Where is media outrage over purported government attempts to restrict Katrina coverage?
A September 7 Reuters article reported that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "asked the media not to take pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath" and "refused to take reporters and photographers along on boats seeking victims in flooded areas." FEMA's actions, along with further reports that the government is obstructing journalists in New Orleans, have drawn little attention -- and even less outrage -- from the very media institutions that the agency, part of the Bush administration, seeks to repress. Media Matters for America wonders: What will it take for the media to protest (or at least report) the Bush administration's efforts to control them?
According to the Reuters article, free speech watchdog groups, such as PEN American Center and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, decried FEMA's purported actions as "simply mind-boggling." Reuters quoted Tom Rosenstiel, director of Columbia University's Project for Excellence in Journalism, describing FEMA's decision as "an invitation to chaos," and claiming it "is about managing images and not public taste or human dignity." Reuters said that FEMA's purported attempts to restrict photographs of Katrina victims "is in line with the Bush administration's ban on images of flag-draped U.S. military coffins returning from the Iraq war." In a September 8 Philadelphia Inquirer column, television columnist Gail Shister quoted Alex Jones, director of Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy: " 'I think they want to minimize the perception that the government didn't do its job,' says Jones, a former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winner. 'I'm very suspicious of their motives.' " Editor & Publisher also noted FEMA's actions and the reactions of journalist groups in a September 8 article.
A FEMA spokeswoman defended the policy, telling Reuters, "The recovery of victims is being treated with dignity and the utmost respect and we have requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media." Shister reported that, according to FEMA representative Mark Pfeifle, "FEMA has no official policy on photographing bodies," but "advise[s] against the practice out of respect for the families of dead and missing loved ones." Shister further wrote: "Also, FEMA needs space in its boats for rescuers and recovered bodies, he says." (As noted on the weblog War and Piece, Pfeifle was also a Bush-Cheney '04 campaign spokesman, and headed a Social Security "war room" created within the Treasury Department in March, according to The Washington Post.)
Thus far, coverage of FEMA's purported attempts at media control has been relegated to brief reports within newspapers or passing mentions on TV news programs. In addition to the publications mentioned above, as of this posting, the Reuters article has been published on the Houston Chronicle's website and in the September 8 edition of The Washington Post -- on page C8 of its "Style" section. On September 7, the Los Angeles Times devoted four sentences to FEMA's decision, while the September 7 New York Times allotted it three sentences on page A20. On the September 7 editions of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and The Situation with Tucker Carlson, NBC news correspondent David Shuster mentioned in passing that the "Federal Emergency Management Agency has asked the media not to photograph the dead." In a September 7 CBS Evening News report, correspondent Lee Cowan noted simply that "FEMA asked us not to show how its crews removed bodies out of this nursing home, but suffice it to say, it was horrific."
Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass touched on FEMA's purported restrictions in a September 8 op-ed, writing: "Politics is at the bottom of it, since he [President Bush] has been blamed, either fairly or unfairly, for the weak federal response." Rocky Mountain News columnist Vincent Carroll defended FEMA's position as "reflecting the opinion of a wide swath of Americans who squirm when they see news pictures of the dead and consider them a concession to vulgar voyeurism." The Baltimore Sun editorialized on the purported policy on September 8, writing: "[I]t smacks not of concern for the feelings of survivors or the sensibility of readers, but of a desire to cover up the bad news."
The nature and extent of FEMA's purported restrictions is in dispute. As Reuters noted, the FEMA spokeswoman said the agency has "requested that no photographs of the deceased be made by the media." And FEMA has refused to take reporters and photographers on boats, which the agency said was for reasons of space. Neither action alone establishes an official effort to restrict coverage. In a September 8 column, Denver Post television critic Joanne Ostrow quoted CNN president Jonathan Klein saying, "None of our people have encountered this." Ostrow wrote: " 'Our role is to show the reality,' said MSNBC executive Mark Effron. 'We are showing bodies but not in close-ups. Our correspondents and videographers have conveyed the sense of horror without close-ups.' " It is not clear from Ostrow's quotation of Effron if the MSNBC executive addressed whether FEMA had restricted MSNBC reporters and photographers, but Effron seemed to suggest that restrictions on photographing Katrina victims are self-imposed.
Though Rosenstiel is critical of FEMA, he suggested, according to Shister, that FEMA's actions do not pose an outright impediment to media coverage of FEMA's recovery efforts: "While the government can control media access to Dover [Air Force Base in Delaware, where American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan return to the U.S.], it cannot prevent journalists in New Orleans from following FEMA's boats in their own vessels during recovery missions, says Rosenstiel, whose organization is associated with Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism."
