A Torture Photo is Worth A Thousand Words

The New York Times, while occasionally producing some good exposés, normally serves as an organ for state propaganda.
A Times article featured two of the least disturbing pictures1, but was then updated by an article with no pictures at all.2 In Britain, the U.S.’s staunch ally in the war on Iraq, the BBC stated plainly: “Some of the new images are too gruesome to be shown.”3
Too gruesome for whom?
For you, apparently. The New York Times (and the BBC) don’t want you to see these images.
It’s probably not that The Times doesn’t think you can handle seeing the gruesome acts being committed in your name (if you’re from the U.S.). But if you get upset enough to act against the war on Iraq, that might upset The Times’ Big Corporate sponsors, many of which have a Big Corporate stake in the war. The U.S. government has also spoken out against publishing the photos, calling it “irresponsible,”4 and The Times is usually happy to fall in line.5


