View Full Version : Photographing Combat Death
Bill Pierce
09-23-2009, 03:49
Here are some statements from old friends that I find important.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/archive-5/
Brian Sweeney
09-23-2009, 03:59
Leica goes to War.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/70355737@N00/sets/72157608856065753/
wlewisiii
09-23-2009, 04:39
My comment at the Lens Blog:
"As a photographer and as an Army veteran, I can see little more important during war than to document how it really is.
I get so tired of people pretending to "support the troops" or who talk of "sacrifices" but are unwilling to really support those troops who are out there making the ultimate sacrifice. And, Good Lord forbid they should actually have to sacrifice themselves...
I am sickened by those who would censor these images - those who would steal and defile the meaning of these young men and women - their lives & their losses. Those who would censor these images are, in the end, the worst enemy we face in this war. "
And for that reason, thank you for the link, Brian.
William
My problem is that he was recognizable in the picture. If it was that PJ's mother that was a victim, would it have been published? The few years I worked in broadcast TV, the mantra was don't show the face.
I spent twenty years in the U.S. Navy, my son did also and my grandson is aboard the sub Jimmy Carter right now. Death happens but making a political statement with a person that laid his life on the line for us is not right, in my opinion.
newspaperguy
09-23-2009, 04:59
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I don't believe the American public's right to know is a political gesture or statement. As a photographer and a Korean War vet, I honestly think the public should be required to know what they are endorsing, actively or passively. Call it 'greater good.'
Domestic violence is a completely different situation, and a little discretion is usually expected and respected. Usually only the bad guys get their mugs shown.
Thanks Bill Pierce for airing this thread. I know that nothing I shot in the early 50's ever saw the light of day.
If truth is a political statement to someone, then some serious rethinking of politics is required.
Many servicemen choose not to share the reality of combat with their civilian friends and families, what about their rights?
Do they not get some say in this? what do they say to their wives, going off on a second tour after lurid headlines and bodies scattered across the front pages?
Roger Hicks
09-23-2009, 05:50
Both my grandfathers were killed in World War Two, one off Crete, one on the Russian convoys.
Anything that reduces the risk of war is a good idea, but this is not the same as saying that no war is justified.
Pictures of death in combat may help people decide more reaistically whether a particular war is worth it.
Though old men will quite probably continue to think that young men's lives are expendable, and young men will comtinue to think they are immortal.
Cheers,
R.
Both my grandfathers were killed in World War Two, one off Crete, one on the Russian convoys.
Anything that reduces the risk of war is a good idea, but this is not the same as saying that no war is justified.
Pictures of death in combat may help people decide more reaistically whether a particular war is worth it.
Though old men will quite probably continue to think that young men's lives are expendable, and young men will comtinue to think they are immortal.
Cheers,
R.
And are you content for the Sun to select which photos to publish and writing the editorial?
tritiated
09-23-2009, 06:06
The closing quotes by Don McCullin really stood out to me. War and suffering and resultant photography gets recycled, "controversial" photographs are taken and the debates go round in circles, while war and suffering continues.
Juan Valdenebro
09-23-2009, 06:33
Mr. Pierce, thanks for the link, and thanks for your brave vision...
Maybe we should ask ourselves who could be in real trouble if american common people see american common people getting brutally and massively killed in a war they never started...
And maybe the answer would be, the few people getting profit from war, no matter who looses or dies.
Who has earned money, big 7, 8 or 9 zeros numbers of money when a war is created and carefully grown to become a huge expense of weapons?
Who couldn't earn more billions is weapons are not used?
Who wants to make more weapons?
Who makes US weapons for war?
I have never been to the States, and I am no expert on the subject, but I think half of american people vote for war.
With deep respect for the other half,
Juan.
My problem is that he was recognizable in the picture. If it was that PJ's mother that was a victim, would it have been published? The few years I worked in broadcast TV, the mantra was don't show the face.
I spent twenty years in the U.S. Navy, my son did also and my grandson is aboard the sub Jimmy Carter right now. Death happens but making a political statement with a person that laid his life on the line for us is not right, in my opinion.
Sometimes (actually, more often than not), NOT showing the deadly results of a politician's decision to go to war is "making a political statement."
These techniques involve propaganda and its twin brother censorship and has been the primary tool of politicians and despots for centuries. This is how, despite the promise of democracy, those in power remain in power, by manipulating public opinion for ulterior motives, through the power of mediation.
The policy you refer to, of media not showing the faces of the dead, is a political decision. And I will wager these decisions were not made at the level of the local office, but high up in the corporation (or above the corporate level, by political pressure).
The fact is that we have an "embedded" media (what I prefer to call "in bed with" media) whose presence within the conflict we are taught to somehow ignore. I can assure you that the military leadership did not ignore the presence of the media during the Iraq invasion; they were, and still are (to a lesser extent, perhaps) being manipulated by the military for political purposes.
It is only fitting that we consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as applying not only to physics but to politics; the very act of observation changes both the observer and that being observed. This is why cockroaches fear the light, as do despots.
I served in the US Navy, too. But when I did (the late 1970s), we were taught that, under our constitution, the military served at the whim of freely elected civilian leadership. That is, the military served the electorate. Not the other way around.
So those whom the military serves deserves the truth of what's happening in wars both far-off and nearby.
There are those in the military who would say (and I hope you aren't one of them) that the civilian population can't handle the truth; that they require the truth to be carefully manipulated and doled out to them piecemeal, in order to maintain some semblance of domestic peace. Like cattle in a holding pen, you don't want them busting up the fences. I call bull-sh#t. The military works for the country, for those ignorant civilians. Not the other way around. Otherwise you are left with a military junta system of governance.
~Joe
Roger Hicks
09-23-2009, 06:51
And are you content for the Sun to select which photos to publish and writing the editorial?
Note for American readers: for many, the Sun is the epitome of the gutter press in the UK. It is only slightly ahead of the Daily Sport and (in the USA) the National Enquirer.
Dear Stewart,
Yes, because a free press is indivisible. As soon as you start saying which papers can publish what they like, and which can't, the press is no longer free.
I'd trust the Grauniad or even the Torygraph more, but I don't see how you can squash the Sun and the Mail (note for Americans again: the Daily Mail is a notorious right-wing rag) and retain the pretence of a free press.
Tashi delek,
R.
Note for American readers: for many, the Sun is the epitome of the gutter press in the UK. It is only slightly ahead of the Daily Sport and (in the USA) the National Enquirer.
Dear Stewart,
Yes, because a free press is indivisible. As soon as you start saying which papers can publish what they like, and which can't, the press is no longer free.
I'd trust the Grauniad or even the Torygraph more, but I don't see how you can squash the Sun and the Mail (note for Americans again: the Daily Mail is a notorious right-wing rag) and retain the pretence of a free press.
