FEMA accused of censorship

[sterlingice]

FEMA accused of censorship

By Deborah Zabarenko1 hour, 1 minute ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050907/...ensorship_dc_2



When U.S. officials asked the media not to take pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, they were censoring a key part of the disaster story, free speech watchdogs said on Wednesday.

The move by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is in line with the Bush administration's ban on images of flag-draped U.S. military coffins returning from the Iraq war, media monitors said in separate telephone interviews.

"It's impossible for me to imagine how you report a story whose subject is death without allowing the public to see images of the subject of the story," said Larry Siems of the PEN American Center, an authors' group that defends free expression.

U.S. newspapers, television outlets and Web sites have featured pictures of shrouded corpses and makeshift graves in New Orleans.

But on Tuesday, FEMA refused to take reporters and photographers along on boats seeking victims in flooded areas, saying they would take up valuable space need in the recovery effort and asked them not to take pictures of the dead.

In an e-mail explaining the decision, a FEMA spokeswoman wrote: "The recovery of victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect and we have requested that no photographs of the deceased by made by the media."

Efforts to recover bodies continued on Wednesday. Out in the city's filthy waters, rescue teams tied bodies to trees or fences when they found them and noted the location for later recovery before carrying on in search of survivors.

Rebecca Daugherty of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press found this stance inexplicable.

"The notion that, when there's very little information from FEMA, that they would even spend the time to be concerned about whether the reporting effort is up to its standards of taste is simply mind-boggling," Daugherty said. "You cannot report on the disaster and give the public a realistic idea of how horrible it is if you don't see that there are bodies as well."

'INVITATION TO CHAOS'

FEMA's policy of excluding media from recovery expeditions in New Orleans is "an invitation to chaos," according to Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a part of Columbia University's journalism school.

"This is about managing images and not public taste or human dignity," Rosenstiel said. He said FEMA's refusal to take journalists along on recovery missions meant that media workers would go on their own.

Rosenstiel also noted that U.S. media, especially U.S. television outlets, are generally reluctant to show corpses.

"By and large, American television is the most sanitized television in the world," he said. "They are less likely to show bodies, they are less likely to show graphic images of the dead than any television in the world."

There is also a question of what the American PEN Center's Siems called "international equity," noting that American news outlets cover stories around the world showing the effects of natural disasters and wars in graphic detail.

"How is the world going to look at us if we go into their part of the world and we broadcast these images and we do not allow ourselves to look at such images when they're right in our own midst?" Siems said.

Mark Tapscott, a former editor at the Washington Times newspaper who now deals with media issues at the Heritage Foundation, said the FEMA decision did not amount to censorship.

"Let's not make a common decency issue into a censorship issue," Tapscott said. "Nobody wants to wake up in the morning and see their dead uncle on the front page. That's just common decency."



Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

[sterlingice]

Considering how charged our political climate has been of late, I hesitate to post this, but I think it's a good academic discussion without all the slinging of mud (tho maybe it's because I can't think of any reporters we have on the board so it may be really one sided).

I have absolutely no problem with FEMA saying 1) no dead body pics and 2) no, we don't have room on the rescue missions for reporters. Let them bury their dead and give them their privacy.

No one needs to see the dead body pics to get the scope of the situation. People already have been drinking in the scene without seeing the bodies- we can only imagine and don't want to. In the now defunct thread, there were a few comments complementing the major networks on not showing dead bodies. It seems to me the only people wanting them are producers who want to push the envelope and reporters who want to make extra bucks, finding the most sensational pictures to sell to said producers.

Unless you get consent from the family, no dead people pics.

SI

[st.cronin]

Wanting to take pictures of dead bodies is ghoulish. I've got FEMA's back on this one.

[jeff061]

I'm more concerned with FEMA's incompetence than this. How can an organization only exist for a scenario that only happens once a decade and then fuck it all up.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I'm more concerned with FEMA's incompetence than this. How can an organization only exist for a scenario that only happens once a decade and then fuck it all up.

Aren't there other threads for this?

SI

[jeff061]

I don't know, been trying to ignore them. Sorry.

