View Full Version : Supreme Court favors Peter Turnley
Harry Lime
10-08-2007, 15:35
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001320
Some good news. This is a pretty big deal.
HL
BigSteveG
10-08-2007, 15:46
I agree it's a good decision for the 1st amendment. Although, I think the pic itself offers no real news value. I wouldn't have published it out of respect for the family.
1200 people turn out to show respect for a fallen soldier and support for his family. The funeral was open casket by the family's wish. That has news value in most communities - and continues to be news for the entire country and world.
The fact that the article highlights grieving families on both sides of the US/Iraq conflict is a fine attempt at humanizing the conflict. No disrespect - just eye opening for those who deny the humanity of their adversary.
Bully for Harper's and Turnley.
Gregg
M4streetshooter
10-08-2007, 16:03
I have thousands of images like that from the Patriot Guard Missions that I've done and will continue to do. I don't think the image should have been published, not because of respect to the family but for respect of "The Fallen Hero." Just because 1200 or so people may have seen that scene in the church, doesn't mean that the general public needs to see it.
Peter's a real pro and Harper's is a good publication...but the fact is that by now or shortly in the future, they won't remember the soldier's name. The family on the other hand will never get over loosing their "SON."
Maybe it's just me but that's how I feel. In fact, I have over 1100 images from Viet-Nam in the Library of Congress. I made them as a grunt in Nam....when I returned home, I made prints and decided that no-one should ever see the images...so I put them in The Library.....
I could make a lot of money if I ever wanted to publish a book...but it's more about humanity and being a Human Being than money or anything else. Peter's a Human Being but that image being published.....kinda makes me feel that maybe he's loosing grasp on it.......
later don
I'm thinking that perhaps the only reason that this is controversial at all, is because ....
... well, perhaps it would be best not to bring up politics.
Bill Pierce
10-08-2007, 16:48
I suspect a lot of people are going to disagree with me, but, when it comes to war coverage, I don't see enough horrible images in the major news publications. Almost everybody who covers wars has been told, "We can't publish that; it's too horrible."
War is too horrible. If the pictures offend you, good. It might give you a little more appreciation of what some young kids are going through for you.
Bill
shenkerian
10-08-2007, 16:52
I think James Nachtwey says it eloquently: "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." White-washing the coverage to make it more palatable does the public a disservice - sometimes the conscience needs to be shocked.
I think the line could be drawn on revealing an identity without familial consent.
Gary Cox
10-08-2007, 16:58
Well put Mr. Pierce, IMO.
Gary
The current middle east confict has had one of the great snow jobs of all time done on it. This photo moved me and reminded me pecisely what the real cost of war is ... not dollars but human lives!
M4streetshooter
10-08-2007, 17:19
If you want to see the real aftermath currently in our country....about our KIDS.....log onto patriotguard.org look in your region and go to a mission (funeral)..stand there and maybe even join the flag line.....
hopefully there won't be any protesters holding signs like "Thank G-D your son is dead"....
and then when it's over (for you)...thank the LORD that it wasn't your brother or daughter or son, or father or........
M4streetshooter
10-08-2007, 17:23
Not sure I follow you on that one, if they are in the Library of Congress then they are there for any researcher to view.
As the Library puts it:
My images are in The Library collection in a private Catalog with restricted access. I have a code number for access and they have it. It is not for the general public until I decide to release them....probably never will..I maintain all rights to the images but many were used in
The Winter Soldier Investigation in the late 60's and early 70's. They were used for both sides of the investigation.....
Can I respectfully ask why you took pictures you want no one to see?
Living in Oklahoma, I'm a little surprised the decision was upheld. I think that being tasteful and respectful is important, but also that you don't have a free press if you can't publish images that represent cold hard truth, and seeing dead bodies during war is part of that. As to the photo itself, I thought it looked weird having the casket off to the side with the audience looking forward. It was almost like they were hiding the thing, or pulling it out of a closet. And being so far away (as opposed to a close-up) it didn't seem offensive to me at all. But I understand those who feel differently about it.
Frank: I can understand that decision. Not having been in the military, much less combat, I can't say I feel the same way, but something so powerful and personal as those photos could hold too much power to be given to the strangers.
There is a difference between personal photo records and reportage/journalism. Both are important, and with all due respect to you, m4streetshooter, I don't believe one should dictate appropriateness of the other.