Tashi delek,
R.
I’m not sure, despite being implacably opposed to censorship, the thought of newspaper and TV editors involved in the publication of combat photos makes me very uneasy. We would end up with one side screaming “Our brave boys” and the other “Dogs of war” and vying to publish the most purulent shots to prove their case.
It would make life intolerable for the poor Squaddies families, and deployment unpleasant for the soldiers themselves; I agree such photos should be published but question weather the popular press is a proper place.
Brian Sweeney
09-23-2009, 07:19
If you want to find the face of war these days, it is not too difficult with the Internet.
Those Americans in combat that carry cameras are free to post on the Internet in theater, as Jay (Tightsqeeze) has done.
If you want to find the information, it will be out there.
Roger Hicks
09-23-2009, 07:35
I’m not sure, despite being implacably opposed to censorship, the thought of newspaper and TV editors involved in the publication of combat photos makes me very uneasy. We would end up with one side screaming “Our brave boys” and the other “Dogs of war” and vying to publish the most purulent shots to prove their case.
It would make life intolerable for the poor Squaddies families, and deployment unpleasant for the soldiers themselves; I agree such photos should be published but question weather the popular press is a proper place.
Dear Stewart,
Makes me uneasy, too, but as someone 'implacably opposed to censorship' do you see a realistic alternative? A free press is a free press. The alternative -- which can only be called censorship -- makes me even more uneasy.
Tashi delek,
R.
Dear Stewart,
Makes me uneasy, too, but as someone 'implacably opposed to censorship' do you see a realistic alternative? A free press is a free press. The alternative -- which can only be called censorship -- makes me even more uneasy.
Tashi delek,
R.
We apply a taste and decency rule with such things, road traffic deaths to inform us of road safety issues, plane crash victims to improve air safety, victims of terrorist attacks to win an election, or do you think they should they be published too? You recall the Falling Man, would showing the result of that fall be in bad taste would you say?
Roger Hicks
09-23-2009, 08:04
We apply a taste and decency rule with such things, road traffic deaths to inform us of road safety issues, plane crash victims to improve air safety, victims of terrorist attacks to win an election, or do you think they should they be published too? You recall the Falling Man, would showing the result of that fall be in bad taste would you say?
Dear Stewart,
You're saying that they should be published. Where?
Cheers,
R.
wlewisiii
09-23-2009, 08:12
While there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Jacobson images publication against the wishes of the family, I wish to note that in the earlier Lens posting about that controversy, it is stated that the deceased man's fellow marines were shown the images and had no problem with them. They understand at a gut level, that this is their reality and that death can claim them all at will. The people at home do not like to be reminded of what combat really is like; certainly not parents, family & friends of those currently in harms way.
Secretary Gates, OTOH, only is concerned about the propagand value as that is his job. You can bet that if he felt it would help them, the pictures would have been publishe instantly with no consideration of the family whatsoever. A prime example of this can be found in the tragic farse that became Pat Tillman; there were no images to exploit but everything else sans the truth certainly was.
A truely free press is one of the most important checks and balances of our system. Without it all the rest will simply vanish in the rain.
William
Some of us saw the "results" with our own eyes.
So you will feel some sort of bond? Would you want those images broadcasting?
Dear Stewart,
You're saying that they should be published. Where?
Cheers,
R.
Sorry Roger, I don’t know, but there is a world of difference between published and broadcast, and I an unsure about the latter.
Enough soldiers end up taking there own lives as it is without adding to the pressures, as Brian said it’s there to see for anyone that wants to look without putting on the telly
These days soldiers can be sitting in their local pub a few days after their combat tours end, they have to rationalise their experiences at some point and it seems wrong to ask them to do that with the world looking over their shoulder, and images of combat on the TV
Juan Valdenebro
09-23-2009, 08:38
Roger,
Your main idea about free press deciding what to publish, is clear, because it's simple.
But some of the times, what they decide not to publish, is finally hidden, precisely because of the contrary: because they are not free at all...
Maybe most of the times? Precisely the crucial times...
Regards,
Juan.
to paraphrase Clausewitz, war is politics by other means.
it is impossible to separate politics from war, especially when vast swathes of humanity see our current military engagements as wars of choice (or even, in the case of many people's opinion of the iraq conflict, one of aggression). sure, it may not be pretty, and it certainly sucks for the family members of the photographed dead and dying, but this is not "a splendid little war," it is hell. No one ever moans about the families of the dead and dying from the other side, because they are THE ENEMY. THEM BAD. ME GOOD- even though a significant portion of fighters in afghanistan are told that if they do not fight against the americans, their families will be murdered. If it was up to me, there would be such photos on the front page of every newspaper, every day. Sometimes people just need to be shocked out of their shells. Ok, that last bit is a touch hyperbolic, but i think you get my point...
Pherdinand
09-23-2009, 08:58
Sparrow,
the two are totally different things.
The "result" of the "falling man" is obvious to everybody without looking at the documented smashed body. No need to show any gore details.
The images in question are about a war. If only triumphant and celebrating images are shown, one is mislead thinking it's all fine, none of the "good guys" are suffering. In addition the image in question does not show any ripped off limbs or belly cut open. It does not need to do so. I think most of us agree on it.
Pherdinand
09-23-2009, 08:59
Bond? No not really.
The downside of showing these images is that they would likely be used to hasten the death of other innocents.
one man's loss is another's glory...always was and seems like it always will be
Juan Valdenebro
09-23-2009, 09:06
Sparrow,
the two are totally different things.
The "result" of the "falling man" is obvious to everybody without looking at the documented smashed body. No need to show any gore details.
The images in question are about a war. If only triumphant and celebrating images are shown, one is mislead thinking it's all fine, none of the "good guys" are suffering. In addition the image in question does not show any ripped off limbs or belly cut open. It does not need to do so. I think most of us agree on it.
Right! Right! Right!
That's the point, no make-up on the face of truth.
Sparrow,
the two are totally different things.
The "result" of the "falling man" is obvious to everybody without looking at the documented smashed body. No need to show any gore details.
The images in question are about a war. If only triumphant and celebrating images are shown, one is mislead thinking it's all fine, none of the "good guys" are suffering. In addition the image in question does not show any ripped off limbs or belly cut open. It does not need to do so. I think most of us agree on it.
hyperbole, guilty as charged.
I was really just pointing out society requires limits, we are just discussing where they should be.
danwilly
09-23-2009, 10:11
Matthew Brady should be here to read this discussion.
Roger Hicks
09-23-2009, 11:18
to paraphrase Clausewitz, war is politics by other means....
Politics is morality by other means.
Cheers,
R.
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.