But at least one journalist on the ground in New Orleans has reported a very different situation from that described or implied by Klein, Pfeifle, and Rosenstiel. NBC anchor and managing editor Brian Williams noted in his weblog that journalists are being forcibly prevented from covering certain aspects of the Katrina disaster:
While we were attempting to take pictures of the National Guard (a unit from Oklahoma) taking up positions outside a Brooks Brothers on the edge of the [French] Quarter, the sergeant ordered us to the other side of the boulevard. The short version is: there won't be any pictures of this particular group of Guard soldiers on our newscast tonight. Rules (or I suspect in this case an order on a whim) like those do not HELP the palpable feeling that this area is somehow separate from the United States.
At that same fire scene, a police officer from out of town raised the muzzle of her weapon and aimed it at members of the media ... obvious members of the media ... armed only with notepads. Her actions (apparently because she thought reporters were encroaching on the scene) were over the top and she was told. ... Someone else points out on television as I post this: the fact that the National Guard now bars entry (by journalists) to the very places where people last week were barred from LEAVING (The Convention Center and Superdome) is a kind of perverse and perfectly backward postscript to this awful chapter in American history.
Assuming Williams's experience isn't unique among journalists -- and his description suggests it is not -- where is the media outrage? Where is the media's sense of responsibility to the public, at least to let them know what they are and are not being told? And why hasn't Williams mentioned the incidents in his on-air reporting from New Orleans?
Is this legal? Aren't we supposed to have a free press?
There's a part of me which genuinely wants to believe that this statement was issued primarily out of a desire to show respect for the victims -- but considering the colossal extent to which FEMA quite clearly fouled up, it's just too much for me to swallow. I simply can't help but think that it's at least in part motivated by the same rationale which has prompted the Department of Defense to ban the press from taking photographs of the coffins brought back from Iraq. I'll give the Bush administration credit for this much (although it isn't much) -- they have at least managed to learn at least one lesson from Vietnam. That was really the first war to be brought into people's homes visually as a result of television -- up close and personal, regularly, and on a large scale. You can't help but notice that ever since then, the government has always been careful to keep the press at a discreet distance from anything which might risk making John Q. Public disgusted with the actions of his government. It's hard to keep people convinced that things are going well when they're presented every day with visual evidence that they're not. With regard to the aftermath of Katrina, it's hard not to suspect that the reason why they don't want the press to photograph the bodies is because they're worried that the outcry will only get louder once people start realizing just how many people died...especially since there's a good chance that at least some of them could have been saved had it not been for the absolutely breathtaking incompetence of Mike Brown and others.
It's hard to keep people convinced that things are going well when they're presented every day with visual evidence that they're not. by bluestocking
***
I don’t think we need to see the bodies to recognize the magnitude of the loss. I would actually prefer they did show more respect for the dead then to display them surrounded by the indignities of the horrible death they suffered. If we need to see dead bloated and decaying bodies to recognize death then we are severely lacking in human empathy.
I felt this way when it was the right wing pundits who insisted they should keep showing the 9/11 attacks and the terrorist beheadings of hostages. So the people “would understand and not forget”. In my opinion if the people could do either they were a poor excuse for a human being.
The one exception that I feel does not fit into this scenario is the flag draped coffin. In that situation I feel it is a show of respect to the fallen soldiers and their sacrifice. We do not display them in death; we honor them as fallen Americans by draping the coffin with our flag.
There's a part of me which genuinely wants to believe that this statement was issued primarily out of a desire to show respect for the victims...
Honoring the dead with a "no pic" zone is a hollow, self-serving gesture on the part of the government. Sending help on a timely basis? Now THAT I can stand behind.
Out of sight, out of mind; whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the Gulf of Mexico coastline.
When was the last time you saw images of the current war in Afghanistan? I currently read about warfare in Iraq, but I see few images, and if so not very often on the front page. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I saw misery in the faces of the Iraqi's or Afghanis or anybody injured or killed, yet they are dying everyday over there. These are our wars, yet the media reports the wars as coldly as the reporting of statistics of a football game.
Football injuries get much more coverage.
There is no way that the Bush administration is going to let the American people see the results of its screw ups. They've got a judge in their pocket who is blocking the Abu Gharib photos, the government won't let us see the caskets of returning servicemen, and now we have FEMA blocking taking pictures of the bodies being recovered from the disaster. One thing we will also probably never find out is how many people really died in this disaster.
