President Obama on "60 Minutes." Photo: CBS.

This afternoon we learned that the photos of Osama Bin Laden’s corpse would not be released to the public. In an interview for “60 Minutes,” President Obama said he was concerned the graphic images would raise national security risks. He is absolutely right–but there are plenty of other reasons to keep the photos classified.

We live in a culture that is obsessed with sharing, but just as we teach our LAMP students that you can never really take something down from the Internet, there are lines to be crossed. No matter how guilty we may be of “I wanna see!” syndrome, those impulses should not always be indulged. An image of someone who has been shot in the head is not, and should not be, entertainment. It won’t lead to the cathartic release we all yearn for. Even after seeing the photo of our fallen enemy, we will all still be angry about the thousands of lives lost as a result of his actions.

There is an argument that the photos are essentially information, and that information should be freed given the suffering caused by bin Laden. According to Representative Duncan Hunter from California, “As Americans we deserve to see them.” However, bin Laden killed people from all over the world, and the loved ones of his victims worldwide have no more or less of a “right” to see him than anyone else. We deserve nothing which we have not already gotten. More details and information will continue to emerge about the operation at Abbottabad, and information junkies that we are, we will continue to gobble up whatever the media shares with us. I don’t believe the White House is trying to cover up some conspiracy by withholding the photos, and perhaps that’s my own naivete, but I cannot come up with any good reason for why they should be shared. None of us deserve to see those photos.

I mean that as a compliment. When Daniel Pearl was killed in 2002, a video of his beheading circulated on the Internet. The FBI tried to have it banned online, but they encountered the same frustration that almost anyone on Facebook has experienced–the video can’t really come down. I was in college at the time, and when someone brought the video up on their computer in a room full of my friends, I didn’t want to be the one person who wasn’t ‘brave’ enough to watch it. After I saw it, I had nightmares for a long time, and have never been able to really expel the image from my mind. I indulged the same “I wanna see!” syndrome that persists today, and it was a horrible choice. If the government somehow had the power to keep the video under wraps, I hope they would have. Images like that cannot be unseen or forgotten.

–Emily Long
Follow me on Twitter: @emlong

Remains of Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Myers arrive at Dover Air Force Base, April 5, 2009. Photo: Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times

April 6, 2009: For the first time in 18 years, Americans saw news coverage of coffins returning from war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Near midnight on April 5, the body of Air Force Staff Sgt. Phillip A. Myers arrived at Dover Air Force Base after he was killed by an explosive in Afghanistan on April 4. With the permission of his family, news media were allowed to photograph the flag-draped coffin as it was unloaded by the military honor guard.

The photography ban was lifted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in February 2009 after years of debate. The ban was put in place in 1989 by Dick Cheney, who was at that time Secretary of Defense. In a moment of great embarrassment for the Administration, major news media outlets televised a split-screen of then-President George H.W. Bush joking at a White House press conference alongside live video of flag-draped coffins arriving at Dover Air Force Base. Debate around the ban concerned issues of privacy, politicization of the war and First Amendment rights. Arguments were made that prohibiting photos of the dead downplayed the war while inhibiting the national mourning process, and counter-arguments were made that the photos were disrespectful to family members, and that it would be inappropriate for the images to be used in a political debate.

But President Obama was elected under a banner of government transparency, and Gates ordered a review of the policy. It was found that as long as family members approved in advance, media were free to capture and publish photos of the dead returning from war. As Gates told reporters in advance of the final decision lifting the ban, “If the needs of families can be met and the privacy concerns can be addressed, the more honor we can accord these fallen heroes, the better.”

The latest billboard from Life Always, to be unveiled in Chicago

The anti-abortion group Life Always got into some hot water last month when they ran a certain billboard in New York City’s SoHo area near a Planned Parenthood clinic. Several complaints were filed about the image of a young black girl paired with the statement that “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” Brooklyn councilperson Letitia James spoke against the wisdom of running the billboard at all, but especially during Black History Month. Reverend Al Sharpton began organizing a march in protest, the mother of the girl in the billboard objected to her daughter’s image being tied to a negative message about African Americans, and the advertising company who owned the space pulled it down (but, not because of the content–staff in a nearby restaurant complained of being harassed by people objecting to the billboard).

Now, Life Always is following up with a billboard on Chicago’s South Side picturing President Obama with the text, “Every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted.” Regardless of one’s position on either abortion or the president, the message is surely loaded, and deserves a closer look. More than anything, we’d like to hear from you, our LAMPpost readers, with your thoughts on this piece of media.