Oscar Wilde
P.S. I thought "war was the continuation of diplomacy by other means"
Ronald M
09-23-2009, 12:13
3000 dead Americans, numerous terrorist cells in the US boken up since with one last week partially broken. The public has to understand they are still trying to get us and our service men and women are holding them back and for that we should be grateful.
Freedom is costly and the American people need to understand the whole costs. You can say pull out and come home, but that just gives them a place to regroup and try again and again and again with ever stronger efforts. It really comes down to fight them there or here, take your pick.
My opinion is it is ok to show a few bodies to tell the story. It is ok to show a few caskets being unloaded at Dover AFB and a funeral or two. A fitting tribute is the memorial pictures shown on the Chicago PBS television station, pictures, name rank, age, and home town. It makes one sad to see the vast majority are 19/25 year olds.
The same station ran a piece about a retired doctor, age 65+, going to Irag. Now that is someone trying to help.
The reality of course is that such photos will inevitably increase opposition to the war for better or for worse. Just as they have done in conflicts since WW2 - especially Vietnam. It is not an easy thing to look at death and such images will be used (and misused) to argue for cessation of conflicts. You need to consider whether this is a good or a bad thing. The reason that the administration in WW2 was able to get away with allowing images to be shown (eventually) was that by then the world was so mired in war that showing the sacrifice would only help bolster support for troops. And of course the aggression being shown by Nazi Germany an Japan was so unambiguous that there could be little opposition anyway - it was clearly a war of self-defence as well as a war to rid the world of a deep evil.
Such questions are always political. Never easy. I do however think that the previous (Bush) administration's ban on showing returning coffins of the dead was like many other things done by that deeply, deeply flawed and frankly corrupt presidency both cynical and morally abominable.
I am not a US citizen but when the US goes to war and takes its allies with it - such questions become ones for the world to ponder.
I’m not sure, despite being implacably opposed to censorship, the thought of newspaper and TV editors involved in the publication of combat photos makes me very uneasy. We would end up with one side screaming “Our brave boys” and the other “Dogs of war” and vying to publish the most purulent shots to prove their case.
It would make life intolerable for the poor Squaddies families, and deployment unpleasant for the soldiers themselves; I agree such photos should be published but question weather the popular press is a proper place.
Who then decides which photos to publish and what is the "popular press" that should not exercise its editorial peroragative? There's slick mud on the path to answering those questions.
Once on a CBC television news broadcast I saw video of bodies being recovered from an accident at sea. Faces were shown. I was shocked and my initial reaction was to judge the CBC as "wrong" to show such footage. Indeed, later broadcasts of the incident were edited to exclude the faces.
However, I later changed my mind; the images that still inhabit my memory are important and have helped me to appreciate the reality of that situation, of the danger at sea and the absolute miracle of life.
3000 dead Americans, numerous terrorist cells in the US boken up since with one last week partially broken. The public has to understand they are still trying to get us and our service men and women are holding them back and for that we should be grateful.
Freedom is costly and the American people need to understand the whole costs. You can say pull out and come home, but that just gives them a place to regroup and try again and again and again with ever stronger efforts. It really comes down to fight them there or here, take your pick.
My opinion is it is ok to show a few bodies to tell the story. It is ok to show a few caskets being unloaded at Dover AFB and a funeral or two. A fitting tribute is the memorial pictures shown on the Chicago PBS television station, pictures, name rank, age, and home town. It makes one sad to see the vast majority are 19/25 year olds.
The same station ran a piece about a retired doctor, age 65+, going to Irag. Now that is someone trying to help.
How in the world can anyone still conflate 9/11 with Iraq? The only al Qaeda in Iraq have been those who moved in as a result of the Bush war there. Good job.
Bob Michaels
09-23-2009, 19:16
Makes me uneasy, too, but as someone 'implacably opposed to censorship' do you see a realistic alternative? A free press is a free press. The alternative -- which can only be called censorship -- makes me even more uneasy.
Roger: you summarized my personal feelings so succinctly and eloquently that the best I can do is repeat them.
How in the world can anyone still conflate 9/11 with Iraq? The only al Qaeda in Iraq have been those who moved in as a result of the Bush war there. Good job.
Damn right!
A cycnic (well OK perhaps me) would conclude that the war was about nothing so much as enriching the coffers of Haliburton and Blackwater. If it truly, truly was based on a belief that Sadam Hussein was harbouring WMD, I can only repeat the old joke that : No Sadma Hussein was not trying to buy Uranium from Africa - he was trying to buy Geraniums from Africa. That scenario is about as plausible as the WMD argument.
Like I said in my post below - the Bush administration was deeply flawed and corrupt. That is a much more plausible explanation for being in Iraq.
jonmanjiro
09-23-2009, 19:30
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2009/09/04/death-of-a-marine-in-afghanistan/
Humans love a good war, and are never satisfied:
When David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with timbrels, with songs of joy, and with instruments of music. And the women sang to one another as they made merry.
"Saul has slain his thousands. And David his ten thousands"
And Saul was very angry, and this saying displeased him; he said "They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands..." And Saul eyed David from that day on.
Hell yes! If I were Saul I would by wathcing that S.O.B. David closely too. Very worrying to have someone like him at your back. A good despot never trusts his lieutenants! Particularly if the leader is a psychopath and the lieutenant is too competent. (I have worked for a few of them and been David to their Saul!)
But all of that is another story!
Clausewitz, Wilde etc. How about a quote from Geddy Lee?
`Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world than the pride that divides when a colouful rag is unfurled"
The question has become , who`s causualties to photograph
John Camp
09-23-2009, 21:58
As far as I know, nobody -- not even Gates -- suggested that the press didn't have a "right" to publish the photos, but the press also had the "right" not to publish the photos on grounds of discretion or good taste or deference to a grieving family, or whatever. One problem is that whatever is done, it becomes a propaganda victory for someone, and will be exploited far past a single publication. The photos are now all over the net, and will be for a hundred years, assuming that Iran doesn't get the bomb.
It's not really a matter of showing a war. People know a war is going on -- they see the reports of local kids killed in the war, they see the numbers, they see the body shots...but to me, it seems that a face shot can be disrespectful, and can actually do damage to the victim's family. Somebody here said he saw photos from a sea disaster where the faces really impressed him: well, imagine seeing the face of your son as he's dying an awful and painful death, and probably seeing it over and over again. Who pays for that?
As a former longtime reporter, I'm an advocate both of the free press and of discretion, of the idea of doing no further damage unless it's critical. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Again, there really weren't any "free press" questions in the AP case, but there was a question of simple humanity, and the AP, IMHO, failed.
Many servicemen choose not to share the reality of combat with their civilian friends and families, what about their rights?