You see in Bush world, we are protected from the ugly results of this incompetent President and his policies. In Bush world, everything is beautiful and Michael Brown did a 'heck of a job.' In Bush world, the administration creates reality while their 'kool aid' drinking followers buy every inch of it.
As far as the press goes, well they should be outraged but if they complain to loudly they might not get another invitation to a Presidential barbeque. How could they pass up a chance to follow the President around and fawn all over him? What's the public's right to know compared to that?
And in Bush World, Bush haters hate Bush sheerly for the sake of hating him (oh, yeah, and because they're just jealous of his success).
Here in the UK where the press is still (relativly) free we have had the reporters for both the BBC and ITN news networks on the ground and out with the boat crews looking for survivors and those who still refuse to leave. Day after day they pass the same points and go past the same dead bodies. Yesterday on both network reports the civility of the reporters cracked and on both networks they were demanding the same answers to a simple question " These bodies have been there for SIX DAYS. When will they be collected, and don't these people deserve to be shown some dignity?" to the people from FEMA and the Emergency Units who were shown to be just milling around. Worse than that some crews were going around with camcorders just FILMING THE DESTRUCTION. The fact that all the bodies shown were black, and all the Emergency service units and National Guard units who were saying "It's not my job to pick them up" happened to be white is being broadcast throughout the world. Rightwingers on this site may get annoyed about it but the fact is that perception is EVERYTHING. This current American government's reputation across the world is already in the gutter, the pictures from this disaster, the harrowing stories from not only evacuees but officals on the ground at the time, the response of the President, the ineptitude of the heads of both Homeland Security and FEMA, the initial turning down of aid and assistance from both allies and those who are concidered enemies (but who have dealt with similar circumstances and know how to respond to them), the insensitive and frankly callous coments of his mother, the attempts to shift the entire blame to those at local level, and the spinning of those who still support this current President and his staff have all been noted. Those in charge may well say that now is not the time to play the blame game but from what we have seen in the last few days they are making sure that when things do come out, the least amount of mud will stick to them.
Your post reminds me of this fabulous article: [link to 12thharmonic.com]
Thanks for sticking with us.
-by Sagra
Thanks for sharing the link. Wow!!!
This MMfA piece omitted one crucial piece of information. Below is a link to a document the AP obtained a few days back.
[link to wid.ap.org]
It is a memo from Brown to Chertoff with the subject "DHS response to Katrina". Scroll down to Page 2, and under the section titled "Role of Assigned Personnel", you got this:
"Convey a positive image of disaster operations to government officials, community organizations and the general public."
Think about this for a moment.
The person in charge of FEMA send people down to the Gulf Coast with the objective of conveying a positive image of what FEMA were doing. Just disgraceful.
But my main point here is that any media censorship in NO is driven by the same philosophy that has has underpinned the whole FEMA response. That supporting the image of the government is a key FEMA function.
This government is sick and twisted to an extent I can hardly comprehend.
Plus, you know, they aren't even doing charity. They're getting paid for their work.
I'm confused now. Does FEMA stand for the Federal Emergency MARKETING Agency now?
The actual title is "Florida Election Marketing Agency", I think.
This is what Police State looks like!
Welcome to the new fascism. Not much different from the old fascism.
Let us remember who really runs the newsrooms at American's media outlets, the bean-counters with an MBA behind their names not the journalists.
Real journalists don't ask for permission to document history or expect to get chauffeured in a rescue boat.
Get off your soapbox, get into your hip waders and do your job.
Well, now that the reporters are seeing the huge disparity between what the government tells us and what is actually happening, I think they're deciding to.
Though it's a little harder with a gun muzzle pointed at you, as Brian Williams said on the Daily Show last night.
In an age of gun toting/shooting, axe murdering, car crashing, computer generated, war related, sensationalized movie making environments, you'd think any administration & media outlet would just let the information flow & let the public make up its own mind as to what is visual acceptable to view or not(see: Kill Bill Vol. I).
This cover-up of visual information of the Katrina tragedy is something the country & world SHOULD see so that we may heed warnings & better prepare ourselves for whatever unfortunate mishaps that may occur, nature or terriorists-wise---it's a new day & by the looks of things, we can't depend on the government or the media to make sure we have all the information we need.
p.s. Hey media, here's an **IDEA**---rent some boats of your own & GET THE STORY !!we all want!
solon,
It seems you forget that news reports and television cameras are everywhere. I've even seen TV of dead body's at the Superdome, (covered by sheets).