The first billboard from Life Always: New York City, February 2011

Think this guy has the right idea?

Now that all fifty states have held their midterm primaries (minus Louisiana, with an October 2 Republican house candidate runoff), we can expect election-related news and advertising to spike in the weeks leading up to the November general election. By last month, candidates spent $395 million on ads, an increase of $109 million since the same point in the 2006 midterms. Issues like health care reform, immigration reform, gay marriage, financial regulation, education, tax cuts and a weak economy, plus polling reports like 52% of voters saying their political views align more with Sarah Palin’s than with those of President Obama, are sure to make these next few weeks interesting.

One response to this media torrent might be to turtle up, ignore it all and not vote, rather than sort through an overwhelming number of sound bites, photo opportunities, campaign slogans, debates, accusations and, if history is any indicator, more than a couple of scandals. However, although the storm of conflicting media may seem like a convenient excuse to stay home on election day, it is not. The LAMP is a nonpartisan organization, but a big part of media literacy is civic engagement and demanding more accountability from our leaders and media. We believe not only that every eligible voter should cast a ballot, but also that voters should make informed decisions rather than parrot the ideals of whoever happens to be making the most noise. And, you have to do more than visit a candidate’s website; it is not gospel. Fortunately, it is possible to thrive in a confusing world of political media, all with the confidence that you alone–and not mainstream media–have made your choice in voting. Our LAMPlit resource guide “Check Out the News!” by Education Director Katherine Fry is a great place to start, but here are a few more things to keep in mind as you engage specifically with political campaign messages in the weeks leading up to November 2.

1. Find out who paid for the message. Whether it’s a TV commercial, robo call or yard sign, some person or group had to plunk down the coins for a campaign message to reach you, and they almost certainly influenced that message. In most cases, you’ll see or hear something like, “This message is paid for by Friends of (insert candidate name here)” but you should take at least a bit of time to find out who those friends are. Especially since last January’s ruling by the Supreme Court which overturned campaign spending limits by corporations, it is important to find out whose interests are being represented, and how that may impact policy decisions. If someone gets a lot of money from a particular industry, he or she might not want to alienate that donor group, and so would probably vote against taxes and regulations on that industry. One great resource for learning more about who is funding a particular campaign, visit OpenSecrets.org. You might be surprised at how little time it can take to find out who gave how much money to whom, learn about PAC and advocacy group activity and much more.

2. Decide what issues are the most important to you. This strategy is not so much related to media literacy as it is helpful for sifting through the noise to get to what really impacts your voting decision. Try picking 3-5 things that you care about, and prioritize looking deeper into the media messages about those issues as you decide what’s right for you in casting your vote. Every candidate has a website; take a look and see what they have to say about the issues. This is not to say that it isn’t important to learn as much as you can about a candidate, but back in 2006, over $1.8 million was spent on television ads alone. That’s a good deal of airtime, but you don’t have to scrutinize every second of it in your quest to be an informed voter.

3. Get the context. The most recent example of why you should do this is the Shirley Sherrod debacle. If you hear a sound bite of a candidate saying “no new taxes” and taxes are important to you, find out more about when and why the candidate said that. For all you know, the complete sentence could have been, “I plan to raise taxes on small businesses, but there will be no new taxes on big tobacco.” Information like that can make a big difference. One way to get context for a sound bite or other statement is to look at a few different news sources, and read how different journalists report the incident. Especially in politics, there is hardly anything too small to be deemed unworthy of a blog post.
–Emily Long

Do you have more suggestions? Share them here!

Michaele Salahi getting friendly with Joe Biden

Now, aside from the obvious stupidity of publicizing pictures of yourself posing with leaders of the free world at a very exclusive party to which you were not invited, I have to say I disagree with part of David Segal’s criticism. He points out that by posting photos on Facebook, the Salahis erred by making public the traditional, time-honored Power Wall (i.e., physical wall of photos of yourself with important people). The Power Wall used to exist only in offices or homes, but not anymore. Years ago, if a photo was to be seen at all, it had to be printed, so the print itself was not a big deal. Now, choosing to print a photo indicates that it is something special, and so the pictures you display in private are carefully curated by you or someone close to you. For the purpose of striking awe in someone sitting across from your desk, a traditional Power Wall is still effective, but the days of owning your image are long gone. That client can walk out of your office, find you on Facebook or Flickr, and see any old picture they want; the word ‘authorized’ means very little. Your real power wall is on Facebook, and you demonstrate power by making sure you are not tagged in photos you don’t like. One would think this would be understood in an Administration which was put in place due largely to its wielding of social media.