[John Galt]

Like SI, I see two separate issues, but I have a split opinion on them. 1) I think excluding the media from recovery missions is fine. 2) I think stopping them from taking images of the dead is not ok.

As with any human tragedy, death is something people have to face. We constantly see images of death and suffering of non-Americans, but lately the government has seemed inclined to not show pictures of Americans. I think this distinction is a poor one. It is premised on the "dead Uncle" story in the article. However, sometimes, for the public good, some people may see unpleasant things. Just as Iraqis dead in the war (or from Saddam) is important news, so to are images of death from this disaster.

Now, this doesn't mean the media should plaster images of death all over the place, but I don't think the government should be regulating or even suggesting that they don't include certain things like this.

[timmynausea]

I don't think it should be for FEMA to decide. I don't think pictures of dead people should be plastered all over every magazine and 24 hours news network, but this is really happeneing and the images might help us grasp the reality of the situation.

[Peregrine]

I'm personally very glad we haven't been seeing tons of pictures of decomposing bodies. As bad a job as FEMA has done with this disaster, this is definitely the right call.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Like SI, I see two separate issues, but I have a split opinion on them. 1) I think excluding the media from recovery missions is fine. 2) I think stopping them from taking images of the dead is not ok.

Well, I suppose I was a bit hasty in the "taking images of the dead is not ok"- more an emotional response than anything. I think anyone doing it is fairly foul but I suppose they do have the right to do it, provided we aren't talking about what I'm describing in the next situation.

What I'm much more opposed to is anyone walking into what is essentially a military zone at this point and snapping pictures of dead bodies while the workers are still trying to work. If CNN wants to start wallpapering their site with the dead in an attempt to increase viewership, then I'm not going to watch them, plain and simple. But, what I really don't want is reporters getting in the way of the relief effort. Screwing with relief workers to get pictures for whatever reason is, to me, the same as reporting on troop movements- you're going to get someone killed and I, as the public, don't have that much of a right to know that I'm taking away the right to live of the people being evacuated (or attacking, using the military example).

SI

[flere-imsaho]

1. I think there's a significant difference between pictures of flag-draped coffins & pictures of dead bodies. There's a certain decorum to the former that's not present with the latter (well, specifically dead bodies in a disaster area, arguably pictures of a dead body lying in state have a certain decorum).

2. Saying "You can't take pictures of X" is censorship. I think taking those pictures itself is in bad taste, but photographers have done it all over the world for decades. I think publishing those pictures is in even worse taste, and I would hope the Mainstream Media would not do something so ghoulish. However, I would hope that the Mainstream Media would not do a lot of things, and I've had little luck with that, either....

3. I agree that FEMA shouldn't be forced to take journalists/photographers along on rescue missions. I'm sorry, but that's seems just ridiculous.

[MrBigglesworth]

Pictures bring the disaster home. Nobody cares about the torture we conducted at Abu Ghraib until the pictures became available. The government has been in hardcore political damage control ever since last Wed, so it's no surprise that they would want these most powerful of images not to make it out of New Orleans. You should expect nothing less from a group that would take volunteer firemen from Atlanta and use them as props for a photo-op instead of sending them in to help with the rescue.

[oliegirl]

I totally agree with FEMA on this, I think it would be disrespectful to the victims, and the families of the victims to show pictures of bodies floating in the water or laying on the side of the road, partially decomposing. There is just no reason for it. I think we all know, without actually seeing it, how bad things are down there.

I was watching Fox over the weekend and Shepard Smith did a story about the area and during it showed a picture/video of a body laying on the side of the road. It was very disturbing to see, and honestly, didn't make the story any more effective, gripping, hit closer to home, etc...all I could think about was "what if that person's family doesn't know where he is and this is how they are going to find out that he is dead".

[CamEdwards]

I think this is all a little overblown. Look at the words used in the story. "FEMA asked", "FEMA requested". There's no "FEMA ordered", and there's no censorship issue. They asked reporters to show some respect, and some will and some won't. It's as simple as that.

As for not bringing reporters along, can we make up our mind already? When we embed reporters with combat units, we get these same critics saying "our coverage is sanitized because we're only reporting what the government wants us to see". When we say "you're on your own" we're also "managing images".