There is no repression of the media, there is only common sense and the protection of the deceased and their loved ones. There has to be some limits to the Freedom of the Press. Respect for the dead is just one of those limits.
It seems to me you would be arguing that it was okay for the paparazi to photograph Princess Diana as she pleaded for help while dying in a car crash. IMHO that argument is simply ghoulish. I would think you could put aside your political agenda and see that.
anotheramerican - Friday September 9, 2005 03:09:49 PM EST -
I am glad you told me, I would have no way of knowing. IF this story isnt about repression of the media exactly what is it about? Did FEMA or didnt they tell the media not to photograph bodies? Did they or did they not limit their access? If no one is stopping the media from showing whatever they think they should this whole column is a waste of time
solon,
I was just thinking the same thing... (about this thread being a waste of time.)
The major media will show what it wants to show, regardles of the orders by FEMA. Just as another poster said earlier, they refrain from showing some images due to common decency and good taste. (I know good taste is subjective.) And the thought occured to me, from lawsuits.
I think the FEMA request was done to prevent less mainstream types from exploiting the situation and causing further grief.
I believe from FEMA failed miserably. I believe the State has failed miserably. I believe the City has failed miserably. They all have had years to plan for this eventuality and they did not. No doubt each level of government filled with good people stuck in bungling, inept bureaucracies.
anotheramerican - Friday September 9, 2005 03:40:38 PM EST -
Let the media, mainstream or otherwise make their own decision based on what THEY think is newsworthy. Then let the people individually decide what they want to see. I am not watching any of it, this thread however seems to be saying that there is an attempt to restrict Katrina coverage. Until I see evidence otherwise I will assume its true, MMFA has a good track record in my opinion of being accurate in thier assertions. I object to this attempt.
This is not a normal situation though, is it?
Normally they do not publicize minor's pictures. In this case they are, because the greater need to link up missing family members outweighs the need to keep minors protected.
In a normal murder or death situation, they do not show the dead bodies clearly, but they do show bodies covered with sheets and sometimes they do show the dead bodies. But this is not a normal situation, is it?
We rely on the media to make reasonable decisions in these cases. It is not pleasant to see starving babies in Africa during droughts, but they show them on occasion, don't they?
It is the media's responsibility to do a fair and reasonable job of deciding what they show us.
It is not right for the government to attempt to restrict that coverage. The news I watched last night showed bodies. No close-ups, although they did show clothing, and if I was a mother, I would recognize the clothing my child was wearing the last time I saw them. It would be a shock to me to see them that way, of course. But this is not normal circumstances. And how would I identify the body in the morgue? By the clothes I last saw them in probably.
It's the media's job to police themselves, and not the government's job to censor this information. The government should not censor unless it's vital to national security. This is not vital to national security, and since it's not, it's clear that they are attempting to censor this because it makes them look bad, just like the flag-draped caskets make them look bad.
It is the media's responsibility to do a fair and reasonable job of deciding what they show us.
It is not right for the government to attempt to restrict that coverage. The news I watched last night showed bodies. No close-ups, although they did show clothing, and if I was a mother, I would recognize the clothing my child was wearing the last time I saw them. It would be a shock to me to see them that way, of course. But this is not normal circumstances. And how would I identify the body in the morgue? By the clothes I last saw them in probably.
It's the media's job to police themselves, and not the government's job to censor this information. The government should not censor unless it's vital to national security. This is not vital to national security, and since it's not, it's clear that they are attempting to censor this because it makes them look bad, just like the flag-draped caskets make them look bad.
by monkey
-------------------------------------
monkey, I don't know if this post was meant for me, but I'll reply anyway.
You bring up several valid points and I agree the Bush administration was wrong in their refusal to allow the public not to be able to view the flag-draped caskets. However in this instance I don't see the necessity to show decomposed bodies. I've no problem with them photographing body bags, or even (from a distance) recovering bodies from the water. My objection is close-up views of the corpses. I see no purpose in that, and question why anyone would insist on it without a ulterior motive.
murph - Friday September 9, 2005 04:00:27 PM EST -
I've no problem with them photographing body bags, or even (from a distance) recovering bodies from the water. My objection is close-up views of the corpses.<<
Now you are changing the argument. I would certainly question the media that showed disgusting and grisly photos myself but that is not what FEMA was saying was it, here is what MMFA said
"asked the media not to take pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath"
Nothing about upclose and horrific, pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. So exactly what IS your objection to this thread which says THAT is inappropriate?