M4streetshooter
10-08-2007, 17:55
Living in Oklahoma, I'm a little surprised the decision was upheld. I think that being tasteful and respectful is important, but also that you don't have a free press if you can't publish images that represent cold hard truth, and seeing dead bodies during war is part of that. As to the photo itself, I thought it looked weird having the casket off to the side with the audience looking forward. It was almost like they were hiding the thing, or pulling it out of a closet. And being so far away (as opposed to a close-up) it didn't seem offensive to me at all. But I understand those who feel differently about it.
see, there's the problem...you nailed it on the head...
you stated
"It was almost like they were hiding the thing, or pulling it out of a closet. And being so far away (as opposed to a close-up) it didn't seem offensive to me at all."
THING.....it's a person's SON not a thing......as a thing...it's not offensive...as a Human Being...it damn sure is..... as long as soldiers are things...there will always be wars...
and that also answers Franks question about why I made images for no one to see......because they are images of people not things......
horrible images of the carnage people do to other people......
this is a really hot subject and maybe we should continue in a moderated forum....I've debated this many times and it always stirs up many passions....
M4streetshooter
10-08-2007, 18:15
So in answer to my query, they are available for research. So anyone with the proper credentials can view?
The LOC must have some kind of time limit, your death?
It's like a model release.....copyright etc...my heirs...get the rights.....
my daughter will be my executer....she's active Air Force...did 2 tours in Iraq...she knows how I feel.......
besides, many of the images are of my buddies, many died ...in pieces......don't think I want thier moms to see these images.......
BigSteveG
10-08-2007, 18:24
I agree war is a horrible thing. I am against the war and a staunch Democrat. But that pic itself will do nothing to change the minds of those in agreeance with the war. It's true the event was newsworthy for that community, but it could've been better illustrated. It is not difficult to move the emotions of people by exhibiting some sad or horrific event. Bearing witness to terrible event is itself a cross to bear and there is no reason to inflict that kind of pain on the undeserving. Bloody scenes are shown on television every night. In terms of "whitewashing", this scene itself is not remarkable. It is just sad.
Bill Pierce
10-08-2007, 18:26
Just for the record this is a moderated forum, all of them are, Bill P is the moderator, he can delete or edit any post, as can any moderator with admin privileges. Most like Bill and myself are limited to our own forum, and cannot moderate anywhere else.
Truth is, since I'm a beginner at this, I don't even know how to delete or edit a post. Seems completely unnecessary so far. When I have the time, I would like to learn to post images. I would like to show you some of the images that magazines have held deadlines to see, but, in the end, thought they would be too offensive. Of course, having seen the actual subject of the picture, the picture to me always seems too tame.
Bill
When I said "thing" I was referring to the casket, which is a thing. Of course you are right, the person in the casket is not a thing. My point isn't to try and take sides in whether photographs like this are ever appropriate, but rather to say that this particular photograph makes the casket seem small and almost put aside to me, and who knows maybe that was the photographer's intent, to symbolize the way in which most people hear about casualties the way they listen to news of someone else's weather. The effect is certainly different than, say, a closeup in which the soldier's face fills the frame.
I understood your reference to the thing being the casket.
saxshooter
10-08-2007, 18:38
I am glad that we are discussing this here. But I find it interesting that there is rarely discussion (not necessarily here) of appropriateness, taste, or consent if a similar picture were taken in Gaza, the West Bank, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, etc. and printed in a U.S. publication.
I could make a lot of money if I ever wanted to publish a book...later don
In today's marketplace, NO ONE makes a lot of money publishing phtography books. Well, maybe a few of the publishers...never the photographers...
Beyond that, I'm really curious what purpose you feel having the photos in the LOC accomplishes if access is so restricted - or, for that matter, why they accepted them with such conditions attached. I'm just trying to understand, I'm not being sarcastic...
M4streetshooter
10-08-2007, 18:45
I understood it too...but that thing houses the remains of all that, that person will ever be and the broken hearts of his family.....
big steve...nicely put......maybe Peter should have used a wide angle lens and got in much closer...maybe even do the photo reflecting in the soldiers, mothers eye.....
I know working on the streets, that being kinda like a voyeur is a great way to capture images...but I never forgot that....
the camera is the voyeur, not the photographer......
Another aspect to this discussion is the timeliness of the photography. The closer to the subject of the photograph in terms of time, the more offensive and more overtly political. For a very different perspective, consider the notion of locking away all the photographs of the Holocaust. We've all seen horrific and chilling pictures, and while they were in some way objectified by being removed from history by so many decades, most wouldn't dream of not showing them. They achieve a historical importance that, in my opinion, vastly overrides any concerns of appropriateness or respect to the dead.
