Mainstream media’s selective censorship of iconic images, even TODAY
Click all photos to enlarge. Per CNN, June 24:
A 14-year-old girl stoops and screams above the body of a Kent State University student killed in 1970 by an OH National Guardsman….
A police chief aims his gun at a Vietcong prisoner’s head in 1968, while executing him on a Saigon, Vietnam, street.
And in 1989, an unarmed man in Beijing, China, stands defiantly in front of a column of tanks as they rolled into Tiananmen Square.
These are iconic images, the kinds of shots that changed the way people viewed history as it unfolded. They put human faces on conflicts and became rallying cries for movements, inspiring those who demanded change….
CNN continues:
But while these photographs – chronicling a single, silent moment – were taken by seasoned photographers, two of whom won Pulitzer Prizes, this time amateur cell phone video is grabbing worldwide attention. It captures the death of a young woman named Neda Agha-Soltan, galvanizing protesters in Iran and shaping perceptions of a land and people few Westerners know.
“Every revolution needs icons and symbols – an image that embodies a sense of universality of blight and at the same time innocence,” said Roya Hakakian of CT, a… journalist who was born and raised in Iran. “The image of Neda does both.”…
CNN continues:
Graphic images have long played a role in driving social awareness and change….
The skeletal figures of concentration camp victims drove home the horrors of the Holocaust. And the brutalized body of Emmett Till, a 14-year-old black boy killed in 1955 for allegedly flirting with a white woman, was shown at the insistence of his mother at his funeral, galvanizing the civil rights movement….
But there are certain iconic images the mainstream media censors.
Today YouTube removed the following video by LiveAction.org with no explanation.
Planned Parenthood Falsely Says Abortion Pictures Are "not Real" – For more amazing video clips, click here
Per a statement from LiveAction.org:
Lila Rose, 20-year-old president of Live Action, calls on YouTube to re-instate the video in accordance with its own guidelines:
“Since the video we posted does not violate any terms of use, we expect YouTube to re-instate it immediately. YouTube’s own ‘Community Guideline Tips’ advise that intense or disturbing imaging should be ‘balanced with additional context and information,’ which is exactly what Live Action has done.”
YouTube has removed videos posted by Live Action without explanation before, including videos showing Planned Parenthood employees caught on tape sympathizing with donors with racist agendas to encourage the abortion of black babies….
“New media is vital to educating the public about the shocking realities of abortion practice in America,” Rose emphasizes. “Our videos show hard truths about the abortion industry that must be seen and dealt with. Lawmakers and their constituents are recognizing this, but YouTube does everyone a disservice when they cooperate with PP in burying the evidence of abuse.”
LiveAction.org lists more compelling reasons on its website why its video should not have been censored.
I AM SO MAD. The media understands the importance of visuals only for causes or movements it supports. The pro-life movement is certainly not one. It’s time for this to stop, particularly in the wake of the gruesome but uncensored Neda video.
I’m trying to find out from LiveAction.org who exactly to write to at YouTube and what to say. Will let you know. I’d like to start an email inundation.
[HT for CNN article: friend JeffE; photo montages composed by Jill]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
BLOCKBUSTER DAY, JILL STANEK!!
*cries* I remember that picture of the fireman with the baby found after the bombing of the Oklahoma City building.
me too Jill. Makes me want to go postal. Figuratively.
So who in YouTube’s ranks has been bought by PP? How many who run YouTube have been complicit, one way or another in abortion?
I wonder….
hmmmm…considering the popularity…is YouTube now part of MSM??
YouTube is a massively pro-choice organization. Most of their top contributors are pro-choice, and it shows in the kinds of comments that are allowed to be posted and the videos they remove. I’m not surprised, and I’ve been searching for who to complain to for a long time now, to no avail. If you find out, post ASAP.
Jill,
here is a video with Google/youtube CEO, he was asked about his bias towards liveaction/profile groups. he basically dodged the question.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0d6_1220922938
Get your supporters to buy 51% control of Google, then take over the company by proxy vote and change the rules and hire pro_life people. That should only cost you about 770 dollars per pro lifer to raise the 77 billion you need.
Otherwise, stop trying to force private entities to carry your water. Youtube is not a public service and they cannot be held in liablity for the POTENTIAL that your video is fake because it is accusatory. That’s why they keep pulling it. However, as a private concern they really don’t owe you an explanation.
1.) Let’s have a bake sale.
2.) “Youtube is not a public service and they cannot be held in liablity for the POTENTIAL that your video is fake because it is accusatory.” Ah, the good old set of “Let’s make up the rules as we go along to support our agenda.” rules. Nice. If YouTube WAS a pro-life-agenda business, you would be screaming how unfair it is from the rooftops. As long as someone’s not discriminating against YOU, discrimination is fine. Whatever. I’ll be pissed off about whatever bias I choose to be on the part of whomever I choose to be, just like you will and are, I’m sure. I’m exercising my right to choose to be pissed off, and you can exercise your right to kiss my butt if you feel like it. Otherwise, shut up.