"Nothing about upclose and horrific, pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. So exactly what IS your objection to this thread which says THAT is inappropriate?"
by solon
------------------------------------
solon, I felt that if photographers went along on boats and took photos that it was "too close"
"A September 7 Reuters article reported that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) "asked the media not to take pictures of those killed by Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath" and "refused to take reporters and photographers along on boats seeking victims in flooded areas."
When I say I've no problem with photos be taken from a "distance", I mean a far distance. On the boat taking those photographs to me would mean "close-ups"
murph - Friday September 9, 2005 04:25:36 PM EST
So your argument is one of degree and you think YOUR opinion ought to rule the day instead of allowing it to be left to the media. My objection is to the government should leave it up to the media to decide what is newsworthy. I dont want YOU or the government making that decision. I have no dog in this fight beyond not wanting to see any government supression of media as I am not going to watch it anyway.
In a September 7 CBS Evening News report, correspondent Lee Cowan noted simply that "FEMA asked us not to show how its crews removed bodies out of this nursing home, but suffice it to say, it was horrific."
So not only did FEMA want CBS News to avoid showing what was going on, CBS News apparently willingly complied.
I find CBS's actions more disturbing than FEMA's.
As Zappa faceitiously intoned.."it can't happen here"...
That is precisely where we have been headed with these fascists.
I'm tired of the electorate continually voting against their best interests.
Ike would be sad to see his warning of the MI complex unheeded.
I am increasingly stunned and getting too jaded by the lack of a responsible press.
The dumbing of America is almost completed.
What else can explain no impeachment of the CEO of the USA?
The founding fathers were considered terrorists, and would be treated as such today. They would be stunned to find there has not been a single constitutional convention since their time. If the basic tenant of our founding was the elimination of a government not of and for the people, revolution may still be the only recourse.
Then again, we are becoming too stupid to realize the importance and need for change.
I fear for the child I've brought into this world.
Well, it looks like the news reporters(our "free press") is stating the death toll isn't as bad as predicted, implying the initial estimate of 10,000 was highly exagerated. They say the official death toll is up to 118.
[link to www.cnn.com]
I hope this true, however, I have my doubts.
It's looks now will be hearing there is no point in reporting the deaths because the death toll is SO SMALL!!! And because the death toll is insignificant, Bush and his cronies therfore did such a wonderful job in mitigating the disaster in New Orleans.
When will we ever have a free press....
My objection to to the FEMA policy is that it renders the press unable to report on the clean-up and recovery operations, and leaves it in the situation it is in in Iraq. I'm not convinced by the "let's show respect for the dead by not showing decomposing corpses on TV" argument, because I'm not convinced that the news media want to cover the clean-up so they can show decomposing corpses. I assume they want to cover the clean-up so that they can have independent information regarding what's being done and what's being found, instead of relying on a press briefing that tells them only what the people giving it want them to know.
It's always about the same thing with this administration -- transparency. In truth, it's about transparency in all administrations, but this one is the most unabashedly secretive I can remember. If the truth of the aftermath of Katrina is grisly, then so be it. Hiding the truth doesn't change it.
-mid
The Media Outrage is buried deep somewhere in the 'Patriot Act'
Here in the UK where the press is still (relativly) free we have had the reporters for both the BBC and ITN news networks on the ground and out with the boat crews looking for survivors and those who still refuse to leave. Day after day they pass the same points and go past the same dead bodies.
by ukobserver
I'm glad that I took the time to read all the postings on this particular topic, before I replied to it. As I was going to make the same points, as those that have already been so expertly expressed, by my fellow Brit, ukobsever.
One of the BBC reporters, who has been reporting from the devastation of New Orleans. Has shown the viewers the same body every night, over this last week. He has asked various military and medical crews, when they are going to remove the body. Sometimes even asking them pleadingly to do something, and give that dead person some dignity.
On Wednesday the BBC reporter went up and started to talk to a couple of paramedics. Again they were asked/challenged to remove the body. They replied that they didn't have the permission or the authority to do so. And that the still living were there priority, even though they were standing around doing nothing at the time. They then went on to explain that they were waiting on instructions from whoever was in charge of them, as to what to do next.
They were then later filmed standing on a bridge, taking photographs of the situation, like a couple of day-trippers. With the body just lying there, in full view of them. At least some caring soul had the common decency to cover the body up.