While a large part of this has to do with social media and technology, another part of this has to do with media itself. One of the basic points of being media literate is understanding the power of imagery, which is something we generally take for granted. The Salahis certainly did. I have plenty of friends who have posted photos on Facebook from the time they met a famous actor, shook the hand of Barack Obama as he campaigned for President, and even one friend who snapped a shot of herself with the Dalai Lama, but the difference is that no rules were violated in the process. It’s really the very well-known context of Michaele Salahi’s shot with Joe Biden that makes it so inappropriate to share, and the fact that she shared it demonstrates idiocy, naivete, lack of foresight or all of the above. But if Biden–or any other White House officials who allowed personal cameras into the event–didn’t think that photo would turn up later, he was not much better.

–Emily Long

Tina Fey and Seth Myers picket at Rockefeller Center.

November 5, 2007 marked the first day of a strike by the Writers Guild of America-West and WGA-East which lasted one hundred days. The main issue was the compensation received by writers, which was meager when compared with large studio profits, and also how writers were to be compensated for reality and online content. The WGA strike is significant for many reasons: It was a clear turning point in the business of digital media, cost Hollywood billions of dollars, and drew attention to the plight of thousands of people working behind the scenes of media which most of us take for granted as being free (not to mention illegally downloadable). On February 26, 2008, a new contract was ratified by the union, and writers went back to work with new rights and protections. However, that contract is up in 2011, and a lot can happen between now and then in the world of media and entertainment. The issue will linger as long as we have an Internet, but the WGA strike  represented the arguably first big shot across the bow of the online media business.

On November 13, 1969, United States Vice President Spiro Agnew gave a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, accusing the nation’s television networks of using bias and distortion in their reporting. He further urged viewers to “register their complaints on bias through mail to the networks and phone calls to local stations.” Agnew lamented that the media was dictated by a small group of men, informing the opinions of an estimated 40 millions Americans who watched the nightly news, and who had recently seen several newsmen harshly critique President Nixon’s November 3 speech on Vietnam minutes after it was delivered. Forty years later, this event is especially significant amid the conflict between Barack Obama’s White House and Roger Ailes’ Fox News, with White House Communications Director Anita Dunn saying that the Administration is “not going to legitimize them as a news organization.” Then, as now, the White House was trying to define the meaning and purpose of news, and possibly reign in an independent and free press. In both cases, it seems, the Presidents might have been wishing that Americans were just a little more news literate.

The Hollywood Ten with their lawyers

November 25, 1947: A group of ten screenwriters and directors, known collectively as “The Hollywood Ten” are fired from their jobs in the first systemic Hollywood blacklist. Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott and Dalton Trumbo were all held in contempt of court one day prior for refusing to testify before the House of Un-American Activities (HUAC). Ultimately, 41 artists were called to testify, and over 320 people were eventually added to the blacklist that kept them from working in Hollywood. HUAC feared that these artists were  Communists, imbuing their work with propaganda designed to recruit members to the Communist Party. Those who refused to “name names” of anyone they knew who might be a Communist were added to the list, leaving many prominent voices silent, livelihoods destroyed and promising careers cut short. Those who did testify were despised by many of Hollywood’s elite, including Elia Kazan, who, when honored with the 1999 Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences, was met with protest; many Oscar attendees refused to stand when he took the podium to accept the award. The blacklisting of the Hollywood 10 was a pivotal moment in American cinematic history, both acknowledging and condemning the power of film.

“Over the past few months, two things have become clear about the fight for health insurance reform:

1. Our opponents will create and spread outrageous lies to try to stop President Obama from creating real change.
2. We just can’t count on the media to debunk them.

As President Obama described recently:

“If somebody puts out misinformation… then the way the news report comes across is, ‘Today, such-and-such accused President Obama of putting forward death panels. The White House responded that that wasn’t true.’ And then they go on to the next story. And what they don’t say is, ‘In fact, it isn’t true.’” “

The email then goes on to ask for money to combat the smears by staffing phone banks, canvassing door-to-door and running counterattack ads. All well and good; this is the equivalent of donating to any other public awareness campaign.

But what Obama is really asking for in this email is media literacy. He’s pointing out that just as the media isn’t ending the story with “It isn’t true,” neither are media consumers thinking critically and asking whether the claim is true or false. Instead, they’re absorbing the first part of the story in which some impassioned politican makes inflammatory accusations, or protestors are shown carrying pickets depicting Obama with a Hitler mustache.

