Give The Families Privacy

Reading the New York Times this weekend caused me some irritation by way of an editorial blessing the Obama's decision to review the policy of prohibiting pictures being taken of returned deceased servicemen. The editorial lauded the anticipated change in access, and criticised the policy first put in place by Bush 41. The praise was based mostly on the premise of the nation needing to see the images of the result of war and the bereavement of the families affected.
In the February 9 press conference the President was questioned and said.....

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You promised to send more troops to Afghanistan. And since you've been very clear about a timetable to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, I wonder what's your timetable to withdraw troops eventually from Afghanistan?

And related to that, there's a Pentagon policy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming in to Dover Air Force Base. And back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that it was shameful for dead soldiers to be "snuck back into the country under the cover of night." You've promised unprecedented transparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that policy so the American people can see the full human cost of war?

OBAMA: Your question is timely. We got reports that four American service members have been killed in Iraq today, and obviously our thoughts and prayers go out to the families. I've said before that -- you know, people have asked me when did it hit you that you are now President? And what I told them was the most sobering moment is signing letters to the families of our fallen heroes. It reminds you of the responsibilities that you carry in this office and the consequences of decisions that you make.

Now, with respect to the policy of opening up media to loved ones being brought back home, we are in the process of reviewing those policies in conversations with the Department of Defense, so I don't want to give you an answer now before I've evaluated that review and understand all the implications involved.

The questioner's phrase "full human cost of war" masks the intent, that being to undermine public support for the war. That in itself fits the personality of the news media for, to them, more access is always better. While I have huge issues with this attitude from a political viewpoint, people are allowed their own opinions (there is an argument that reporters are not). There is a point of view that the reporters and the New York Times are not giving fair value.
The families of the deceased right to privacy that supersedes the wishes of the press. If the families in turn elect to contact the press in this matter that is their right.
What's more, the wishes of the deceased are not being respected in this proposed policy shift. Being volunteers who willingly chose to enlist and serve, their commitment to the principle of national security should not be ignored.
Not be ignored so some snivelling reporter can give his opinion rather than report the facts.
Secretary Gates is reported to be considering the shift. How do you think this will be received by the men who really count, those risking their lives?
Give the families privacy in their last moments with their brave loved ones.
Let them decide when to include or exclude the press.