If you are fed up with trying to get the truth from American news organisations. Here are two websites addresses for the BBC. Newsnight is news show, which can be watched on broadband. It usually has reports on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, every night at the moment.
www.bbc.co.uk
www.bbc.co.uk/newsnight
As we are discussing ‘media outrage over purported government attempts to restrict reporting on important news stories. I thought I would bring you this story, which seems to be having limited coverage over in America, (I don’t know why that is). Hunger strike:
Published: 9 Sep 2005 By: Julian Rush
Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are several weeks into a hunger strike protesting against abuse and imprisonment without trial, some are being force fed.
They've been on hunger strike for five weeks: their health now so precarious some are being force fed - others are on medical treatment.
More than 200 detainees at Guantanamo Bay are said to be taking the drastic action in protest over their conditions - a figure strongly denied by the US authorities at the base.
Monitors from the International Red Cross are due to visit the detention centre next week to check on their condition.
But a US military spokesman insisted inmates would NOT be allowed to die. Julian Rush reports.
Here is the link for the video of the news story:
[link to www.channel4.com]
I cannot believe that liberals would want to disrepect the dead by showing them on national television. What's the purpose? Do you have to see your grandmother decaying and bloated on television to know she is dead?
"I cannot believe that liberals would want to disrepect the dead by showing them on national television"
How again is it disrespecting the dead? Is it disrespecting living people when they're talking on TV? Because someone's dead, it's disrespectful to show them on TV? Even if it's not in an identifying way?
Maybe that's how you feel, but let me assure you the Rep. politicians are shielding them from view for entirely different reasons.
Conservatives never cease to amaze me. The anti-regulation, free-market believers suddenly have no problem with the big bad gov't telling media outlets what they can and cannot show on to their consumers.
Yet, another reason why Conservatives have no credibility.
Will some liberal tell me why it is neccessary to show ROTTING, BLOATED, and DECAYING bodies????? This one baffles me. The idiotic response from losingfaith,"Is it disrespecting living people when they're talking on TV?", is the stupidest thing I have heard in a while. Are dead people able to talk or particiapte in an interview? Should we have a portion of nightly news to show the dead(not from hurricane) before we put them in their caskets? What about the gang members killed every day? Should we start a new program dedicated to showing dead bodies? If so, we should also show pictures or video of all the dead fetuses from abortions right?
The government should not make that decision and censor the media.
Unless it is for national security, then the media should not be censored.
It's pretty simple, actually.
When the media shows graphic things, they warn the viewers. If you don't want to watch, then don't. If you are offended by what you see, then complain to the news media.
Having a problem with them showing this stuff is very different from saying that the government should censor them.
Dirk said "Will some liberal tell me why it is neccessary..."
In our free country it is necessary to protect freedoms.
I am sorry that you as a conservative have lost sight of that value and are willing to unnecessarily give up some of the freedoms our country stands for, the Freedom of the Press.
From the Constitution
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
It's not okay for the government to attempt to restrict Katrina coverage.
It's really sad that you are so partisan that you refuse to stand up for what our country has stood for for over 200 years.
There is a famous essay
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out -- because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me -- and by then there was no one left to speak out for me. (Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller, German priest)
So what you are saying is equivalent to "first the government restricted the press from showing pictures of the Katrina dead, and I did not speak up because I didn't care. I did not want to see those pictures, so I felt no loss." But what your short-sighted, partisan attitude fails to recognize is the path that this can lead down. It is unfair to the Jews or the trade unionists to be singled out, and everyone should have stood up for them. It is unfair for the government to censor the press, and everyone should stand up for the freedom of the press.
Actually, your last suggenstion isn't bad. Then all the self-righteous holier-than-thou types could see for themselves - well, they wouldn't see much, as first-term fetuses are barely perceptible to the naked eye.
Of course, right-to-be-born-at-any-cost-screw-the-mother types would still refer to them as babies, but they'd sound even more ridiculous than they do now.
first trimester, suggestion
It seems like instead of the news crews being able to go out with the rescuers and show them performing heroic rescues, they have to go out on their own, which they are doing, and not show heroic rescues but show stranded people.
To me it would seem like being allowed to show the rescuers doing their job would benefit the image people have about the Federal Government's job performance here. But don't tell FEMA this. They might actually wake up and recognize that people know that others have died, and cooperating with the news media is always going to help you out in these circumstances more than impeding the news media. If you impede the news media, then that barrier becomes news too.