M4streetshooter
10-08-2007, 19:00
In today's marketplace, NO ONE makes a lot of money publishing phtography books. Well, maybe a few of the publishers...never the photographers...
Beyond that, I'm really curious what purpose you feel having the photos in the LOC accomplishes if access is so restricted - or, for that matter, why they accepted them with such conditions attached. I'm just trying to understand, I'm not being sarcastic...
at the time I returned from Nam....after about 4 months I came out of my bedroom...went to my darkroom for 6 months and printed.....I started photographing the antiwar movement because I felt that I had to understand.....I was a hippie when I went in..and a waste when I returned....I hooked up with some guys from the VVAW Viet Nam Veterans against the War......I also had some friends that were pro war...vets etc...
so I had all these prints of the real stuff, I call it that because a few photographers in Nam from AP and UPI helped me process negs and keep my Leicas clean...they would get in the field but not like a grunt....so they always told me that I had the real stuff....
ok, I was told by a guy that my images should be in the Winter Soldier Investigation.....this guy is a well known politician at this very moment....
so, I delivered them to the investigation committee and they used them for evidence and records etc. I maintained all rights and they set up a storage facility for me at the LOC.....that's where the pics live, in an archive that is restricted for any use other than what I deem fit..that was and is still my deal with the comittee and the LOC....
there have been some photographers that have viewed them with me even as recent as 2 years ago but I still have that thing inside me that wants to just let the pics alone....
I think my favorite Civil War Image is the one of Young John Payne sitting in the jail cell just a few hours before his death....it saddens me to look at it.....maybe in 150 years, my pics can do the same for whoever views them...but at this time
there are still to many family members of those friends and soldiers I photographed that don't need to see thier son's death...THAT CLOSE....
I hope you understand....don
saxshooter
10-08-2007, 19:13
Turnley's photo reminded me of Todd Heisler's work which won him a Pulitzer Prize in Feature Photography in 2006. Worth a look if you are not familiar with this body of work:
http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2006/feature-photography/works/index.html
saxshooter
10-08-2007, 19:26
and then when it's over (for you)...thank the LORD that it wasn't your brother or daughter or son, or father or........
I respectfully disagree. Why the disconnect? I would hope the 1200 people who attended the funeral, and the greater audience that SEES this photograph, sees it as, this IS my brother, MY daughter, MY son...
Pictures are powerful. Ultimately they may not stop wars and atrocities from happening now and in the future, but I'd like to think that one succeeds if one raises the general public's consciousness and encourages discussions like this one.
eli griggs
10-08-2007, 19:47
I think it's good for the nation when images like this are published. Freedoms must be exercised to their fullest extent regularly or they will be deconstructed by those who serve only themselves.
Often it is not popular or pretty and sometimes it's hurtful to others, but, IMO, when news agencies demure to popular opinion or political considerations when deciding what images to present, we are robbed of the privilege to make our own decisions about events that often affect us.
To be sure, images can be used to gerrymander our perceptions about what's going on, but I'd rather have the opportunity to decide for myself what to believe or no.
The fact that The Court still recognizes this right is something of a minor miracle; again IMO.
Eli
Pictures are powerful. Ultimately they may not stop wars and atrocities from happening now and in the future, but I'd like to think that one succeeds if one raises the general public's consciousness and encourages discussions like this one.
And then there is History. And Memory.
I hope you understand....don
Thanks for explaining.
I think the photos are amazing. That photo was not disrespectful of the soldier. In fact, I think the subject of the photo was less the casket and more the honor paid to that family's sacrifice.
I'm sad that the family felt offended by the image and I'll bet the photographer regrets adding to their greif. It was courageous to publish such material. A country should know the costs of the choices made by their leaders. In Canada there was a ban on photographing the arrival of caskets and the funerals of soldiers who died in Afgahnistan. The politicians said the services in Afgahnistan could be photographed, but the rights of greiving families should be respected in Canada. I don't think it was as simple as that and it's certainly not a topic that deserves a black and white rule.
It was a powerful photo essay, and I respect all of the difficult work that the photojournalist must have put into it. That kind of work must be incredibly taxing.
I have thousands of images like that from the Patriot Guard Missions that I've done and will continue to do. I don't think the image should have been published, not because of respect to the family but for respect of "The Fallen Hero." Just because 1200 or so people may have seen that scene in the church, doesn't mean that the general public needs to see it.
