POL--Is it ever better to supress information (New Abu Ghraib photos)

[albionmoonlight]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...tos/index.html

For those that don't know, a newspaper recently released more photos of the prisioner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The above article focuses on the United States Defense Department's reaction to the photos, which is that they should not have been released because they "could only further inflame and possibly incite unnecessary violence in the world."

Now, there are certainly catagories of "news" that should, in my mind, be supressed in the name of national security. Current troop locations, etc. Information whose strategic value to us in a temporary sense would be lost if it were made public--and whose value to the world is, at best, minimal.

However, if you were to take the core of my political belief system--the axis around which it is based--the idea that information should be supressed because it might upset some people would come durn close to the polar opposite of that core.

Every time we supress information because we don't think that people can handle it--or because we don't want to deal with their reactions when they do handle it--we go down a dangerous road. Sunshine is still the best killer of corruption. Roaches like the dark.

(And, as I was writing this, I also remember the recent flap over the Danish cartoons. Leaving aside the fact that most of those cartoons are, as one reporter put it, more incomprehensible than a Cathy strip, they should of course have been published by Western newspapers. If not immediately, then after the flap over them became a headline story for three days.)

Knowing this board, however, I bet I get some pretty strong and well thought out disagreement on this point.

[Ben E Lou]

Interesting thought. I can see their argument: that it's "old news" and therefore the only thing it does is create unrest without giving any new information. However, I agree with albion that I don't like the idea of a newspaper holding back. Of course, it's probably a good political move for the DoD to complain, because that will help divert attention away from a story that is worse for them to one that is par for the course for them. Their reaction should do a good job of keeping the "liberal-media-is-always-evil" crowd solidly in their camp without questioning what happened there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

" Is it ever better to supress information "

Yes, and probably more often than you (or I) would think at first blush.

To borrow from your own post "Every time people prove they can't handle certain information and/or because of irrational and absurd reactions to various pieces of information" the need becomes greater and more obvious.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Interesting thought. I can see their argument: that it's "old news" and therefore the only thing it does is create unrest without giving any new information. However, I agree with albion that I don't like the idea of a newspaper holding back. Of course, it's probably a good political move for the DoD to complain, because that will help divert attention away from a story that is worse for them to one that is par for the course for them. Their reaction should do a good job of keeping the "liberal-media-is-always-evil" crowd solidly in their camp without questioning what happened there.

That pretty much nails it for me as well.

[MrBigglesworth]

IIRC, these pictures were available from the beginning. The DoD has been legally fighting there release for some time. Now that they lost, to come around and say that it is 'old news' now is brazen, and nothing more than a dodge.

The fact is that the administration never fully took responsibility for what happened and indeed thinks it is their right to continue to do what the pictures depict. So even calling it 'old news' is wildly inaccurate. How about if you are really concerned about "incit[ing] unnecessary violence in the world" you stop torturing people, ok?

[Klinglerware]

I took at the pictures that were released this week. At this point, I'm generally pretty inured to imagery many see as revolting, but I have to admit that this week's pictures were more nauseating than even the leash-girl pics that were published before...

[Dutch]

Was the newspaper releasing these photo's trying to give the world citizen some new insight or was it an attempt to incite the reader?

From my perspective, it doesn't look like anybody stands to benefit from this old "information" other than the CEO of the newspaper.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The fact is that the administration never fully took responsibility for what happened and indeed thinks it is their right to continue to do what the pictures depict. So even calling it 'old news' is wildly inaccurate. How about if you are really concerned about "incit[ing] unnecessary violence in the world" you stop torturing people, ok?

If you have to lie to get your point across, should we put you in charge when we topple the liars?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you have to lie to get your point across, should we put you in charge when we topple the liars?

When did you stop beating your wife?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

When did you stop beating your wife?

Ahhh, you've been busted.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Ahhh, you've been busted.

Am I taking crazy pills? What's going on?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you have to lie to get your point across, should we put you in charge when we topple the liars?

[EagleFan]

I know it's not exactly the same but why would you hold back pictures of a cartoon because of what it could stir up but then want to print old pictures of something that could stir things up?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I know it's not exactly the same but why would you hold back pictures of a cartoon because of what it could stir up but then want to print old pictures of something that could stir things up?

Or the flip side: why would one want to hold back on printing pictures of something that could stir things up but then want to print cartoons that could stir things up? The two are both issues of free speech or both issues of responsibility or both, depending on your point of view, right?