A better strategy would be to patronize a prolife video website. One which comes to mind is “ProLife Tube” at http://prolifetube.ning.com/
A better strategy would be to patronize a prolife video website. One which comes to mind is “ProLife Tube” at http://prolifetube.ning.com/
“I’m exercising my right to choose to be pissed off, and you can exercise your right to kiss my butt if you feel like it.”
This made my heart all warm and toasty. No joke.
xalisae,
Come on now, tell us what you really think :)
The constant need to call a spade a spade as vocally as possible with as little regard for tact and propriety as I can muster is just one of the many charming character traits I’ve inherited from my father. :P
We will let you run your pro-life video as soon as we can run a pro-choice announcement on any AM frequency in America….lol.
Deal?
You have the radio, we have the internets….life sho’ ain’t fair, is it? I guess we were thinking more PROGESSIVELY, than you guys….j/k
The Proud Okie Liberal.
Congratulations-
The left has been more inclined to use underhanded tactics like infiltrating the educational establishment, meaning that more children fresh out of high school and college are more likely to be indoctrinated with liberal ideology. Young people are also more inclined to adopt new technology sooner than older individuals who are more set in their ways. So, there’s your big win. Conservatives don’t pick on children…would you like a gold star for that?
Personally, I’m happy to be getting older. I can’t wait to get out of my 20’s. Young people are ignorant. It takes a little bit of time and some experience in the real world before many young people can break from their programming.
I think you said it best…
“Personally, I’m happy to be getting older. I can’t wait to get out of my 20’s. Young people are ignorant. It takes a little bit of time and some experience in the real world before many young people can break from their programming”
You’ll be a liberal in 10 years!
You wish. I’ve been aghast at the utter stupidity and lack of foresight on the part of most my peers since grade school. Perhaps if I start slipping into senility early I will adopt liberal ideals, but I’ve had a pretty good grasp on simple concepts like:
Money for things has to come from somewhere (government works projects? No thanks.)
Sometimes you have to defend yourself through force
(war is sometimes an unpleasant necessity when confronted with people who want to kill you just because you are you)
The baby that is alive and crying in the crib today was only a few short days, weeks, or months ago the fetus in the womb
(being the oldest in my family, I was quite able to comprehend that the kick I felt while resting my had against my pregnant mother’s stomach came from a very much alive person that was my younger sibling)
So, unless I grow more ignorant of logic with time, forget what I know now, or suffer some sort of brain trauma, I don’t think I’ll be turning liberal any time soon.
A better strategy would be to patronize a prolife video website. One which comes to mind is “ProLife Tube” at http://prolifetube.ning.com/
Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at June 25, 2009 3:48 PM
The problem with that stategy is the site would really be visited almost exclusively by pro life people who don’t need any convincing.
YouTube gets millions of visitors every day.
I’m trying to find out from LiveAction.org who exactly to write to at YouTube and what to say. Will let you know. I’d like to start an email inundation.
You can count me in to email them if you find out this information.
I notice that “youtube” has the Silent Scream. So I have to assume that there is some other reason they are rejecting this particular video, not just that it is pro-life. I can’t run the video hear so I don’t really know what it is about, but maybe some kind of legal issue.
Well, after some research, I’ve found that they reinstated one of the videos at least with an apology for having taken it down. My guess? Personal preference.
We will let you run your pro-life video as soon as we can run a pro-choice announcement on any AM frequency in America….lol.
Deal?
You have the radio, we have the internets
Posted by: Soonerman at June 25, 2009 5:55 PM
So on one hand, you have radio show personalities whose admitted purpose is to advocate a conservative political stance. On the other hand, you have a website designed for users to upload and view media. Yes, youtube has the right to yank whatever video they please, but they are acting dishonestly in removing videos that are not in violation of the guidelines they set in place. Of course they are not bound by law to guarantee free speech or refrain from censorship, but it is an unbecoming business practice for a non-political entity to employ political biased motives for removing media. It makes sense to call them out on this.
We only have the radio because sponsors will only pay for shows that have audiences.
If liberals produced decent radio they’d have radio shows… nothing is stopping them other than their own inability to draw ratings.
Unbelievable that ‘Youtube’ is allowed to show videos of SUICIDE( whether faked or real), but they yank videos like that..??? Soonerman, I am an OKIE, too. I just turned 44, and I’m STILL not a liberal, thank you very much.
Danielle,
You had commented on another thread that you do not view abortion as evil.
What is your definition of evil?
Give an example of what you view as evil in this world today.
Do any of the pictures at the top of this post depict evil to you?
Posted by: Soonerman at June 25, 2009 5:55 PM
“The Proud Okie Liberal.”
————————————————————
You can be proud of being a ‘liberal’. Like homosexuality, it is a ‘choice’.
How can you be proud of something in which you had absolutely no control?
It is kind of like saying I am proud to be a human being?
But no matter. We all get saved from ‘something(s) to some ‘ONE’.
No justification for ‘pride’ there either.
Being a ‘son of GOD’ is not your decision either.
yor bro ken