# AP Photo Of Marine's Death Upsetting to High Command



## MA-Caver (Sep 4, 2009)

I don't know about the rest of you but I'll applaud not condemn the AP's decision to post the photos of young U.S. soldiers dying in combat. 
War is war and the brutal reality of it must be brought home to those who are not IN the thick of it. But apparently the U.S. Military is opposed to showing the horrors of the war in Afghanistan so most likely we won't protest it too much. 
Basically a lie about what is REALLY going on over there. 


> *Gates: AP decision 'appalling'*
> 
> 
> Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting in the strongest terms to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision appalling and a breach of common decency.
> ...


Another series of photos of yet another marine who died over there. 


> *Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As upsetting as the photos may be they're important because they tell the TRUTH of what's happening. I'm against the war for the reason that it is not doing US any good. Fighting to help another country gain the so called benefits of democracy which if you ask any one of them they probably didn't want anyway to begin with is way off left field from the supposed hunting of Terrorists that attacked the U.S. 8 years ago. 
The whole of Afghan is basically Tribal governments not one big central governing body/head ... just a bunch of groups of people living here and there eeking out a living best as they can in one of the harshest lands on the planet. Just like they've BEEN doing for thousands of years. 
Oh sure some of their societal beliefs are appalling to us more *ahem* civilized people (especially how they treat women) but it's how THEY'RE living and it's how THEY are doing it THEIR way for (and I repeat) thousands of years! Who the hell are we to show up and say "Hey... you're doing it all wrong!" 

Either way, just as in Vietnam photos of dead and dying soldiers needed to be shown so that no-one political can sugar-coat the whole thing and say... "we're doing well and making progress, your sons and daughters are doing just fine over there. It's going to take a little longer than we thought but our goals are going to be reached soon and we'll send your sons and daughters home." 

Show us what's really going on and allow for that freedom of the press and freedom of information and freedom of speech if we don't like what we see and hear/read. 
We're still a democracy aren't we??


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 4, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> As upsetting as the photos may be they're important because they tell the TRUTH of what's happening.


 
There are ways of telling the TRUTH of what's happening without making the Marine's parents endure the additional heartbreak of opening the paper to see a picture of their child dying.  Anyone who thinks that forwarding their agenda trumps the common decency owed the Bernard family is a heartless bastard.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 4, 2009)

The disturbing image may be found here:
http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/article1033549.ece

I have mixed feelings. If this is the only photo available to make the point about the reality of the war, the AP has both the right and the responsibility to publish it; but I have to believe that someone's parents would have endorsed the use of such a photo, and using that one, if possible, would have been much preferable.

This is America's Army fighting a war on America's behalf. The press is doing the right thing in making sure America understands the cost.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> ...but I have to believe that someone's parents would have endorsed the use of such a photo, and using that one, if possible, would have been much preferable.



I'm not sure I understand your statement.  Are you saying that you believe the Marine's parents *did* approve the photo being published, or that you think they ought to have?

I can say that if someone from the media came to me and said _"Your son is dead.  We have a photo of his dying moments we'd like to splash over newspapers world-wide and the internet to show the futility and general badness that is war,"_ my reply would not be printable, but it would be violent.

As many have pointed out, the news media no longer serves the purpose of a 4th branch of government; they are for-profit organizations that publish news and photos that they believe will earn their shareholders the most profit.  I have zero interest in providing them with fodder in the form of a loved one's tragic death.  I will be happy to play West Virginia show-and-tell with them, which is where they show me their teeth and I tell them how many they get to take home in their pocket.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not sure I understand your statement. Are you saying that you believe the Marine's parents *did* approve the photo being published, or that you think they ought to have?


 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_us/afghan_death_ap_photo


> While the story was being written, an AP reporter visited the home of John and Sharon Bernard to learn more about their son. *The couple was shown Jacobson's pictures, and requested that they not be used. In a later fact-checking phone call, John Bernard asked in stronger terms that the photos not be used*, Daniszewski said.