Do they not get some say in this? what do they say to their wives, going off on a second tour after lurid headlines and bodies scattered across the front pages?
This is very true and the pressure on loved ones is incredibly intense when an individual deploys to a conflict zone. However, being in a state of denial, fueled by the excessive sanitisation of information, hinders rather than helps IMO. It is important for everyone to have a good idea what they are getting themselves into, both for soldiers, their families and society as a whole. This is the real moral issue as far as I am concerned. Both societies and individuals react particularly badly when they feel they have been deceived or manipulated based on the control of information and rightly so. All deaths and injuries are a shock, but none more than those which emerge in the absence of known risk.
I am fully in support of more complete disclosure. As a former serviceman and someone who has spent the last decade in conflict zones, I believe that effective leadership is the key to managing that information and reactions to it. If, as a commander, you cannot manage your soldiers heading into a dangerous environment then either you have the wrong soldiers or you are not up to your job. This is not to say it is easy, but it is the inescapable challenge of command and leadership responsibility.
It may seem contrary to common sense, but an understanding of what actually happened to loved ones can act as a real comfort to those left behind. The sanitary nature of a military funeral, followed by the absence of any real information as to what - actually - happened can cause more distress than relief, so it is overly simplistic to assume that graphic images only do harm. Some people need to be able to picture what happened to their loved ones, or at least be able to come up with some visual possibilities, to achieve any kind of closure. They know their son or daughter did not float away (after being hit by an IED), so there is no point in trying to pretend otherwise.
The pictures in question are nowhere near as graphic as those associated with Vietnam and some other conflicts and while I respect the wishes of the family, there is another perspective: Armed forces belong to us collectively. They are our soldiers who do the bidding of the government we elected. They are responsible for our safety and national integrity and we in turn are responsible for looking after them. Every soldier who falls, is not only a loss to the family, but a loss to us all and I do not believe that anyone has the right to hide that reality from us. While the family would undoubtedly rather their son's image was not in the papers, I suspect they are affected by the controversy as much as the publishing of the image itself. Were the issue less contentious, I very much doubt that the effect would be as great.
Rather than feeling a sense of guilt or disgust, I would hope that people seeing such an image would be moved by a sense of compassion and pride as well as empathy for the family and everyone else affected by similar circumstances, unseen and unknown to us. There is nothing to be ashamed of here. The photograph is not degrading. It does not humiliate. I feel the word is grossly overused, but the image honors the man, the family and those who have made sacrifices for us, whether we agree with the war or not. That sense of connection and collective responsibility then allows us to decide what it means to us going forwards, how it will affect our votes and ultimately the conduct of our nation when future young men and women are to be put in harms way. Only then can we take true, informed responsibility for the consequences of our actions as citizens.
On the face of it, it seems simple to be against all war and censorship. Who, in their right mind, would be pro war?
Yet, people tend to politically decide the good wars and the bad.
Today, a good war is perhaps one in which the opponent can be shown to be evil, the cause a necessary one, and the victory swift with innocents spared.
Always colored by the eyes of the observer, and of course the process of observing changes the event.
The technology today allows information to flow very much uncensored, to the point that anyone can be on the News every day with a tweet. Does not make what they say valid or sound.
In many ways a journalist is a professional witness and recorder of events.
The first censorship is the one that filters what he records, as there is no way to record everything.
The second is what to report, you cannot report everything.
The third is, what is distasteful and lacking in value.
In the end, the hope is for results in media reportage which accurately reflect a distillation of the event, the truth, with less rather than more unnecessary distaste.
It is a goal, sometimes reached for, not always obtained, not always simple.
We would like to think that everything can be boiled down to its basics, you sometimes hear someone say "explain it to me as if I were a child", -- not always possible, and I am afraid people have limited abilities to stay with any issue very long. We can hardly stay with a post longer than a few lines. ;-)
It is a viable strategy for any political entity to just keep the other side occupied long enough to tire of the struggle, to change their opinion of what is a "good" war, so that the victory, if there can be said to be one, belongs to the persistent, not necessarily the morally right.
Then the history is written by both sides, and rarely agrees.
Because a camera is a device that mechanically records, it has potential as a less biased witness. What happens to the data from there involves all kinds of issues.
Hopefully the more lofty goals prevail, the baser ones are relegated to the levels they deserve, and the truth is not driven by petty politics, profits and spectacle.
Regards, John
3000 dead Americans, numerous terrorist cells in the US boken up since with one last week partially broken. The public has to understand they are still trying to get us and our service men and women are holding them back and for that we should be grateful.
....
I strongly recommend reading a historical overview of the region's Islamic conflicts called, "God's Terrorists." The name is misleading as it is not one of the usual band of superficial, edgy 'terror books' overflowing with intrigue and spies, but about the deep historical roots. It talks a great deal about the British Empire, the formation of Pakistan, Afghan conflicts, the formation of Saudi, the origins of Wahabi Islam etc... after which the last ten years all of a sudden have a very clear (complicated and old) context. In this light, the consequences of western involvement, both positive and negative, are much easier to understand. They are, however, exceedingly complex and deeply woven.
Read the book and come back and see if you still feel comfortable with the same statement. There is a strong element of chicken and egg in whats going on in Afghanistan and the region in general. We are fanning the flames while attempting to put them out. In many respects we are giving them what they want and in return getting what we fear most. The last ten years are merely the last 5% of 200 years of the same, with extremism ebbing and flowing and being dealt with both successfully and unsuccessfully.
I wish our men and women could simply come over here and keep the west safe in the long haul. Unfortunately, it does not work like that from my understanding. We have made the most spectacular balls up of Afghanistan and I firmly believe there is little hope of improvement in the next two to three years, if ever, all the while more people are becoming radicalised and everything we are supposedly here to try to prevent.
Sorry for the digression, but I feel this is the backdrop to the sacrifices; a much more bitter pill to swallow and one where we have yet to find the silver lining.
The truth is that a lot more soldiers will die and we have no real clue what, if anything, we will actually achieve. We are getting in deeper and deeper and have decreasing time available to carry out change. The Afghan Govt is corrupt beyond your wildest imagination (I deal with them) and is the last partner you would dream of choosing in taking a counterinsurgency forwards. The security forces are killing insurgents, but creating more in the process, at which point one has to conclude that the cause and solution to the problem are one and the same at the present point in time. Things needs to change direction (particularly wrt our partnership with the Afghan Govt) and dramatically so, because having soldiers over here and 'doing something' are not enough. 'They are still trying to get us' in part because of what we are doing now. We need to be much smarter and while the right noises are being made now, they are five years too late and Karzai may have another five years to run...