I certainly don't have your experience with this. I would like to understand more. Why do you think this is disrespectful to the image of a fallen hero? In a way, this photo seems a more personal monument to this young man than a photo of a closed coffin, a grave stone, or a memorial monument would be. Honestly, I'm out of my league here. I take cat photos.
My grandfather was a German soldier in the second world war. He would never talk about it. Now that he is reaching the end of his days, he's writing his memoirs. I guess there is something of the experience he would like to leave for the future.
If I had a child die in a a war, I would not want to hide his or her death. I would want the world to know that my child and others were the cost. To die and to be hidden would be a crime.
On a similar vein where we don't seem to mind showing the dead of different people in those other countries, I also find it ironic that we watch war and violence as entertainment, but want it hidden when it is real.
M4streetshooter
10-09-2007, 12:24
There is nothing we can do for those who have died, but for those wounded, we must insist on better care.
Fred,
About the wounded, I agree completely. About the dead, I see it differently. I feel that we all have a duty to the Fallen Heros that made the ultimate sacrifice. We have to give support to thier families, loved ones etc. We have to support the troops (nothing to do with right or wrong about the war)...any way we can.
Most members of The Patriot Guard believe that never again in this country, will a generation of soldiers go as forgotten. We give Honor to the Heros at their funerals, support to the families, help on the Home Front etc.
To just let a soldier die with no memory of his life is unacceptable and will never happen in this country again.
There are many things we can do for the dead....
most importantly we must always remember that they died so that we as a Nation can live in Freedom
They fought for that, they died for that and we must remember that....
when I was in Nam I had a Zippo engraved....
"For Those Who Fought For It
Life Has a Flavor The Protected Will Never Taste"
That young man is a hero.....he should be treated as a hero not by just the 1200 in attendance but by all living in this Nation......
including PHOTOGRAPHERS.........
rogue_designer
10-09-2007, 13:52
we're seeing this photograph divorced from its context as well... that can't help one way or another with the strong feelings on both sides.
It is my understanding that the ruling was that the photograph, in the wider context of the story was newsworthy, and not disrespectful. Especially given that the photographer was there with the full consent of the family and organizers. If we want to point fingers about the publication of the image, you could just as easily point to the family who could have said no. Clearly, they didn't (excepting the biological father, who brought the suit, and I'm guessing was a party to the decision to have a public funeral).
IMO, there is nothing inherent in publication, that means that a person is NOT being treated like a hero. Quite the opposite.
Although in general I do not favor open caskets at funerals, this case seems to open various avenues of discussion, depending on whom you listen to. If it was the wish of the family to do it that way, so be it. That was their choice.
As for as whether such a picture should be published, the journalists are going to have their say, and they will be in favor of it. That's why many of us don't buy a lot of what journalism is all about. There is an old saying that it's no news when a dog bites a man, only when a man bites a dog. They are taken with this notion that it is up to them to let the public know what is going on. But do we always need to know?
As for as whether such a picture should be published, the journalists are going to have their say, and they will be in favor of it. That's why many of us don't buy a lot of what journalism is all about. There is an old saying that it's no news when a dog bites a man, only when a man bites a dog. They are taken with this notion that it is up to them to let the public know what is going on. But do we always need to know?
Absolutely not. We don't need to know. We can just do as we're told, blindly trust all authority and march off the edge of the cliff, like lemmings.
"They are taken with this notion that it is up to them to let the public know what is going on."
---ummmm yeah, that is what journalists DO
Revolucion Artistico
10-09-2007, 15:35
This is probably one of the most difficult threads to get through that I have thus far encountered, and I mean that in the best way possible. It is difficult to read due to the fact that I myself have lost very close friends to this war already, as I sure most of us have in some way or another. As well as my Dad being a Vietnam Veteran who made it back alive and was shortly thereafter beat within an inch of his life by anti-war protestors. I wanted to take the time to thank each and every one of the people who have commented on this thread. EVERY post in my opinion has been well mannered, polite, respectful AND passionate. That is a very difficult combination when there are such differing opinions on such a sensitive topic that hits so close to home for so many of us. Again, Thank you all, and kudos for such a touching thread. We can get a little heated here on RFF at times but this proves to me why this is the single best forum of any kind I have found on the net to date.
Ryan
sepiareverb
10-09-2007, 16:44
Finally images of an American casket being shown to us here in the US, something which was banned by the government at the beginning of the war. I don't think I've seen one until now. As stated by several folks above this is nothing to hide, war has enormous costs that should be very publicly acknowledged and seen, and here in the US anyway we get a very slanted view of that.
