YouTube Pulls Salem-News.com Video Showing Dead Terrorist in Iraq

As a world society, we will never advance beyond armed conflict if we shield the population from the real image of war- and that is death.

(SALEM, Ore.) - Some pretty radical video clips have been posted on YouTube since the company began posting videos online a few years ago.

In spite of some of those spicy videos that have made the cut, we have always known that the organization had standards, and I certainly don't object to that. But I do take exception to their removing one of my Iraq War reports last summer that showed a dead terrorist. I think YouTube needs a serious reality check.

YouTube bans pornographic or sexually explicit video showing frontal nudity of women. It is OK to show topless men. The site is known for plenty of bare behinds; apparently that part is OK.

YouTube does not allow graphic violence. That's really nice of them, but the world is full of violence and isolating people from it doesn't help the victims very much. Of course every type of foul and disgusting thing involving horror and murder movies is just fine, but a dose of reality is apparently too much.

YouTube does not allow "disturbing or disgusting video footage" and I'm guessing this is where my report qualifies, if you will. YouTube Community Guidelines state, "YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies or similar things intended to shock or disgust."

Not a shock site? I think a whole lot of people and statistics would disagree with that.

I see and have seen plenty of dead bodies on YouTube, but I was threatened in a message from the company, which indicated that we could face having our account closed for "future violations".

So we will be looking around for a new place to post credible news stories. The main reason we often use YouTube is because more people have the ability to see our videos if they are prominent on the video sites as well as Salem-News.com.

Other rules are simple and logical. You can not violate copyright laws, videos can't contain hate speech, "including verbal attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability or nationality." Makes sense to me.

The part about "disturbing or disgusting" seems fair, but the question is where do they draw the line?

My video report filed from Baghdad, Iraq on August 28th, 2008, featured Iraqi Special Forces soldiers in Baghdad who had just killed a man they described as a terrorist.

The video included cell phone footage of the dead suspected terrorist in Dora, laid across the hood of an Iraqi Army HUMVEE. Was it disturbing? Of course it was, but it wasn't that bad and there was a disclaimer so people knew ahead of time that the video contained graphic footage.

Along with the dead body was the jubilation of the Iraqi Special Forces soldiers celebrating their victory of that day with traditional song and dance.

War is a disgusting, dirty bloody and smelly subject, and sugar coating YouTube and blocking people from seeing death in this venue isn't doing the world any favors.

Are Civil War Photographer Matthew Brady's images of dead Confederate and Union troops rotting and bloated on the battlefield also banned? How about WWII? Vietnam?

Think about it; in order to even see this particular video that I produced, someone would have to search for Baghdad, Iraq. If anyone does that and thinks they are going to see a Guns and Roses Show, they aren't living on the same planet that I reside on. Baghdad is a city that has been devastated by the U.S. military and nobody will ever even know the real death toll. But as much as that may be the case, there are still soldiers working with ours, like the men in the IA Special Forces that I met that day, who are sincerely interested in ridding Iraq of people who are willing to plant bombs that kill soldiers and civilians.

At that time last summer Dora was a real problem area and there was plenty of combat going on between insurgents, U.S. and Iraqi forces. These guys were just sharing what their day had entailed. Soldiers kill people. YouTube apparently attempts to sterilize the online video community and I admit I am shocked over it. I of course recognize that we are talking about a business and businesses make their own rules, but this strikes me as a departure from the feeling that YouTube has developed among its users, like myself.

The article that accompanied the video report is available and we will work on getting the associated video report posted to another site. (see: One Day in Baghdad: Part 1)

-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------

Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com's Executive News Editor.
Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 in Afghanistan with Oregon troops. Tim recently returned from Iraq where he covered the war there while embedded with an Oregon Guard aviation unit. Serving the community in very real terms, Salem-News.com is the nation's only truly independent high traffic news Website, affiliated with Google News and several other major search engines and news aggregators.
You can send Tim an email at this address: newsroom@salem-news.com

Salem-News.com Top Stories

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Mike January 20, 2009 10:32 am (Pacific time)

I believe in todays market that any paper that is not scrambling to make ends meet or is severely reducing staff is doing fairly well. I do see that the word "thriving" may connotate something else, so maybe a bad choice of a descriptor. I will pencil in some time and see if I can find some papers that are thriving, but maintaining an operational staus quo isn't too bad during these times. I am not all that familiar with FOX, other than I read that the majority of it's employees donated to the democratic party. I have noticed that they interview people of all political and ideological stripes, so that may be a reason they are doing well, that is they have something for everyone. Some of the other networks like MSNBC must be doing poorly for some reason? I certainly agree that stories coming from different points of views can be valuable, I also believe that the American news consumer is a lot sharper than they were not too long ago and that is the reason many news outfits have declining circulation and/or viewership.