This is very true and the pressure on loved ones is incredibly intense when an individual deploys to a conflict zone. However, being in a state of denial, fueled by the excessive sanitisation of information, hinders rather than helps IMO. It is important for everyone to have a good idea what they are getting themselves into, both for soldiers, their families and society as a whole. This is the real moral issue as far as I am concerned. Both societies and individuals react particularly badly when they feel they have been deceived or manipulated based on the control of information and rightly so. All deaths and injuries are a shock, but none more than those which emerge in the absence of known risk.
I am fully in support of more complete disclosure. As a former serviceman and someone who has spent the last decade in conflict zones, I believe that effective leadership is the key to managing that information and reactions to it. If, as a commander, you cannot manage your soldiers heading into a dangerous environment then either you have the wrong soldiers or you are not up to your job. This is not to say it is easy, but it is the inescapable challenge of command and leadership responsibility.
It may seem contrary to common sense, but an understanding of what actually happened to loved ones can act as a real comfort to those left behind. The sanitary nature of a military funeral, followed by the absence of any real information as to what - actually - happened can cause more distress than relief, so it is overly simplistic to assume that graphic images only do harm. Some people need to be able to picture what happened to their loved ones, or at least be able to come up with some visual possibilities, to achieve any kind of closure. They know their son or daughter did not float away (after being hit by an IED), so there is no point in trying to pretend otherwise.
The pictures in question are nowhere near as graphic as those associated with Vietnam and some other conflicts and while I respect the wishes of the family, there is another perspective: Armed forces belong to us collectively. They are our soldiers who do the bidding of the government we elected. They are responsible for our safety and national integrity and we in turn are responsible for looking after them. Every soldier who falls, is not only a loss to the family, but a loss to us all and I do not believe that anyone has the right to hide that reality from us. While the family would undoubtedly rather their son's image was not in the papers, I suspect they are affected by the controversy as much as the publishing of the image itself. Were the issue less contentious, I very much doubt that the effect would be as great.
Rather than feeling a sense of guilt or disgust, I would hope that people seeing such an image would be moved by a sense of compassion and pride as well as empathy for the family and everyone else affected by similar circumstances, unseen and unknown to us. There is nothing to be ashamed of here. The photograph is not degrading. It does not humiliate. I feel the word is grossly overused, but the image honors the man, the family and those who have made sacrifices for us, whether we agree with the war or not. That sense of connection and collective responsibility then allows us to decide what it means to us going forwards, how it will affect our votes and ultimately the conduct of our nation when future young men and women are to be put in harms way. Only then can we take true, informed responsibility for the consequences of our actions as citizens.
A well argued case, and it is difficult to fault rhetoric of that standard.
However you do not address the fact that by publishing the truth, if such a beast could be found, you are denying the individual soliders that choice.
P.S. Also, how exactly would broadcasting the details of some poor solider death help his family more than learning of them from his mates in private, I find that idea obscene
WigglePig
09-24-2009, 01:35
Well, my take on this issue is that there is a whole world of difference between images being published and being broadcast.
To illustrate this, consider the Flickr set that started this thread off; this is publication. The images are there to be viewed if one should wish, under a big heading that clearly says "Images of War". Indeed, the Flickr set falls outside my usual filter settings and Flickr kindly asked me if I was sure I wanted to look. This is exactly the same as wandering in to the Photographer's Gallery in London and choosing to view an exhibition of images showing <insert subject here>.
Consider now that one is reading a newspaper. Next to the Page Three Lovley is displayed an image of, for argument's sake, the remains of a victim of a bomb placed in a restaurant. This is broadcasting and somewhat different in my opinion. One may have purchased the newspaper with the expectation of being informed (although with The Sun this may be a questionable motive!) but suddenly one finds oneself being confronted with a shocking image.
It is a matter of choice.
[The following comment may well cause a bit of a stir; it is not my intention to offend!]
Now consider the earlier comment about the rights and feelings of the service personnel "in theatre"; most elected military service requires the surrender of certain rights. This is quite clear if you consider the right to free speech; so important to most of us but clearly dangerous when dealing with sensitive information. Troops have chosen to work in this field and are paid for doing it (often not very well, granted) and they and their families benefit from this renumeration. To suggest that images should not be published simply because it may upset someone, or make their home life more difficult (explaining to the family why they feel the need to work in a dangerous trade, for example) is, IMO, tantamount to censorship in itself. I favour complete disclosure, where "security" is not immediately affected.
It can be a very difficult balance to strike when deciding what to do with images, etc, dealing with any subject (look at the discussions which occur over street photography!) but if the viewer makes a concious decision to look at material then there should be no major issue.
After all that, I seem to have forgotten why I started this post! I'll finish it off later when I remember what my point was!
Tra
WP
A well argued case, and it is difficult to fault rhetoric of that standard.
However you do not address the fact that by publishing the truth, if such a beast could be found, you are denying the individual soliders that choice.
P.S. Also, how exactly would broadcasting the details of some poor solider death help his family more than learning of them from his mates in private, I find that idea obscene
Every casualty is someone's loved one, so in answer to your first comment it is impossible to present a record of what is happening if every time permissions needed to be sought, especially when it comes to news timeframes. It would make publication a nightmare and truth be told, nothing would get published because someone would always object. What happens if the parents say OK but the girlfriend objects? What about if they all say OK and the younger sister says no, or they all agree but a close uncle has an issue with it?
I don't think it is so much the soldier's choice, but that of the familyloved ones that is being discussed. The soldiers signs up for it and from my experience of such things, is very much less sensitive to these things than those claiming to be speaking on their behalf. After all, they have been through it...
Regarding your second point, I was in no way suggesting that the broadcasting of details pertaining to an individuals fate is inherently beneficial for the family, only the falsehood of the notion that disclosing (including pictorially) the nature of war, and its personal impact, is inherently bad for those personally affected. I am sure that for those who do not wish to know the details, seeing pictures in the paper is extremely distressing, but there are those who do wish to know the details, after which (for them) the issue of public disclosure is one of privacy rather then discovering details they would rather not know about. Everyone is different, but it is tough to inform the public while accounting for every taste. Like I said earlier, someone always objects.
I suppose one has to ask whether the public has the right to obtain information relating to the fates of their soldiers at war. I would say 'yes' and agree with AP that this has to over ride the wishes of those who object. If it were otherwise, there would be a lot of things which would be hidden from millions on the basis of one very personal objection. As awful and callous as this sounds, the 'greater good' comes to mind.
Every casualty is someone's loved one, so in answer to your first comment it is impossible to present a record of what is happening if every time permissions needed to be sought, especially when it comes to news timeframes. It would make publication a nightmare and truth be told, nothing would get published because someone would always object. What happens if the parents say OK but the girlfriend objects? What about if they all say OK and the younger sister says no, or they all agree but a close uncle has an issue with it?