 
Whoever is responsible for running this picture can DIAF for all I care.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 4, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm not sure I understand your statement.  Are you saying that you believe the Marine's parents *did* approve the photo being published, or that you think they ought to have?



No, I said neither. I said that I believe, on statistical grounds, that there exists a serviceman killed in action whose parents would approve of such a photo.



> I can say that if someone from the media came to me and said _"Your son is dead.  We have a photo of his dying moments we'd like to splash over newspapers world-wide and the internet to show the futility and general badness that is war,"_ my reply would not be printable, but it would be violent.


I'm impressed by your endorsement of violence in response to questions being asked of you. You're a tough man, and that comes through even across the Internet. Clearly, though, there are parents who have lost children in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts who agree with the sentiments about the futility of war--one stalked Pres. Bush for months.



> As many have pointed out, the news media no longer serves the purpose of a 4th branch of government; they are for-profit organizations that publish news and photos that they believe will earn their shareholders the most profit.


But I read here constantly that the three actual branches of govt. are at least as crooked as you claim this one is. Would you prefer state-controlled media, no media, or whatever the web provides?



> I will be happy to play West Virginia show-and-tell with them, which is where they show me their teeth and I tell them how many they get to take home in their pocket.


Is this further proof that your feelings on the matter are deep, hence correct? Because otherwise it seems downright childish.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2009)

arnisador said:


> No, I said neither. I said that I believe, on statistical grounds, that there exists a serviceman killed in action whose parents would approve of such a photo.



OK, I understand now.  Sorry, I did not catch your meaning previously.  Yes, I'm sure you're right.



> I'm impressed by your endorsement of violence in response to questions being asked of you. You're a tough man, and that comes through even across the Internet. Clearly, though, there are parents who have lost children in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts who agree with the sentiments about the futility of war--one stalked Pres. Bush for months.



I'm not tough, I'm only willing.



> But I read here constantly that the three actual branches of govt. are at least as crooked as you claim this one is. Would you prefer state-controlled media, no media, or whatever the web provides?



I'll take what we've got and try to glean some truth out of the baskets of horse-hockey they shovel at us, but that doesn't mean I endorse them - or like them.



> Is this further proof that your feelings on the matter are deep, hence correct? Because otherwise it seems downright childish.



We can go with childish here.  Knee-jerk reaction to media buzzards.  I'm sure they're all really nice people deep down inside.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 4, 2009)

The media _is _crumbling under financial pressures, and it _is _an issue--I agree. The Watergate reporting was a high point; things like that still happen on a smaller scale, but the watchdog role is less and less profitable. To my mind, though, this picture is an attempt to tell the whole and true story. That comes at a cost to the family and friends of this young man. It's an issue I have mixed feelings on, as I said, but on balance I think that shying away from showing blood when covering a long-term war is an irresponsible thing to do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 4, 2009)

Publish all of the gruesome photos and names of soldiers and civilian casualties.  We all need to feel the pain of this war or it will never end.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 4, 2009)

So apparently these photos taken of Vietnam wounded were printed with permission from the respective families? Or not? Or perhaps the soldiers were not identified in the photos so they were printed without permission? 
What about photos of holocaust victims that were released in the news after WWII? Were anyone asked if it were okay? 

I see the protest against publication is a way to curb anti-war sentiments. Granted if the parents said DO NOT then AP still had the choice to do it and face condemnation but it still does not detract from the fact that this war is becoming increasingly unpopular and the powers that be that still WANT to fight this war don't want another series of Anti-Vietnam War protests cropping up. 

Maybe I'm wrong about the motives for banning these photos... I don't know. What I do know is what I'm feeling, as an American citizen. 
I support the troops yes, yesterday I worked briefly with an Army private (on leave) for something that my work was doing, he was there just helping out and I took the time to thank him for serving our country. 
I'm not anti-war... I'm against the purpose or reason for being IN the war.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 4, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> I'm not anti-war... I'm against the purpose or reason for being IN the war.