Mike January 19, 2009 10:18 am (Pacific time)

Henry your below post does not address the very salient fact that many newspapers are thriving or maintaining status quo, including some cable networks, while others are sinking fast, like the Times, Boston Globe, Seattle Post-Intelligence, Gannett, etc.. As I pointed out earlier the American news consumer knows what they want and it is not partisan one-sided viewpoints. The proof is in the pudding. Actually this is very good for journalism, we will weed out the propagandists and the American citizen will be better informed, and this will make their future decision-making abilities much improved. I say if you see Congress attempting to start up the so-called Fairness Doctrine, then you know that they might not like to see informed voters out there. Why would anyone want to suppress different viewpoints, unless they were scared?!

Editor: Visitors are reminded that the comment section is free and open to anyone and just because a poster says something, absolutely does not make it true, I suppose there are a few newspapers still doing well, but to state it the way you do Mike, paints a picture that is not true. I don't believe a single newspaper in the U.S. is "thriving" right now and I would like to hear about it if there are facts to disprove what I just said. I would further state that any newspapers that are doing well, are doing so largely because they have embraced the Internet and have succesful Web operations.

By the way Mike, if "partisan one-sided viewpoints" are not what Americans want, then how on earth do you explain the success and popularity of FOX News? I think time is showing us that the Internet allows a consumer to see stories from a number of points of view, and that will continue. Good, bad or otherwise, the variety of today's online media allows people to be in their comfort zone and a large number of people do.

Henry Clay Ruark January 19, 2009 8:57 am (Pacific time)

Mike et al: Here's "see with own eyes" re economic impacts driving daily newspaper downwards-plunge: www.nytimes.com January 19, 2009 Editors and Publishers in a Revolving Door By RICHARD PÉREZ-PEÑA (Key pgh excerpted) “The primary explanation is the unremitting pressure on these guys to produce journalism at a lower and lower cost,” said Conrad C. Fink, a professor of newspaper management at the University of Georgia. A flurry of buying and selling from 2005 to 2007, fueled by easy credit, put record debt burdens on many of the nation’s metropolitan dailies. Since then, advertising revenue has plummeted and layoffs have become common." ------------ Report also covers some of the reader-dissatisfaction trends you pointed up, as we agreed in dialog. BUT major force killing dailies is economic,by same causes as for every other part of our economy. Essential to understand if any remedy is to be applied, soon or late.

Mike January 18, 2009 12:25 pm (Pacific time)

Henry thanks for your feedback, but I disagree with you . With so many of the newspapers and other media losing larger and larger market shares it may be time to actually see what the American citizen wants. Who are the news agencies/organizations that are currently successful, maybe even growing? My feelings are that those organizations that provide balanced coverage are succeeding and those like the New York Times have become recognized as partisan, and that's why they are failing. It should be noted that they were bleeding circulation even when the economy was doing well, so this line about losing advertisers because of the economy is not the primary reason for their losses. The reader out there knows what they want.

Henry Ruark January 17, 2009 3:15 pm (Pacific time)

Mike, Stephen, Chris: Each of you makes some fair points; but each suffers also from same syndrome of which you complain: Lack of complete understanding due to partial uninformation, protracted misinformation via noise machine over past 30 years, perhaps even some impact of malignities undiscovered and unapparent to you. In no way does that imply perfect correctness to Op Ed statement, only to missing pieces (by me !) which, if possible to make you fully aware, you, too, might well accept as shaping the total image (difficult in 1000-wds.) That's great danger of Op Ed in persuasive-affective style since it reflects factual data purposively to impact some at one angle, others at another, with intention to create cogitation --thus is open to easy partial understanding or none at all, or anything in-between. SO we seem to be doing SOMEthing right...!?? ...since dialog here doth surely continue after each Op Ed. Your judgment whether that is a good or not... My apologies for any actual awkwardness; can only state run readability test(s) which show level at 8th Gr./H.S. for most; some few 1st/yr/college. Unfortunately any reader-level test depends on population in which it was validated, which leaves ANY open to question since NONE reflect this readership. If you wish further clarity on any point, ID to Editor will bring direct contact and fair, welcome further dialog. Sorry if you did not get your nickel's worth, but choice must remain yours, as for many others from whom we do hear with some encouragement, some of the time, in fact more than in other sources over the years, reflected in Editor's checks for same and some awards, neatly framed here. You can always perpetrate your own reports, too...try it some time, and be sure to share any responses you earn.

stephen January 16, 2009 4:58 pm (Pacific time)

