroll down further, as we are certainly not about to do on air . . ."

I'm going to work on the long list of materials I haven't posted on today (see below) but given the media hand-wringing over whether outlets should, if they aren't willing to air or show particularly graphic images, link to them for viewers who think it important they should view them, I will want to see if any outlets change the way they have handled this material since the outcry over Nick Berg (once they have actually confirmed this image as genuine, a not unimportant step.)

I feel a bit grotesque even mentioning it this quickly. But not too grotesque to bring it up. What choice to do we have? Why do you think they killed this poor man? Because they thought that he, personally, was the critical lynchpin for Saudi security? They killed him because they thought the message his death was send, through the way our media covered it, would give his death far greater results than they could ever hope to accomplish through normal, conventional means of warfare, terrorism, as Paul PIllar says, allows groups to "fight about their weight." If we want to give this man's death any meaning at all it can only be through understanding what they were trying to accomplish and ensuring that they fail. And that is as much about the war of images as it is the war of men and materiel. We have to think through the images and symbols and how we should handle their meaning, their dissemination, their role. We cannot simply say that because his death was grotesque, we will choose to ignore it.

Not if we want to win. And it is vital that we win.

I don't want anymore Paul Johnsons or Nick Bergs. Hell, I don't even want to care what the New York Times does.

Update: Fox's Shepard Smith just described one of the images. I'm glad he did, because it's quite clear that the situation has changed here. These are not merely images of the act which was the situation with the Berg images, these are images that have been very consciously posed. Whether the arguments made about images of the act as it occured would still hold when we're talking about images of a posed body . . . well, I just need to think about that.

Update: Well, someone's off the reservation. I don't watch Fox's business show, having roughly zero interest in business, but I sometimes catch the last few seconds and therefore their business anchor's commentary. Note that Fox decided within seconds today that they wouldn't air the images of Paul Johnson as posted on the Queda web site. Well apparently Neil Cavuto disagrees with that decision, the decision not to show the Nick Berg images -- and the decision to not continue to show the planes hitting the towers, which Fox has taken off the air the same as every other network.

Comments

[Holly S]

I believe there is no surer way to get American attention and sense of resolve back to where it needs to be than to make the videos available to anyone who is willing to see the truth about these animals. I saw the video of Nick Berg's beheading and today the video of Saddam's Abu Graib - both through internet access, of course. Both of these have served to harden my heart to the stupid things so many on the left are saying and will do the same for others.

We must face the fact that these practices could become a normal part of life for us. Sharia law is not forgiving or compassionate or caring in any way. Our only hope is to take these people/animals seriously and fight them to the end.

[athena]

Yes, and now Paul Johnson, sounds as if he was beheaded as well.

Absolutely sickening.

[Gordon Daugherty]

So was a Swede at the recent Khobar attack; on an Islamist web site was an account saying they left his head at the entrance to the compound as a warning to other 'infidels'. They clearly feel they've hit upon a great publicity method here.

I suspect (hope?), however, they'll find they've misjudged our psychology. A fundamental principle of intelligence/counter-intelligence is not to assume your enemy thinks as you do, eg: assume he will react to your moves as you would if he made the same move on you. The train bombings in Spain sent them a strong message; the question now is, will it generalize to other countries?

[athena]

Oops, messed up on the above post.

Yes, I saw stills, and it will absolutely make someone cry tears of hatred. Many differences than Nick Berg.

I've been trying to find the original website by typing in transliterated Arabic, but with no success. Have any of the news web sites provided a link?

I'm sure the site will go down in less than a few hours...I'd like to find it before it happens and screenshot it for future reference.

[PJ]

And now I am waiting for the press to rant about the violation of Geneva Conventions by AQ; I am waiting for the press to demand an apology from Saudia Arabia or from AQ; I am waiting for the press to dispute the connection between average guys Johnson or Berg to AQs enemy. I'm sure I will wait in vain.

[Mike H.]

I like FNC, I watch it in preference to the other
networks, but last night Fox had a stakeout around the
family house in NJ. The cameraman was going for the
heart wrenching scenes for the background, did that tell
the terrorists that they were on track?
In my opinion we should be following the story, but not
exploiting it. How to do it? An unnamed person has been
kidnapped, no film at eleven.

[dauber]

Someone's reporter (I think Fox's, actually) noted that the people in the town where he lived were very angry and had no where to put that anger so they were (threfore, qed) taking it out on the press camped out at Johnson's sister's house.

Tidy explanation but I suspect false. They were angry and sure as hell didn't think the press had a right to be there as witnesses to their grief, much less the family's. But the press has these mechanism's to avoid ever admitting that to themselves.

[deb]

Deborah Orin writes in the 'New York Post' about the dilemna the press faces in deciding whether or not to publish competing images in the WOT. She writes:

REPORTING FOR THE ENEMY
By DEBORAH ORIN

June 16, 2004 -- THE video only lasts four minutes or so — grue some scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.
Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade — all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.
Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.
But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news....
If I couldn't watch them myself, I'm hardly arguing that others should have to. Yet it raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling.
Entire article here: http://tinyurl.com/39a5c