I don't think it is so much the soldier's choice, but that of the familyloved ones that is being discussed. The soldiers signs up for it and from my experience of such things, is very much less sensitive to these things than those claiming to be speaking on their behalf. After all, they have been through it...
Regarding your second point, I was in no way suggesting that the broadcasting of details pertaining to an individuals fate is inherently beneficial for the family, only the falsehood of the notion that disclosing (including pictorially) the nature of war, and its personal impact, is inherently bad for those personally affected. I am sure that for those who do not wish to know the details, seeing pictures in the paper is extremely distressing, but there are those who do wish to know the details, after which (for them) the issue of public disclosure is one of privacy rather then discovering details they would rather not know about. Everyone is different, but it is tough to inform the public while accounting for every taste. Like I said earlier, someone always objects.
I suppose one has to ask whether the public has the right to obtain information relating to the fates of their soldiers at war. I would say 'yes' and agree with AP that this has to over ride the wishes of those who object. If it were otherwise, there would be a lot of things which would be hidden from millions on the basis of one very personal objection. As awful and callous as this sounds, the 'greater good' comes to mind.
Sorry no, that was not my point, I specifically made the point that the common solider should be able keep the graphic details private if he wished, not secret but private.
You seem to be applying civil rules to a martial environment, that isn’t practical.
helenhill
09-24-2009, 04:08
BOTTOM LINE: NO CENSORSHIP for documenting WAR
the public in general NEEDS to KNOW
what the real Reality is....
BOTTOM LINE: NO CENSORSHIP for documenting WAR
the public in general NEEDS to KNOW
what the real Reality is....
I agree, and more. Even those who don't want to know should have it force fed to them.
... the pressure on loved ones is incredibly intense when an individual deploys to a conflict zone...
...All deaths and injuries are a shock, but none more than those which emerge in the absence of known risk.
You must have held some high rank to talk such PC. (read: bull sh!t).
Individuals are not deployed to conflict zones.
Boys and young men are sent to war.
If you think there's an absence of known risk, it's because boys and young men were sent to war believing that they were being deployed to a conflict zone.
Sorry no, that was not my point, I specifically made the point that the common solider should be able keep the graphic details private if he wished, not secret but private.
You seem to be applying civil rules to a martial environment, that isn’t practical.
I'm not sure I understand. How does the solider keep the details private if he/she is dead? Surely under such circumstances it falls to family?
Soldiers are public/civil servants and therefore their expectations of privacy in the line of duty are very different. Because we (or rather the Govt we elected) send them into harms way, we have a right to know what happens to them, surely? That includes the pictorial reality in my opinion. I think it is very different to, for example, the victim of a road traffic accident as our relationship to the victim is very different.
I’m unconvinced, sorry, we send young, sometimes very young, men off to kill and die to preserve our nation states. We remove from them the protection of civil law and impose a martial one, they would murder in the one and yet simply do their duty in the other.
The rules we set and the laws we devise for those two worlds are quite properly different and it is unfair for the public to judge a photograph taken in one in the other, I believe.
To a degree I would buy into your argument, but the fact is, western nations maintain a double standard, we "display," and count up, the corpses of our enemies and hide our own, of course because the enemy is not really human, not part of our family.
I believe if you are going to go into this bloody business, you must do it openly, on all levels. I do not deny its reality in human culture, we have always slaughtered each other for meaningless gain, but we should admit how we are doing it at least. I do not imagine it will ever stop, nor do I believe that humans even vaguely expect it to.
That’s the thing the truth is in the poems of Sassoon or is it Kipling? In Apocalypse Now or the Dirty Dozen? However I am sure I will be more likely to find the truth in the galleries of The Imperial War Museum than in any newspaper.
BOTTOM LINE: NO CENSORSHIP for documenting WAR
the public in general NEEDS to KNOW
what the real Reality is....
In philosophy, I agree, but then there are exceptions.
If some victim of a crime is found defiled and naked, is it censorship to not publish graphic photos, and does the public really need to know every detail? In this case, what greater purpose is served? Where does "in general" apply, and who is to say?
There was probably a troll thread a few years back of a guy who wanted as many photos as he could get of people at the moment of death, close up and graphic, for publication. I would have deleted the thread if I had the opportunity.
What the essential details are and how they are presented is not an easy question.
All this in a country that spends two years litigating whether or not Janet Jackson's breast is matter for some sort of legal and financial consequences.
What roll did photography really play in the death of Diana?
Do you permit the publication of images of executions?
When I worked at a newspaper, we would occasionally have photographs of young victims who died in unfortunate and distasteful circumstances which were left out of the published account. A proper use of self restraint I believe.
But, here I am stuck with the idea of "public right to know" and "no censorship".
Hard to make and stick with "universal" rules, Kant only found a few.
Regards, John
Bob Michaels
09-24-2009, 15:41
I am interested in your thoughts about photos. I am less interested in your thoughts about photo equipment.
I have zero interest in your political views.
I am dismayed when such an important topic as Bill Pierce originally posted takes a detour into individual's political views.
Please can we have some respect for those who have given so much in the pursuit of journalism and free speech.
mfunnell
09-24-2009, 17:25
I have zero interest in your political views.This is very difficult to achieve in a discussion arranged around issues of censorship and self-censorship and especially so where the discussion involves warfare past and present.
...Mike
mfunnell
09-24-2009, 17:35
One thing I picked up on from the lens blog article was:If we are to behave as adults in meeting our civilian responsibilities, we must be treated as adults. This means simply that we must be given the truth without regard to fears about how we may react to it.It is a long, long time indeed since governments of any pursuasion have wanted their populations to act as adults. Adults might decide for themselves, rather than simply doing as they're told without asking too many questions. And it seems a similarly long time since the populace in many places have wanted to act or be treated as adults. Looking at reality and making difficult choices, with few good options, is something most prefer to avoid. Much better to leave such things to "someone else". Of course "someone else" can be trusted. They'd never mislead us, nor take advantage of us, now would they?
Much better to keep the public's eyes away from any hint of reality. They won't thank you for showing it to them, and those in power won't like the public being informed and perhaps even becoming more thoughtful (however unlikely that may be).
...Mke
Bob Michaels
09-24-2009, 18:17
Much better to keep the public's eyes away from any hint of reality. They won't thank you for showing it to them, and those in power won't like the public being informed and perhaps even becoming more thoughtful (however unlikely that may be).
Mike, I very much appreciated you tongue in cheek analysis. It was philosophical, not political.
I believe you are correct that many citizens do not want to see reality. Likewise, many in power do not want to show it. I appreciate those hard core journalists that put it out there without regard for the desires of those in power who do not want in the open. They realize that many people may just flip the page or click the mouse and not look. But they want it out there for those who do. I see that as freedom of expression in it's purest form.