I recall at the end of the Vietnam War my Parents and Aunt & Uncle had the TV in our dinding room (unheard of) while one of the networks rolled a list of the US casualties. They saw many names they knew on that list. That was the only time I ever saw all four of them crying, funerals included. Made a very big impression on me- what the 'cost' of war was- that list kept going and going, and it was only US casualties.
I wish that we in the US would be confronted with an image like this for every single death in Iraq.
M4streetshooter
10-09-2007, 17:15
See, this is the main issue....
we are talking about an image of a dead soldier...very easy to forget that he was once very alive....very easy to forget that what really matters is the wants and wishes of his family.
forget about the photograph just for 1 minute....keep his family's feelings in the foreground and then make the judgement for the image.....it's really just rude to go against the family...
I did a shoot for a magazine years ago about rape victums. Spent 6 months making images and actually assisted with the text....after looking at the images and reading the text...we pulled the plug....why, because the subject's feelings, even though we had permission, just didn't need to be exploited. There was a young girl..(9 years old)....the family wanted the story to be told....I made a great portrait of her and they wanted to use it for the cover.....after looking at it and then talking with the child...I stopped it's use in it's tracks...The magazine was upset but I have to answer to myself.....and to a much higher power.....
I think that the casket image is kinda like that...I actually have better ones in my archive from the many funerals I've done...but you ain't never seeing them......I get free reign at the PGR missions only because everyone knows me as a photographer with a soul and a heart....does that mean anything to the media...hell no but I sleep great at night.....
if we make images only for the reason of showing them and not for the reason of emotions, feelings then what the hell are we doing?
And then...we should never forget that, that image is mearly a reflection
of a reality...in this case the reality is a dead son that the family does not
want exploited or advertised.....we should respect their wishes....
The court system looks only at the letter of the law but we as humans must keep the matters of the heart at the front regardless of the law.....
I'm not trying to change anyone's opinions, I don't give a hoot what you think of me....but I do know how that family feels firsthand...and will always step up for our fallen hero's even if the Government won't...in fact it's that very government that ruled against the family.....
We as Patriot Guard Riders, hold the flag line regardless of weather
We block from view the idiots that disgrace the funeral, we lead a procession to and from the cemetary and a host of many other things.....
we do this because we care, we do this because the government won't....geeze, our wounded troops barely have medical attention....they barely have the gear to fight the good fight...
at least we as The PGR, support them the best we can on the homefront...
and I as a photographer, document all that I can so that the future generations will not forget....so that we, in this here and now take heed as to what is happening to our troops.....
put yourself in the soldiers father's place and then...decide what is right or wrong with your son's dead body being shown all over the world....at a most private and personal time.....
photogdave
10-09-2007, 17:30
It's hard not to see both points of view on this issue. As a former newspaper pj, I've struggled whether to press the shutter, or publish the photo, in a range of situations from accidents and murder victims, to athletes losing the big game for their team.
I really see your point of view Don, especially with regards to your rape victim story. Not everything newsworthy needs to be shown to the public at large and a family's grief and privacy must be considered.
It's easy for us to to be objective because we're just observers and not involved. I do wonder why the family supposedly gave permission for a photographer to be there but then did not want the photos published but I won't condem them for their choice. On the other hand since they did give permission, I don't believe they were entitled to a lawsuit.
BTW, great work on your website!
shenkerian
10-09-2007, 17:46
M4streetshooter, I hope you're not calling Peter Turnley one of "the idiots that disgrace the funeral." From what I understand, the family had no objection to his presence at the funeral, only to the publication of his photographs.
M4streetshooter
10-09-2007, 18:20
M4streetshooter, I hope you're not calling Peter Turnley one of "the idiots that disgrace the funeral." From what I understand, the family had no objection to his presence at the funeral, only to the publication of his photographs.
of course not....he's a great image maker....I'm reffering to the protesters that show up at the funerals....
I won't mention names of either side but I did a mission in June and the protesters showed up.....they had signs like G-D hates your dead son, stuff like that...well we held a flag line to block the protesters from the grieving family's view of them....one of them threw a balloon filled with human excrement at the hearst......man, I have the photograph but will not show it.......except to the inner circle of my command....
that's the idiots I'm talking about....
if you go to their website.....you'll be in shock...trust me...it's like evil...but yet they have the right to protest, we don't stop them but they should remember that the right to freedom and protesting was just paid for by the soldier that they choose to disgrace.....
if you PM me, I'll give the website for the protesters....everyone should be aware of this....later don
and I as a photographer, document all that I can so that the future generations will not forget....so that we, in this here and now take heed as to what is happening to our troops......