Jeez, make up your mind.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I think this is all a little overblown. Look at the words used in the story. "FEMA asked", "FEMA requested". There's no "FEMA ordered", and there's no censorship issue. They asked reporters to show some respect, and some will and some won't. It's as simple as that.

As for not bringing reporters along, can we make up our mind already? When we embed reporters with combat units, we get these same critics saying "our coverage is sanitized because we're only reporting what the government wants us to see". When we say "you're on your own" we're also "managing images".

Jeez, make up your mind.

I think that's a fair criticism. If it is the same people saying the embedded reporters sanitize coverage and not embedding reporters in another instance is "managing images," then I think that is hypocrtical.

On the other hand, a similar argument can be made the other way. There will be some who ask why you embed reporters in some situations and not in others. The conclusion to some will be that the government (military, FEMA, whomever) embeds reporters when it's favorable to them and then builds barriers to the media when it's unfavorable to them.

I think both sides are guilty of being hypocritical. It should be consistent. It should be that the media is always on their own or the media is always (within reason) embedded. Inconsistency will always raise questions.

[kcchief19]

I should add for the record that while I think this particularly FEMA request seems unofficial and on the fly and not all comparable to embedded reporters, I'm general against the policy of media tagging along in these situations.

When reporters are embedded in war situations, it certainly sanitizes the coverage because they don't get the whole story. One critcism I'll make of the media is that they often only portray one side of the story and it has nothing to do with media bias; it has to do with laziness. They are reporters who are willing to tag along with the U.S. military, but I don't see a lot of reporters doing things like Mike Wallace did and allow himself to be virtually kidnapped and taken blindfolded into hiding to get an interview with the Ayatollah.

I think the reasons above are perfectly reasonable. Media doesn't need to be tagging along on SNR missions if it hampers and slows down the process.

[Buccaneer]

Reminds me of the "Dead at Antietam" photo exhibit that shocked the nation in October 1862.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...m856sf=4a39529

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Reminds me of the "Dead at Antietam" photo exhibit that shocked the nation in October 1862.

So, what was it like, seeing the Civil War and exhibit firsthand and all (c'mon, you made that too easy)

SI

[CamEdwards]

ok, I've done a little checking, and it appears that at least back in 2003 Tom Rosenstiel was supportive of embedding reporters with the troops. Haven't seen anything from 2004 and 2005 to indicate otherwise, so he at least appears to be consistent.

[TroyF]

There is no reason to show dead bodies until consent is given by the families of those victims. The fact FEMA even has to request/ask/plead/beg/scream for this says something about what the media has turned into.

There will be plenty of time to display and print those images. It's not necessary to do it right now.

And, as about with 98% of all instances, the "censorship" word is misused and out of place. Unles FEMA is giving a direct ORDER for people to not take pictures of dead people and punishing them for doing so (which would include confiscating the film or taking retroactive action after a pic is posted), they aren't censoring anything. They are asking and begging that people have some respect for the families of the victims.

Again, the fact they have to do that is pathetic. There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess, FEMA included. There is no need to accuse them of something that just isn't true. Just my opinion, FWIW.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by TroyF

There is no reason to show dead bodies until consent is given by the families of those victims. The fact FEMA even has to request/ask/plead/beg/scream for this says something about what the media has turned into.

There will be plenty of time to display and print those images. It's not necessary to do it right now.

And, as about with 98% of all instances, the "censorship" word is misused and out of place. Unles FEMA is giving a direct ORDER for people to not take pictures of dead people and punishing them for doing so (which would include confiscating the film or taking retroactive action after a pic is posted), they aren't censoring anything. They are asking and begging that people have some respect for the families of the victims.

Again, the fact they have to do that is pathetic. There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess, FEMA included. There is no need to accuse them of something that just isn't true. Just my opinion, FWIW.

Couldn't have said it better.