 
Then find your own dead relative to parade across the front page.  Don't ask someone else to do it, particularly when you haven't even considered whether they agree with your sentiment.  Have you considered whether you're using this Marine to advance a cause he may not agree with?


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 5, 2009)

My family has not had the misfortune of having someone die or even be wounded in the war. Worse that we've experienced in the last two major conflicts was a cousin of mine returned from Vietnam haunted and shattered from the horrors that he has witnessed. 
Being a U.S. soldier every one of them (whatever branch) is a part of our country and a part of us. Fighting and dying for those of us who stay safe from the war(s) here at home, I'd rather there wouldn't be any wounded or dead soldiers TO photograph!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 5, 2009)

It is called 'waving the bloody shirt' and it has been around a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waving_the_bloody_shirt

A military person is, in the real sense, a pawn.  On the battlefield, that is understood.  In the media?  That's a role I certainly did not enlist for, nor did my brothers-in-arms.  If we wish to make an anti-war statement, we'll make it.  Otherwise, the media may presume we are not their pawns to be used to send 'messages' to the masses.

In our last major conflict, the media and liberals were openly hostile to the military.  In these wars, the media and liberals have adopted a more subtle stance of _'support the troops, but end the war'_.  This is, in my opinion, based on their understanding that the spirit of the times will not support their obsessive hatred of the military - not publicly, in any case.

However, it is my observation and belief that the media has never stopped hating the military, nor have liberals in general.  If one wishes to argue against the wars, by all means do so.  Demonstrate and parade and wave signs and carry on.  I would suggest that waving the bloody shirt of my dead brothers is not a way to engender my respect, my support, or anything other than my undying animosity.  If the media is _'trying to send a message,'_ they're sending the wrong one - at least to me.  It doesn't piss me off at the futility of war - it pisses me off at the ugliness of the media.  And I am far from alone.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

I think you have to take a step back for a moment and consider this carefully without that kneejerk reaction that the photos bring.
It's very easy for the govenments and the population to say that the armed forces know what to expect, that it's their job and they should just get on with the job in hand that their country has asked them to do. The armed forces of all countries I know will do what ever is asked of them, they will do it bravely and selflessly and to great cost to themselves and their comrades. The question though is before asking them to risk their lives we should know what it is we are asking them to do. The troops have the right to know that we understand what it is we are asking of them.

We can't hide from photos like this and we can't hide away from the facts of what is happening out there. To do so dishonours the people who are making the sacrifices we have asked of them. This is regardless of whether you think it's right to be out there or not and regardless of whether you are anti war or not. 

I grieve for the parents but their son is also America's son, he was asked by his people to go fight in a war, he went and now the people of America deserve to know what he went through and of the sacrifice he made. The photograph doesn't demean him, it shouts 'look this man is a hero, honour him'. People don't die quickly and cleanly in war and before you send your army off to fight you have to know this, it's easy to send an army off if it's not you paying the price. I've read many people saying that we have to expect deaths in war and that these deaths are acceptable to make the gains we need to. Thats a harsh thing to say but in wars this sadly is true but if the service people are giving their lives we too must give something, our understanding and our support.

Like many in the UK I sat glued to my television with tears streaming down my face and prayers on my lips as we watched the footage coming from Bluff Cove in the Falkands when the troops ships were blown up. The Navy helicopter pilots including Prince Andrew struggling to get close enough to rescure men off the burning ships, we watched while the Welsh Guards took their dead and dying on stretchers ashore, we saw dreadfully injured soldiers staggering out of the water, it was like a hell on earth, literally with the flames and smoke. Yet we had to watch, we had to understand what it was like for them, we'd sent them there, we owed it to them to understand, to know what they were doing. Should we have turned away because it was bloody and uncomfortable viewing? 