As Roger Hicks said earlier, you either have freedom of speech or you have censorship to some degree. I never want to debate what degree is acceptable.
Leigh Youdale
10-13-2009, 02:56
For anyone in Sydney interested in this topic, there's an exhibition on "South:WAR" at the Australian Centre for Photography in Paddington running from October 16th to November 21st, and a free entry talk by the five photographers involved from 1 pm to 4 pm on Saturday next, October 17th.
I’m unconvinced, sorry, we send young, sometimes very young, men off to kill and die to preserve our nation states. We remove from them the protection of civil law and impose a martial one, they would murder in the one and yet simply do their duty in the other.
The rules we set and the laws we devise for those two worlds are quite properly different and it is unfair for the public to judge a photograph taken in one in the other, I believe.
But as you say, it is an artificial delineation, which is not as black and white as you suggest, certainly not in the last 50 years anyway. The nature of conflict has changed and you cannot apply concepts based on conflict under the old paradigm of nation states going toe to toe in total war in the modern age. Its out of date and the constant conflict we see between the media, soldiers, victims, combatants, ' insurgents' and governments is a product of this. Any desire to play the counterinsurgency agenda at home in order to manipulate public opinion is offset by the sense of dishonesty.
Having spent the last 10 years in four insurgency/counterinsurgency theatres with little break, I am firmly convinced that Govt censorship has created contempt and suspicion that in the long haul has done more damage than good. IMHO we have created a populace that is all too easily surprised, arguably less tough than it needs to be, and has nowhere near enough understanding of the conduct and consequences of the conflict. I'd actually go so far as to say that a lot of the supporting staff/civilian contractors etc are so incredibly ignorant of what is really going on that it is crippling our ability to determine and execute a successful strategy.
Photography and journalism do have a significant role to play and sensorship happens at every level, either by design or insulation designed to reduce risk. It can be in the form of a company boss who will not allow incident reporting to be sent to staff for fear of 'upsetting them' down to civil servants not allowed to leave base (despite the threat arguably being entirely manageable. They then sit inside and contribute to national and international policy without the foggiest idea what is going on. Pictures/articles make people ask questions and explore their own personal understanding. We then also have the issue of the character assassination of any journalist who embeds with the enemy. After all, they are collaborators in the eyes of the same people who would deny us basic reporting on the ground truth experienced by our troops.
Most of the censorship in my experience is bungled information control that irritates our own population, winds up the host population (we do frequently lie to them even when flying in the face of verifiable facts) and the only people who believe it has been a success are the half witted camp vultures who spin the rubbish in the first place.
I don't believe the delineation between the legal conduct of war and illegal activities in a civilian context is at all complicated and we must remember that service personnel start out as civilians and end up civilians. Keeping things in check is what good SNCOs and officers are for. We can't hide the truth and all that happens IMO is that we get caught trying to deceive. There are exceptions where grave national interest is at stake, but in the context of the routine conduct of conflict, the more we hide, the more we alienate our support base that is critical at home.
But as you say, it is an artificial delineation, which is not as black and white as you suggest, certainly not in the last 50 years anyway. The nature of conflict has changed and you cannot apply concepts based on conflict under the old paradigm of nation states going toe to toe in total war in the modern age. Its out of date and the constant conflict we see between the media, soldiers, victims, combatants, ' insurgents' and governments is a product of this. Any desire to play the counterinsurgency agenda at home in order to manipulate public opinion is offset by the sense of dishonesty.
Having spent the last 10 years in four insurgency/counterinsurgency theatres with little break, I am firmly convinced that Govt censorship has created contempt and suspicion that in the long haul has done more damage than good. IMHO we have created a populace that is all too easily surprised, arguably less tough than it needs to be, and has nowhere near enough understanding of the conduct and consequences of the conflict. I'd actually go so far as to say that a lot of the supporting staff/civilian contractors etc are so incredibly ignorant of what is really going on that it is crippling our ability to determine and execute a successful strategy.
Photography and journalism do have a significant role to play and sensorship happens at every level, either by design or insulation designed to reduce risk. It can be in the form of a company boss who will not allow incident reporting to be sent to staff for fear of 'upsetting them' down to civil servants not allowed to leave base (despite the threat arguably being entirely manageable. They then sit inside and contribute to national and international policy without the foggiest idea what is going on. Pictures/articles make people ask questions and explore their own personal understanding. We then also have the issue of the character assassination of any journalist who embeds with the enemy. After all, they are collaborators in the eyes of the same people who would deny us basic reporting on the ground truth experienced by our troops.
Most of the censorship in my experience is bungled information control that irritates our own population, winds up the host population (we do frequently lie to them even when flying in the face of verifiable facts) and the only people who believe it has been a success are the half witted camp vultures who spin the rubbish in the first place.
I don't believe the delineation between the legal conduct of war and illegal activities in a civilian context is at all complicated and we must remember that service personnel start out as civilians and end up civilians. Keeping things in check is what good SNCOs and officers are for. We can't hide the truth and all that happens IMO is that we get caught trying to deceive. There are exceptions where grave national interest is at stake, but in the context of the routine conduct of conflict, the more we hide, the more we alienate our support base that is critical at home.
Hold your high standards if you will, and I will keep my view that they deserve a bit of dignitary in death, after all haven’t they given enough to society at that stage? should they still be required to supply entertainment for some rags readership?
35mmdelux
10-13-2009, 04:42
BOTTOM LINE: NO CENSORSHIP for documenting WAR
the public in general NEEDS to KNOW
what the real Reality is....
Agree. Censorship only aids lying politicians. A free press keeps those who would otherwise deceive the people in check. A little humanity and discretion by the press is welcome.
Hold your high standards if you will, and I will keep my view that they deserve a bit of dignitary in death, after all haven’t they given enough to society at that stage? should they still be required to supply entertainment for some rags readership?
Stuart, not suggesting your view is unworthy- I just disagree thats all.
On the issue of entertainment for rag readership, is this really what it comes down to? This argument is to suggest that what should and should not happen must be pegged to the lowest common denominator. Sure, some will abuse it, but can one deny an entire society access to fundamental truths on the basis that some will not show the necessary respect. I simply say shame on them and those who support them. In the main, I think most rags are not interested in the real gore. They want flashy stuff, not true grit; besides the VAST majority of seriously hard core material released onto the internet comes from soldiers and ends up on 'liveleak' or similar.
The problem with the censorship concept is that it may contribute to two things:
The perpetuation of conflicts the soldiers should not, arguably, be sent to.
The loss of support for the govt in conflicts that need to be fought and won.