I know..now I am becoming a pest. but as long as I am civil, salem-news seems nice enough to put up with me. I will try not to take advantage, but this is important, and it is in regards to Henry. Why is it Henry, that I can look back 100 years, as in the HBO series deadwood, and hear them talk so eloquently as you do, I can look back 1000 years and read shakespeare's eloquent words, but I myself, altho a college graduate, can barely understand the true English language? I have to read your posts 3 or 4 times and not sure if I am even understanding you? Maybe a topic for another time. I will stop now. Thanks tho Salem-news. :-) good night.

stephen January 16, 2009 4:46 pm (Pacific time)

sorry henry if I dont understand completely what you say. I enjoyed the HBO series "deadwood" (a good show from the late 1800''s), and it took me awhile to catch on, because the english language was not taught to me in school. But, in simple terms, (sorry, I grew up in the federally funded school system, not a fault of mine). this is not a complex subject. It is simple. Google and youtube will allow just about anything unless it is against israel. I dont need to understand the english language as well as you do to know this.

stephen January 16, 2009 4:13 pm (Pacific time)

with all due respect. one persons bias is another persons belief.. then, "those are factual statements: seems a bit hypocritical. Facts to who? YOUR bias research? MY bias research? Your views through your research is fact, but others are not? You should read the Bible book of Job sometime. These same type of intellectual statements went on and on. In fact, the book of Job whether a believer in God or not, is one of the most fascinating books I have read. Hah Henry! I am getting better at this huh? I cant be sure, but thru seeing very difficult times, being patient,I have been praying much. I am fine overall, I am prepared, but I am concerned over others and the overall state of the world and it hurts me. Seems as tho prayer for wisdom is helping me grow. IN regards to this topic, I have been fighting this type of censorship with google and a couple others for months. Basically, it is not fair because google/youtube allows so much crud, that not allowing videos of palestinian videos is simple an outrage, and hypocritical, and millions are beginning to notice how much power the zionist regime has over the media in the U.S., maybe other countries.

ChrisJones January 16, 2009 10:57 am (Pacific time)

This is purely political and you can tell this information control policy is wide ranging encompassing basically the entire media apparatus. Control of the media is a key element of socialism. Many thinking people prefer to not be treated like the states little children and are seeing through the fake corniness of their false reality that they think they can just pawn off on us, where slaughtering and mutilating humans is totally normal. Thats why we need more independent websites like this and more Tim Kings. infowars dot com lewrockwell dot com

Mike January 16, 2009 8:44 am (Pacific time)

I find this quote amusing and ironic: "Declaration of censorship demands clear access to what was known to be available, and is impossible to detect after the fact, except by arrogant interpretation by whatever does NOT appear --surely a chancy operation even for professionals trained to do so, as in propaganda study by content analysis. Those are factual statements, solidly documented in any reference to this very complex topic." One can attribute the declining readership and viewership of the MSM by whatever theory they want, it still is a fact that it is declining and in recent days many papers are closing down, filing for bankruptcy, even laying off employees in hopes of hanging on. In my opinion these outfits are failing because fair-minded people are fed up with misinformation, distortion and even outright censorship of news which is becoming more and more apparent as other news sources counter these reporting travesties by providing an alternative. There are still many papers and television outlets that are doing well out there in this economic climate. Why? Well, fair-minded people know when they are being given the truth, or at least are provided with info that they can decide (research) for themselves it's truthfullness and veracity. The propagandist's audience is shrinking daily, so they may try to legislate new laws to prevent their demise. Keep vigilant, for any new laws that try to stop or curtail the free flow of democratic debate. For example the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which should be called something else.

Henry Ruark January 15, 2009 7:37 pm (Pacific time)

To all: One person's bias is another person's solidly honest belief --whether political, social, cultural, or religious. Declaration of censorship demands clear access to what was known to be available, and is impossible to detect after the fact, except by arrogant interpretation by whatever does NOT appear --surely a chancy operation even for professionals trained to do so, as in propaganda study by content analysis. Those are factual statements, solidly documented in any reference to this very complex topic.

Daniel January 15, 2009 6:50 pm (Pacific time)

As quickly as youtube became stellar they can flame out against a new more politically open site . The web is still in is infancy , companies rise and fall every day .

Harumph January 15, 2009 6:35 pm (Pacific time)

Best of luck. YouTube censors lots of things, and seems to have a pretty clear political bias, too. Until someone with deep pockets can fund another site with more transparent and accountable management, we're kinda stuck with it, just like we are the biases of Google's search, which has begun censoring political sites.

[Return to Top]

YouTube Pulls Salem-News.com Video Showing Dead Terrorist in Iraq

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News