The photographs the war reporters took in Vietnam are powerful and gut wrenching, I remember seeing them at the time and they are unforgettable as they should be, we can't gloss over the horror of war just because we find it upsetting when we read the paper in our sittingrooms or watch on our televisions.We can't pretend it's not happening just because we find it 'upsetting'.
Don't blame the media, this happens whether they photograph and print it or not.
* We have to remember, we did this, we are responsible for this, live with it or stop it.*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> We can't hide from photos like this and we can't hide away from the facts of what is happening out there. To do so dishonours the people who are making the sacrifices we have asked of them. This is regardless of whether you think it's right to be out there or not and regardless of whether you are anti war or not.



Not on our backs.  The 'we' you speak of is society.  The 'we' I speak of is my fellow soldiers.  Your 'we' hasn't the right (morally) to claim to speak for mine, nor to use photos of our pain and suffering to remind yourselves of anything at all.

Your 'we' dishonors mine by ignoring our wishes.  'We' are not your tool for social justice.  Stop using us as one.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not on our backs. The 'we' you speak of is society. The 'we' I speak of is my fellow soldiers. Your 'we' hasn't the right (morally) to claim to speak for mine, nor to use photos of our pain and suffering to remind yourselves of anything at all.
> 
> Your 'we' dishonors mine by ignoring our wishes. 'We' are not your tool for social justice. Stop using us as one.


 
Boy. when you miss a point you really miss it by miles don't you.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

Bill I haven't the foggiest idea what you were on about with 'social justice' etc but my premise and belief is..

That the civilian population as well as it's government should understand what they are asking of its army when they send it off to war.

That the civilian population as well as its government should understand the sacrifices it's soldiers make for them. 

That the civilian population and its government shouldn't avert its eyes from photographs and articles showing the soldiers who have been injured or killed just because the said civilians and government find it upsets their sensibilities. 

The civilians and their government are responsible for those soldiers and what happens to them in the war they have sent them to take part in. They can't wash their hands of the soldiers just because it upsets them to see them injured. 

Social justice? No, justice for soldiers.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

I just dont understand the "show them a soldier dying and we will end this war" mentality. ALL wars result in dead soldiers.

Maybe if we show some dead cops we will end crime.....


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 5, 2009)

Here is the way I see it, bear in mind this is opinion, and your milage will vary.

If I were fighting in the war, any war... WWII, 'Nam, the Gulf, the War against the Machines, whatever... without having been drafted, i.e., Volluntarily enlisted:

If I were killed, and there were Photos of the event... and the media wished to use them to say "Look what is happening, its wrong, get our boys out/home"... *I* (not really cuz I mean, I'd be dead, but take my meaning) would be a little upset that my death was used in such a way, after all I made the choice and the sacrifice.

If the media wanted to use it, however, to send a message about the reality of war WITHOUT the negative connotation of "Look how wrong we are"... that is, being a message of "War is Brutal, Often wrong, But our Brave Men and Women endure it to keep people safe and free" (and assuming thats the case, and its not propaganda) I'd be ok with it being shown. 

I guess, what I am saying, is it all comes down to intent, AFAIC.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> _I just dont understand the "show them a soldier dying and we will end this war" mentality. ALL wars result in dead soldiers._
> 
> Maybe if we show some dead cops we will end crime.....