In either of the above scenarios the soldier arguably dies in vain. I would argue that respect is not contingent upon visibility of the body. It is a state of mind and an attitude that exists independent of these things.
As a former soldier, the last thing I was worried about was being photographed after death or when injured. I was much more worried about my colleagues, my own health and the understanding on the part of the people back home. Not acknowledgment, but understanding of what we were doing and what it meant. Luckily I went home safely each time and found a public starved of information, hungry to know more, but quickly back to their cornflakes. That was largely because of the inability to really explore and understand what was going on. I find the same now every time I go back to the UK from Afghanistan. Nobody has the first clue; not really.
Stuart, not suggesting your view is unworthy- I just disagree thats all.
On the issue of entertainment for rag readership, is this really what it comes down to? This argument is to suggest that what should and should not happen must be pegged to the lowest common denominator. Sure, some will abuse it, but can one deny an entire society access to fundamental truths on the basis that some will not show the necessary respect. I simply say shame on them and those who support them. In the main, I think most rags are not interested in the real gore. They want flashy stuff, not true grit; besides the VAST majority of seriously hard core material released onto the internet comes from soldiers and ends up on 'liveleak' or similar.
The problem with the censorship concept is that it may contribute to two things:
The perpetuation of conflicts the soldiers should not, arguably, be sent to.
The loss of support for the govt in conflicts that need to be fought and won.
In either of the above scenarios the soldier arguably dies in vain. I would argue that respect is not contingent upon visibility of the body. It is a state of mind and an attitude that exists independent of these things.
As a former soldier, the last thing I was worried about was being photographed after death or when injured. I was much more worried about my colleagues, my own health and the understanding on the part of the people back home. Not acknowledgment, but understanding of what we were doing and what it meant. Luckily I went home safely each time and found a public starved of information, hungry to know more, but quickly back to their cornflakes. That was largely because of the inability to really explore and understand what was going on. I find the same now every time I go back to the UK from Afghanistan. Nobody has the first clue; not really.
I admire your faith in the press and general public.
As you say there publication would make sustaining a conflict impossible, so the decision to do so would be political one and nothing to do with truth or press freedom.
The public could not be expected to understand the context of such pictures
Artorius
11-14-2009, 23:05
Bill.
This is a sore subject for me. As a Navy Combat Photographer with two tours, from 1970 to Nov. 1972, I personally experienced the war in Viet Nam, as well as having to photograph the atrocities on both sides. As a Combat Photographer, I had to send all my work to NPC(Naval Photographic Center in DC). They would determine the photos to distribute to the media.
Long story short, about 1979, an unknown media outlet found a photo I had taken, and published it. In 1984, I received a letter from the parents of one of the soldiers in one my many thousand photos(he was deceased, headad for a Dust Off). Anyway the parents through their perseverance, and with some great detective work , found me through NPC. All they wanted was to thank me, and let me know they had finally found closure. I was told by them that he had been listed as an MIA. They had recognized him in that picture, and were happy to finally to end their grief. If I had been able to publish more, how many more families would be relieved?
For me, one is not enough. I really think the Media Policy had screwed up. Although I am thankful that, what I did, at least helped one family of the many.
Michael Markey
11-14-2009, 23:59
Art makes a very powerful argument which cannot be ignored. However on the whole I`m minded to think that Stewart makes a more pragmatic case.My worry would be that powerful forces would manipulate such material in order to weaken resolve and undermine the objective.I would also be concerned about the impact such material would have on individual families but ack that in the case highlighted by Art that brought about some peace. Difficult area,to state the obvious.
Have just re read this entire thread and the article, a lot of cliches come to mind here, `ethical and moral minefield, hawks and doves, left and right, pacifist and the `other?
I cannot find any reference to photos of those who are killed due to `collateral damage` or if anyone gives a **** about their and thier families rights or permission to publish, and really, those that are published are usually far more shocking.
The whole truth please.
Artorius
11-15-2009, 00:54
Art makes a very powerful argument which cannot be ignored. However on the whole I`m minded to think that Stewart makes a more pragmatic case.My worry would be that powerful forces would manipulate such material in order to weaken resolve and undermine the objective.I would also be concerned about the impact such material would have on individual families but ack that in the case highlighted by Art that brought about some peace. Difficult area,to state the obvious.
I guess I should thank you. Yes, the Government media could pose the action also. Unfortunately back then Military photogs didn't have a choice. Today we non military embeded "sorta" do. Photograph what they/we want, and you stay in the loop, take pics they don't want released, and you are out.
So, yes, today there is censorship. Ask ANY embedded civilian Photog, off camera of course. All of their pics are screened. As far as soldiers being able to post their pics, they too, are screened. This current war is NO exception. They can be Articled for their posts.
Roger Hicks
11-15-2009, 01:14
Bill.
This is a sore subject for me. As a Navy Combat Photographer with two tours, from 1970 to Nov. 1972, I personally experienced the war in Viet Nam, as well as having to photograph the atrocities on both sides. As a Combat Photographer, I had to send all my work to NPC(Naval Photographic Center in DC). They would determine the photos to distribute to the media.
Long story short, about 1979, an unknown media outlet found a photo I had taken, and published it. In 1984, I received a letter from the parents of one of the soldiers in one my many thousand photos(he was deceased, headad for a Dust Off). Anyway the parents through their perseverance, and with some great detective work , found me through NPC. All they wanted was to thank me, and let me know they had finally found closure. I was told by them that he had been listed as an MIA. They had recognized him in that picture, and were happy to finally to end their grief. If I had been able to publish more, how many more families would be relieved?
For me, one is not enough. I really think the Media Policy had screwed up. Although I am thankful that, what I did, at least helped one family of the many.
Thanks for an impressive post which brought tears to my eyes. It does however well illustrate the danger of anecdotal argument: another soldier's family might have felt the exact opposite. All we can do is take the side that commands our instinctive and intellectual sympathy. Which your story does for me.
Cheers,
R.
Michael Markey
11-15-2009, 02:44
Well said ,Roger.
Art,the thanks is all mine for your valuable and sensitive post. I , thank god,have no first hand knowledge of this subject . Always pays to listen carefully to those who have.
Artorius
11-17-2009, 22:33
Bill--
Eddie Adams shocked a country with his image of a street execution in Saigon,
This is exactly what I am talking about if you are referring to the guy shot with a pistol in the street by a Vietnamese soldier, I personally knew 3 other Military Photographers that photographed the same thing. None were published.
Try to get embedded in todays conflict and you need to follow the whims and policies of the commander in charge of that theater.
Yes, there are lowlifes and oppurtinests that will twist the meaning of anything in support of there cause. I personally feel that Respect is due to the fighting men/women who support our rights of freedom.
nuff said, I'm done venting.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.