I respect your feelings. I am a vet myself. A friend of mine that I went to boot camp with died on the bombing of the USS Cole. He was asleep in his bunk when the bomb wen't off. Guess how I found out about it? TIME magazine. I thank GOD that it was reported, and I honor his death. But I will add that it was reported in good taste. And by that I mean it didn't show his bloody body all over the place. But then what in the hell did our DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT (BILL CLINTON) do about it?....NOT A DAMN THING! Sorry I had to add this for all the Bush haters. Even though I don't agree with Bush either. Mr Pierce is right though. War as ugly as it is, needs to be shown for what it is. Maybe if Time had shown grizzly photos of the USS Cole bombing, the American people might have become outraged and made our Gov. representives do something about it.:mad: We now have a generation that only knows death through video games and movies. Great photojournalist need to show the world whats really going on, and not hold anything back. So what if families get their feelings hurt. Suppressing back photos is only supressing the truth to what war really is and therefore war will go on at the sacrifice to our men & women under the BULL S*#$ guise of FREEDOM! BTW the USofA aint fought a war for freedom since WWII Give me a break.
M4streetshooter
10-09-2007, 18:36
"BTW the USofA aint fought a war for freedom since WW!! Give me a break."
Maybe you should talk to the troops and their families....
if your a vet, you forgot about indoctrination.....remember, what they are told as truth and believe as truth maybe in fact at our age be not the truth..but that does not mean it ain't true to them....
M4streetshooter
10-09-2007, 18:49
ya know, a comment has been repeated a few times in this thread...about photographs awaking the public to the realities of war and maybe making a change or stopping it...bullcrap....
before the advent of photography, there were cave paintings, painting's, drawings etc....then came along...Curtis, Sullivan, and the best...Brady....
nothing's changed yet...and to think it will now is pure crapola.....
and also just a way of justifying, making the images.....
even Eddie Adams Nam murder didn't do anything in the long run.....
so...........
nothing's changed yet? I dunno ... the (still) photos and reporting from Vietnam changed me (and I'm sure a lot of other people) drastically.
I agree that images of war HAVE changed a lot of people's views. What we need are more images of the reality, not fewer.
BigSteveG
10-09-2007, 19:05
M4--
Bravo!!! You've stated the crux of this matter. The showing of this photo was disprespectful to the parents. In this particular (not all for sure) case, the parents' wishes should have been heeded out of sensitivity. My own parents lost thier 1st born son (my brother) and I know all too well what effect that has and how the pain never really goes away. Losing a child is very different than losing a parent.
I don't need any photos of the brutal destruction of a Nation.
My family is one of at least a million families that is feeling the pain.
Mix power with selfishness and ignorance, and you get such a war.
rogue_designer
10-09-2007, 19:18
M4--
In this particular (not all for sure) case, the parents' wishes should have been heeded out of sensitivity.
My impression was that the parents wishes were not in agreement about the publishing of the image. ie. the mother and that side of the family were fine with it. The biological father (I'm assuming estranged, since the bothered to mention it in those terms) was against it, but only after the fact - he had no say in the preparations and agreements beforehand. The photographer and editor couldn't have known his views.
Maybe I'm inferring too much.
I still think that for those who have not had to face the tragedy of a war themselves, such images are the only way we have to really hope to understand and prevent such horrors. You can always choose to look away, but the images and stories should be available (not censored).
BigSteveG
10-09-2007, 22:12
I stand corrected. If the press was invited, that does change things. The right to privacy was given away by some family member apparently.
That young man is a hero.....he should be treated as a hero not by just the 1200 in attendance but by all living in this Nation.
If truth is the first victim of the war, it looks like the english language is the second, unless he died doing some heroic act above and beyond the call of duty of any soldier, he is not a hero.
He did choose his career, accepted the risks involved, and lost; we mourn him like any other victim of war, but to call him an hero does do him any justice, it just devalues the word.
if your a vet, you forgot about indoctrination.....remember, what they are told as truth and believe as truth maybe in fact at our age be not the truth..but that does not mean it ain't true to them....
I can't agree with this, you are supposed to look around you, use your brains, and make up your own mind, not just believing what you are told.
