I came across an article the other day that talked about how the Obama administration is now limiting access to the detention camps at Guantanamo Bay. I chose to read and look into the article further because while I am somewhat familiar with the situation at Guantanamo, I really wanted to learn more and be able to have a better understanding of the whole debate. Right now, I just feel that I do not know enough about the Guantanamo Bay controversy to make a solid opinion of my own about it. So here's what I read:
During the election, President Obama had pledged to shut down the controversial Cuba-based facility and ran on a platform of transparency, meaning that the media, among others, would be granted greater access to the facility in order to report back to the public the events taking place through film, photos, and written observations about the conditions. However, that is not the case now. In fact, Obama has tightened access to the detention camps and has made it even tougher for the media to speak with the guards and prisoners within the area.
Of course one would assume that this would raise questions by many critics regarding the validity of his pledges of transparency. According to the American Civil Liberties Union Director, Anthony Romero, "in light of the Obama administration saying they wish to have greater transparency, it's more than a bit ironic that members of the press are now being denied access to the camps when they had it before under President Bush".
Several sources have reported that the decision to limit access came from Washington and the Pentagon and was a result of past experiences involving the media. For instance, one of the possible "triggers" that was discussed involved the reporters' interaction with the Chinese Muslims at one of the camps. During this particular visit, the prisoners held up offensive messages, one of which being whether President Obama was a "Communist or a Democrat". Sources say that this incident was highly mortifying to the White House and Pentagon, especially since they were desperately trying to find a home for these prisoners.
Overall, after reading the article, I still do not completely understand the whole debate, but I do feel a little more informed about the situation as far as why access has been limited. While I do think that the media should have some access to the detention camps in order to perform their duty of reporting back to the people, I also feel that the media's access should be limited and monitored because we all know how the media loves to play up the most controversial aspects of a situation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with you. I'm a little confused on what would be the best thing to do... if the media is granted more access, then the government looks bad...if the media is granted less acess, then Obama looks like he's not staying true to his word. I do think the public should be informed on what exactly is going on over there. But I can also understand from the governmental standpoint that right now may not be the best time to test those waters. Ah! Confusing.
ReplyDeleteI share your confusion, Amanda. To me this is just another situation in a long line of situations where a president has said he will do one thing and then either fails to follow through or does the exact opposite. I think that as far as the media is concerned they should be granted access as to be able to fulfill their role to the public, as you said. And again, anytime media access is tightened in any circumstance it is going to raise eyebrows and create a forum for controversy. I still hold a degree of conspiracy theorist's perspective when it comes to anything that our government does, especially when it comes to the Mass Media and the Government being in the same bed. This is one of those issues that I have chosen not to lose sleep over because I feel that there are far more pertinent things going on that require our president's attention and that we as a nation of citizens should be aware of and hold our government accountable for. Good find though. I will have to read that article.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you in this aspect of your blog. I am one of those people who look to the law first and then decide what should and should not be allowed to be open to the public. In this particular instance, I think that there was no immediate danger to the public and therefore the information should be released. I also agree with the earlier post that stated that there are more important things that we should be thinking about at the moment. Either way, we are still talking about it and the surveillance and socialization of the media take effect. They can basically tell us what to think and talk about by the amount of coverage a particular story gets.
ReplyDelete