[ISiddiqui]

While I agree that FEMA hasn't ordered anyone, I don't think that the media should have to wait until consent is given by the families to show people who have died in this disaster. It's a matter of news and should be. There should be no reason for people to stop the news media from doing their jobs because of some percieved ownership over the deceased's likeness.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

While I agree that FEMA hasn't ordered anyone, I don't think that the media should have to wait until consent is given by the families to show people who have died in this disaster. It's a matter of news and should be. There should be no reason for people to stop the news media from doing their jobs because of some percieved ownership over the deceased's likeness.

For the same reason that murder victim's names are not released to the public before their relatives and loved ones are informed.

The media people need to be reigned in, they have gotten so out of control in the world its nauseating. Perhaps if and when OBJECTIVE journalism ever rears its heads again we could dispense with having to ask these folks to show this kind of respect, but as things are today, its almost mandatory.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RendeR

For the same reason that murder victim's names are not released to the public before their relatives and loved ones are informed.

The media people need to be reigned in, they have gotten so out of control in the world its nauseating. Perhaps if and when OBJECTIVE journalism ever rears its heads again we could dispense with having to ask these folks to show this kind of respect, but as things are today, its almost mandatory.

And what reason is that? Because we feel we are being 'respectful'? Screw that. The news is there to give me the facts. Forget about being respectful and do your damned jobs!

And of course, "Objective" journalism being the sort that agrees with you, right?

I mean really, our media has become so respectful and sanitized that we let our politicians get away with all sorts of shit! We want to be respectful and not lose access so we won't ask the tough questions. I think we lost our way when we started thinking of respect as being necessary for journalism over the actual news. Hell, what they did to Nixon was highly irrespectful... but it was good journalism. Pictures of bodybags from Vietnam was irrespectful, but good journalism (and necessary!!).

[-Mojo Jojo-]

a) As many have noted, this is not censorship. FEMA merely refused to assist reporters in getting the photos. They're under no obligation to do that and are entitled to an opinion on the matter.

b) The article makes two excellent points on the general propriety of the press photographing dead people:

1) The market is largely self-regulating. The news media in the U.S. is quite aware that people are not keen on seeing gore, and almost never show it. When dead bodies do appear in U.S. news media, it's generally done tastefully and with sensitivity (this being probably the only context in which those terms apply to the U.S. media).

2) It's odd that we do seem to have different standards about showing dead depending on whether they're American or not. Victims of slaughter in Rwanda? Ok. Victims of 9/11? Not ok. The Hussein boys? Ok. U.S. casualties in Iraq? Not ok. Tsunami victims? Ok. New Orleans victims? (apparently) Not ok. Sort of odd...

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

There is no reason to show dead bodies until consent is given by the families of those victims. The fact FEMA even has to request/ask/plead/beg/scream for this says something about what the media has turned into.

The media has always taken pictures of dead bodies, in every war and every disaster since photographs started to be taken.

Civil War:


Don't act shocked because the media is doing it today. Also, a simple 'don't show indentifying freatures' rule is perfectly acceptable. You are acting as if the media is walking up and taking close-up headshots.

Originally Posted by TroyF

There will be plenty of time to display and print those images. It's not necessary to do it right now.

The obvious logical hole in your argument is that if they are forbidden from taking these pictures, they won't be able to display or print them later.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And what reason is that? Because we feel we are being 'respectful'? Screw that. The news is there to give me the facts. Forget about being respectful and do your damned jobs!

And of course, "Objective" journalism being the sort that agrees with you, right?

I mean really, our media has become so respectful and sanitized that we let our politicians get away with all sorts of shit! We want to be respectful and not lose access so we won't ask the tough questions. I think we lost our way when we started thinking of respect as being necessary for journalism over the actual news. Hell, what they did to Nixon was highly irrespectful... but it was good journalism. Pictures of bodybags from Vietnam was irrespectful, but good journalism (and necessary!!).

The news is not there to "give you facts." The news organizations are a business, like anything else. They lost their ethics a long time ago. They are there to make money. Period. Anyone who tells you different is living in a dream state. If Dan Rather and some of the far right jack asses on Fox News haven't taught you anything, it should have taught you that.

Our media hasn't become respectful, they've become downright mean in a lot of instances. To both sides of the aisle in political affairs, to comepletely disrespectful to victims of crime and their families, to investigative journalism that's out of control.