If you take your line of reasoning to the extreme, even the 9/11 terrorists believed that what they were doing was for the grater good, and laid down their lives for it, still I can't help thinking they were a bunch of gullible idiots for believing all that crap, and a bunch of evil criminals for disregarding as worthless the lives of thousands of people.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to compare a soldier dead in battle with some terrorists, I am just trying to show where excusing people because they believed in what they were told could lead to.
The most hideous crimes in history have been perpetrated by people believing that what they were doing was for the greater good.
I find the discussion very interesting. Like Gregg, I think that there's no disrespect in this photo report, but rather a tribute to war victims, all of them.
The fact that the article highlights grieving families on both sides of the US/Iraq conflict is a fine attempt at humanizing the conflict. No disrespect - just eye opening for those who deny the humanity of their adversary.
Gregg
Besides, it's ironic that we are very sensitive when pictures show American bodies but much less zealous in denouncing pictures that show bodies of different people, Iraqi in this case. I'm not American, so I can't comment American politics; but as a French, I'm also concerned by the same, say, "hypocrisy": some weeks ago, several French soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan: no pictures, no comment, as if nothing happened. Same thing when soldiers died in a Ivory Government air attack. But when there are Afghan/Ivory war victims (even kids!), no problem with their dignity ... we can show them for lunch time.
On a similar vein where we don't seem to mind showing the dead of different people in those other countries, I also find it ironic that we watch war and violence as entertainment, but want it hidden when it is real.
Moreover, I don't think we should censor war pictures ... the problem is not that we should show American bodies because we show Iraqi bodies. As Bill and Frank said, if war pictures offend you, that's good. If they have a pedagogical effect, it's better. These are strange times we're living in: we accept that fighters/bombers bomb civilians, we accept to see the bombing on our TV like a video game, but we don't want to face the reality, that is dead people, soldiers but also men, women and kids that have nothing to do with this business. Again I agree with Bill and Frank:
What we need are more images of the reality, not fewer.
when it comes to war coverage, I don't see enough horrible images in the major news publications. Almost everybody who covers wars has been told, "We can't publish that; it's too horrible."
War is too horrible. If the pictures offend you, good. It might give you a little more appreciation of what some young kids are going through for you.
Bill
Finally, I don't really understand the whole thing about the family's consent. When a soldier dies and is mourned as a soldier (all the more so if he is burried as a national hero), he belongs not only to his family, but also to the country and to its history. Let me ask this: did the US Gov. ask the family before sending their son to Iraq? The issue is not about the consent of the family, but about the relevance of pictures that show a sad reality people don't want to see. In this respect, I think this report is worthwhile.
you don't have a free press if you can't publish images that represent cold hard truth, and seeing dead bodies during war is part of that.
Best,
Marc-A.
Kim Coxon
10-10-2007, 04:05
I have been following this thread with interest. Initially, I wasn't going to post to it because in many ways it raises more questions for me than I can answer. I can understand nearly all of the arguments here and in very many ways agree with most of them.
I am not a "vet" because I am still in. So far I have served 32 years in the RAF and I am still serving with another 3 years to do. In that time, I have been involved either directly or indirectly with all the conflicts the Brits have been involved in. I have lost a good number of friends within those and even more in training. Whilst in Scotland, in one accident, 1/5 of the Squadron lost their lives and I attended 8 funerals of good friends in less than a week. I couldn't attend the others.
About 6 months ago, I was talking with a friend who had a conversation with a 15 year old. That lad said he thought war was great, he played it on his computer all the time! I see some of the reports in the media and the way in which they distort some facts. How they support the "troops" in their actions but show outrage when a civilian is hurt. At times, they too seem to potray conflict as a clinical computer game. I cannot express what I feel about it because it is too complex but it is a nasty terrible business and should be avoided if at all posssible. I think most service people would say the same. At the same time, it is our job to carrry it out if required.
Many cite the Holocaust as a reason pictures should be published. I don't disagree but it didn't stop the ethnic cleansing that happened in the Balkans. there are some horrific pictures and to a large extent, I don't think it is necessay to publish those in open media. Why? Well if you haven't seen it, it makes little sense. It is too far removed from most peoples experience. There is the danger that it is done for sensationalism. At the same time it is very important that what happens is not hidden for political ends. My Grandfather was decorated as a dispatch rider in WWI and his lungs were permanently damaged by a gas attack. At the time, the horror of what happened in the trenches was not reported on "at home". I wonder if it would have been different if there had been war reporters then in the same way there are now.