The administration is not happy that so many people are so willing to swallow whatever hype the media feeds them, and with good reason. But, this is what happens in a media illiterate society, not to mention one that is in the midst of a polarizing debate on how to spend taxpayer dollars and restructure one-sixth of our country’s economy in a recession. Short term, as far as Obama is concerned, the solution is to throw money into a counter-campaign. The long-term answer is to fund and mandate media literacy in our school curriculums and communities. How about if the Obama administration starts raising money for that?

–Emily Long

I wholeheartedly agree with Rather that a standard of poor journalism is both insulting and dangerous. What I’m not sure of, though, is his prescription that the President or any government-appointed commission be tasked with ”fixing” the news. Perhaps this is just cynicism on my part, but even with the best intentions, putting the government anywhere near the news industry only invites more trouble.  And–now, this is definitely cynicism–I’m tired of commissions making recommendations and putting out reports. If we as news consumers want more honest reporting, more investigative journalism, we have to demand it.  The change comes from us.

When the line between news and propaganda becomes increasingly blurred, as it is now, news literacy is our greatest tool. This may sound oversimplified, but when I watch the news on TV I frequently wonder if people understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. Most news shows are really just stretches of editorial content asking you to do little more than sit back and follow their single stream of logic–nevermind the presentation and validation of opposing viewpoints or facts. We have to ask questions. We have to demand better. We have to turn off the snake oil salespeople on both sides of the political spectrum who report from a place of fear that even-handed journalism is not profitable.

One way to do this is to read a variety of media. Back in March, New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof wrote a great piece called “The Daily Me.”  In it, Kristof implies that we as news consumers may be at fault for a poor newsscape, citing a condition where “we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices.” If I’m only going to read what I agree with, if I’m not ready to listen to a plausible and intelligent argument that might change my mind on something, then I’m at fault for not demanding a better product.

Let me add that I don’t know if there ever has been a “golden era” of news, where everything was thoughtful, unbiased and accurate. Tabloids and shock jocks have been around since the beginning of time, and if they’re louder now, then maybe it’s only because there are more ways for them to make their message heard. Whether or not the news industry has worsened or whether its ills have simply become more exposed is difficult to determine, but one thing that remains true is that we are still consumers. We eat what we’re fed, but if we stop ordering the same entree, then, with time and patience, the menu will change.

–Emily Long

Let’s stop for a second and imagine a world where junk food goes the way of the cigarette, and can no longer be advertised on TV, in youth magazines, in theatres showing movies with a rating lower than an R. Let’s also think about how the Working Group will determine which foods are healthy and which foods are not–remember that back in 2003, the USDA determined that frozen french fries should be defined as a fresh vegetable. Depending on how it is prepared, almost any food can be made less healthy; slather an apple in caramel and peanut butter, and it’s suddenly no good at keeping that doctor away.

I applaud measures that challenge advertisers to be responsible in their tactics, but such measures are not enough without the education to accompany it. Where is the U.S. Department of Education in all of this to determine the impact of junk food ads on young minds? Who is going to look at how unhealthy foods and beverages are marketed in public schools? You can censor, ban and regulate all you want, but that doesn’t make junk food disappear, any more than it has made cigarettes go away. Education–in this case, specifically and especially media education–is the key for real and lasting change from within.

However, using class relationship-therapy speak, the apology amounts to little more than a statement saying, “I’m sorry you were hurt.” In no way do the editors take responsibility for the fact that they made a gross oversight by not anticipating the reaction and offense that the cartoon would elicit from all the Americans who celebrate the destruction of a significant racial barrier. With that in mind, I don’t think the Post’s editors are stupid. Insensitive, yes, but also cunning. They got us to turn our heads in their direction. I believe in free speech, and while the cartoon infuriated me, they do have a right to print it–what really got to me was the so-called “apology,” which feels more to me like a slap in the face with their inclusion of the below statement:

“However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past – and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon – even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.”

The accusation that those who spoke out against the cartoon are vengeful opportunists is nothing short of petty and childish. Not knowing the inner thoughts and secrets of every public figure who issued a statement, I can’t say for sure that their response had nothing to do with a grudge against the paper, but this is neither the time nor place for the paper to make that claim. If just one person, or even a few, were leading a crusade against the Post as a result of this column, that would be one thing, but the feeling I get from people I speak with about this is one of genuine disgust. Political cartoons are often meant to rile, and I’m a huge fan of clever satire that exposes something new (see: Thomas Nast). But there’s nothing clever about Delonas’ cartoon. There’s nothing witty. He absolutely has a right to print it. But, the New York Post should understand that we are no longer grade schoolers fighting on the playground, and take seriously the response to their work.