Showing "body bags" where the soldiers aren't identifiable and showing a dead, decomposing body of a hurricane victim whose family may or may not know they are dead are two very different things.

[CamEdwards]

the word "irrespectful" makes baby Jesus cry.

[Klinglerware]

The baby Jesus is also in a twitch over improper capitalization, but will probably let the missing indefinite article go...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The news is not there to "give you facts." The news organizations are a business, like anything else. They lost their ethics a long time ago. They are there to make money. Period. Anyone who tells you different is living in a dream state. If Dan Rather and some of the far right jack asses on Fox News haven't taught you anything, it should have taught you that.

Our media hasn't become respectful, they've become downright mean in a lot of instances. To both sides of the aisle in political affairs, to comepletely disrespectful to victims of crime and their families, to investigative journalism that's out of control.

Showing "body bags" where the soldiers aren't identifiable and showing a dead, decomposing body of a hurricane victim whose family may or may not know they are dead are two very different things.

If the news doesn't give me facts, they lose my (and many others) business. So yes, they are there to give me facts. They are in the business of reporting facts! Your statement is akin to saying Microsoft is not there to make software, it's a business, when it's the same thing.

Showing a dead body is one image that drives home the gravity of the situation. It is one thing reading a report and quite another to see a person who has died from that situation. Probably one of the reasons that this society is so gung ho for war is that our media is so sanitized that we won't dare to show war dead. If people saw that, they probably would think twice about sending our troops in harms way whenever they felt like it.

And as far as "investigative journalism that is out of control", that's laughable. Investigative journalism has been bit in the balls. Woodward and Bernstein brought down a crooked President through investigative journalism. We can't even get this President to admit that he was wrong about WMDs in Iraq. We need MORE investigative journalism, not this pussy media we have now.

And Mojo brings up a good point. This conversation always comes up for US troops. Never in showing the dead from other disasters or atrocities. I think the reason is that one side wants to hide the horrors of their actions or lack of action and thus want to prevent dead bodies being seen.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And as far as "investigative journalism that is out of control", that's laughable. Investigative journalism has been bit in the balls. Woodward and Bernstein brought down a crooked President through investigative journalism. We can't even get this President to admit that he was wrong about WMDs in Iraq. We need MORE investigative journalism, not this pussy media we have now.

I strongly agree with this sentiment.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by TroyF

The news is not there to "give you facts." The news organizations are a business, like anything else. They lost their ethics a long time ago. They are there to make money. Period.

If you change them to "some members of the media, I'll agree with you. But to impune and entire industry because of a few bad apples is unfair. News should be there to give the facts. No doubt that it is a business, and today more often than not the business side wins. However, that doesn't mean they don't give us the facts, it's just that more and more of the media gives us facts we want to hear. I don't blame the some of the media for what it has become -- I blame us. When a presidential blow job and a double murder in Brentwood draw more viewers and sells more newspapers than a war or a presidential election, is that our fault or the media's fault? They are just giving the sheep what they want.

Originally Posted by TroyF

Our media hasn't become respectful, they've become downright mean in a lot of instances. To both sides of the aisle in political affairs, to comepletely disrespectful to victims of crime and their families, to investigative journalism that's out of control.

That's not investigave journalism, it's gotcha or shock journalism. This was actually what drove me out of broadcast journalism. During my final semester at the J-school at Missouri was the Oklahoma City bombing. I realized that if I were a reporter in Oklahoma City at the time, I realized my job would be to put a microphone and a camera in the face of people who just lost their spouse or children, and I realized that's not the job I want. But people tuned into that coverage because it's what they want. If might not be what you want, but it appeals to the lowest common denominator. That's the standard we have to raise if we want things to change.

Originally Posted by TroyF

Showing "body bags" where the soldiers aren't identifiable and showing a dead, decomposing body of a hurricane victim whose family may or may not know they are dead are two very different things.