So back to the subject of this thread. Such a photograph does show the some of the "cost" of war in a way that most can relate to and as such I see nothing wrong in publishing it providing it is no done for "sensation" and providing it does not invade the family's privacy. Some may agree with such things, some may not. In this case, the family may have been pressured into holding a public event and inviting the press. In that case the fault lies not with the press but with those who advised them. Therefore I think the court judgement was correct.
At the same time, I can fully understand those who say that although it was legal, perhaps it shouldn't have been done.I would certainly agree with that if it had purely been for financial gain. Ultimately, it comes down to the photographer. It will always be easier for them to publish if they do not know the person involved. Photos are important in these cases. They are probably the best way to let people understand the realities of armed conflict. How this is done is probably best left to the photographer and that will always cause dissent depending on who the person looking at the picture is and on what the subject is.
Kim
Bill Pierce
10-10-2007, 18:38
I love this place!
Folks on opposite sides of an important, emotion charged issue not only not attacking each other, but supporting each other. Pretty impressive.
aoresteen
11-05-2007, 11:19
I'm in Iraq right now and I read this thread with great interest. It's very hard to explain to someone who is not here exaclty what is going on.
I agree the the Court's decision but I would not have published the picture. I would have gotten a different angle showing the back of coffin and the people gathered. Perhaps Harpers had such an image - why did they choose the one that they did? It would be interesting to see the images that they had to choose from.
Bill, I respectfully dissagree with you. There are TOO many horrible images out there. Go to any of the AQI websites and you will see terrible beheadings and such. Not for the faint of heart.
I see mostly classified reports and I can't discuss them. What I can say is that you have to dig deep to find out what the soldiers, sailors, airmen, & marines here face on a daily basis. It's out there but it is not being reported.
Every time I see an IED/EFP report that has casulties I know the pain that the families are going through back home. Please consider them when choosing a photograph to publish. You can tell the story and respect them at the same time.
I'm not a Democrat or Republican - I'm an independant and am registered as such. I'm 54 years old and was on active duty in 1971 so I have seen a lot. Too much and sometimes you should just put your camera away.
rogue_designer
11-05-2007, 11:44
Respectfully Tony - your perspective is very well appreciated, but also very very different from the majority of the American public. You've seen more than almost all of them, it makes sense that you feel it's too much.
Most people (myself included) are blissfully unaware of what "the horrors of war" really means.
Kim Coxon
11-05-2007, 12:48
I would disagree slightly. I think a great many people have learned at least something and in many cases much more than something. It's is more that there are a few who do not heed those lessons learnt by others. ;)
Kim
OK, I will say no more, other than no one seems to have learned anything since I was drafted in '69.
Bill Pierce
11-05-2007, 15:39
[QUOTE=aoresteen]I'm in Iraq right now and I read this thread with great interest. It's very hard to explain to someone who is not here exaclty what is going on.\
Bill, I respectfully dissagree with you. There are TOO many horrible images out there. Go to any of the AQI websites and you will see terrible beheadings and such. Not for the faint of heart.]
Tony -
I think standing side by side we would find we have fewer disagreements than most folks would imagine. Keep yourself safe.
Bill
BillBingham2
11-05-2007, 15:40
Tony,
Thank you for your service and I pray it continues for years, until you’re ready to retire.
I agree that perhaps another angle could have shown the same thing without the body. I do not know as I was not there. As the casket was open, I do not disagree with the publishing of the shot. It obviously was a very well attended event and I think that’s important for people to see. This war has dredged up a very sad side of America in many ways. People protesting at funerals is IMHO a new low. I have yet to meet a solder, marine, airman or sailor that likes war. It is their job and thank God we have some of the best to help protect us. Desert Storm was prosecuted in manner that we had few casualties, we are not so lucky this time. When I look at what my kids see of this war, compared to what I saw of Vietnam (I was about the same age) there is such a different in the level of completeness. This one is sanitized by the team in charge and I think essays like this one help show one part of the truth that might help shake us awake.
I never was called to Armed service so I helped the country in other ways. The American Red Cross, a volunteer fire department and several volunteer ambulance corps. I still do in a way by giving time to the Boy Scouts, but that’s partially for my kids and myself too.
I know I do not have a good understanding of the toll America is paying both in lives lost and lives that will never be the same. IMHO we are not giving our sons and daughters the time to decompress and return to their “Normal” lives that we did for my dad and uncles after WWII. It seems that some are hiding a lot of corners being cut from the Americans, hiding the toll this war and the one in Afghanistan is taking on our best and brightest.
Tony, be smart, be safe and thank you.
I hope that other picture essays will continue to share the truth of this war.
B2 (;->
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.