I tend to agree; much of news depends on the circumstance. It's the toughest job of a media gatekeepers; deciding what is the news. Unfortunately, showing dead bodies sometimes is the news. During the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, it wasn't until the media showed mass graves and piles of bodies that public sentiment finally shifted toward going over there and knocking that stuff off. I'm sure some will say that showing bodies in New Orleans underscores the tragedy and momentousness of the event. To me, I don't think that's the case, but it's a hard line to judge. A case could certainly be made that someone who sees a body floating in the water on TV will be much more likely to evacuate now or in the future when a hurricane threatens.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

If the news doesn't give me facts, they lose my (and many others) business. So yes, they are there to give me facts. They are in the business of reporting facts! Your statement is akin to saying Microsoft is not there to make software, it's a business, when it's the same thing.

Showing a dead body is one image that drives home the gravity of the situation. It is one thing reading a report and quite another to see a person who has died from that situation. Probably one of the reasons that this society is so gung ho for war is that our media is so sanitized that we won't dare to show war dead. If people saw that, they probably would think twice about sending our troops in harms way whenever they felt like it.

And as far as "investigative journalism that is out of control", that's laughable. Investigative journalism has been bit in the balls. Woodward and Bernstein brought down a crooked President through investigative journalism. We can't even get this President to admit that he was wrong about WMDs in Iraq. We need MORE investigative journalism, not this pussy media we have now.

And Mojo brings up a good point. This conversation always comes up for US troops. Never in showing the dead from other disasters or atrocities. I think the reason is that one side wants to hide the horrors of their actions or lack of action and thus want to prevent dead bodies being seen.

Woodward and Bernstein. Two of the great American journalists. (I say that without any sarcasm at all, they truly were incredible) They are what started the trend. See, news reporters used to want to do just that. They wanted to report the news. That was their goal. It wasn't to BE the news, it was to report the news.

They didn't set out to destroy Nixon. They didn't set out to destroy the Republican party. They started out by covering a break in. As they found out more about it, something didn't smell right. They worked their asses off. Tirelessly to look for the facts and to follow the trail. With the help of "Deep Throat" they slowly but surely brought out the information to the public.

That's investigative journalism. What we have now are a ton of journalists who go into the story and into their investigations knowing what the outcome will be. And it doesn't mattter if a "fact" can be proven or not, it's only important if the "fact" sells newspapers or grabs more viewers. What we have now is news thats continuously slanted to one side or the other. We have Dan Rather and his team using forged documents because their "investigation" didn't have enough steam. We have NBC blowing up trucks because their "investigation" wasn't fascinating enough. We have "investigations" that makes the reporters the stars and not the stories.

Investigative journalism done correctly is one of the greatest things we have as a country. It can change history. It can inform. It can do it all.

Investigative journalism done incorrectly breaks every ethical rule journalists have. There is no objectivity, there is no compassion for the people involved with the story and the only goal is to generate money.

Sadly, IMO, a majority of investigative journalism done today is biased and improperly done. Just my opionion, you can take it for what it's worth.

And if you stop watching a news station or reading a paper because they don't give you the "facts," I'd just go ahead and stop reading. Again, the news industry is a business, nothing more. It's ratings driven. If you don't "entertain" you won't have a chance to report on the facts because you'll be looking for a job.

Again, it's just my opinion, but don't think I'm completely oblivious to what I'm talking about. My degree is in journalism and I have a minor in broadcasting. I've worked as a beat reporter and in radio. I've seen some of the "ethical" battles take place and it caused me to sprint (not run) away from the industry as a whole.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

This was actually what drove me out of broadcast journalism. During my final semester at the J-school at Missouri was the Oklahoma City bombing. I realized that if I were a reporter in Oklahoma City at the time, I realized my job would be to put a microphone and a camera in the face of people who just lost their spouse or children, and I realized that's not the job I want. But people tuned into that coverage because it's what they want. If might not be what you want, but it appeals to the lowest common denominator. That's the standard we have to raise if we want things to change.

My wife (then girlfriend) jumped ship off of broadcast at Mizzou in J-200 when the first day the teacher said something about how it was ok to break laws and promoting cutthroat competition between journalists. She went into the advertising sequence since brainwashing was actually *less* distasteful than broadcast, which was filled to the brim with slime, it seemed. And to think, that they're doing that at the *best* J-school in the country...

SI