 
I'm not saying that in the least, I'm saying that society, if you want to use that word, and certainly governments should understand that when they send an army to war soldiers will be killed and wounded. 
Too many people and certainly too many politicians are anxious to send troops off to war without understanding their responsiblities towards those soldiers.
Take the British army, it goes off to war quite happily on the say so of our government, after all thats it's job but our government minister sent them into Afghanistan saying that they will be in and out without firing a shot. yes I'm afraid he really did. Then of course the fighting started, we have injured soldiers who received compensation for their injuries and the government is taking them to court to get some of the compensation back. I know the photo is of an American soldier but someone needs to shove that photo or a similiar one under the noses of our politicians and make them really look at the cost of the war they started. 
I'm not saying all wars are wrong though I do think this one is what I'm sayng is that people need to look and see what price the troops are paying. 
If that photograph makes people understand what soldiers do for their country and it generates respect and thought for those soldiers then it's right it should be shown.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

Wasnt really directed at you Tez...I see your point and agree. But the media isnt really doing what its doing for your reasons IMO. They are doing it for their own....


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

"The Royal British Legion is calling on Government to honour its life-long duty of care to those making a unique commitment to their country by honouring the Military Covenant with our Armed Forces."
http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/campaigning/honour-the-covenant


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Wasnt really directed at you Tez...I see your point and agree. But the media isnt really doing what its doing for your reasons IMO. They are doing it for their own....


 

then turn it around on them and make it work for the troops.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

The Media Cycle:

Write stories about the atrocities in third world countries like Darfur, Somalia, etc. (and the Taliban in Afghanistan previously)

Get celebrities all fired up about "doing something" about it

Get the public all fired up to do something about it.

When the military gets sent and *gasp* people start dying....

Post up photos

Write about how this evil war is unwinnable.

Another Vietnam...etc. (They lve that one because they ALL want to be the next Cronkite that ends the war)

We pull out.

Start all over again.

Blech....


----------



## arnisador (Sep 5, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Then find your own dead relative to parade across the front page.



Their dead relative is _our _serviceman. It isn't as simple as you're making it.



Archangel M said:


> I just dont understand the "show them a soldier dying and we will end this war" mentality. ALL wars result in dead soldiers.
> 
> Maybe if we show some dead cops we will end crime.....



I don't think the point is to end the war. The point is to accurately report on it without sugar-coating it. As to showing "dead cops", one wonders if doing that on rare occasions heightens the public's appreciation for what LEOs do. I don't see it as disrespectful.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Their dead relative is _our _serviceman. It isn't as simple as you're making it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the point is to end the war. The point is to accurately report on it without sugar-coating it. As to showing "dead cops", one wonders if doing that on rare occasions heightens the public's appreciation for what LEOs do. I don't see it as disrespectful.


 
I think you're right, sometimes people have to be made to face the truth, there were photos taken in the Second World War of soldiers injured and being killed, people didn't clamour to have the war stopped because of them but they did gain an appreciation of what the soldiers were going through. I think too the soldiers need people to understand what it's been like for them. A lot of the time they can't explain to even their loved ones what it's been like to see your mates die and been injured, that photo and others like them literally can speak the words for them. The soldiers helping the dying man will carry that forever and very few civilians can understand what it was like, thanks to the photo though they now have more of an idea. It's human nature to avoid unpleasant things but they should be faced. 

For many civilians who have no idea about warfare, the next time they thank a service person for their service it will be with a little more understanding thanks to photos like that.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think you're right, sometimes people have to be made to face the truth, there were photos taken in the Second World War of soldiers injured and being killed, people didn't clamour to have the war stopped because of them but they did gain an appreciation of what the soldiers were going through.



I think that the medias relationship to War fundamentally changed with Vietnam and Cronkite. 

Once Tet..a strategic defeat for the VC was transformed into "The War is now unwinnable" by the press and the President of the US saying  "If I've _lost Cronkite_, I've _lost_ Middle America." and ending a war...well I think that the media's goals and the ambitions of individual outlets/reporters are not what they were in the days of Murrow.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

We don't seem to have the same problem with the media here. It is full of the Afghan war but the reporting has been about the appalling lack of support the government is giving our troops. Thats coming from all sides of the political spectrum, the Labour press is sayng the same as the Tory press. The government doesn't seem to be taking a huge lot of notice even when one of the defence minister's aides resigned over it.
The numbers of troops here is causing concern because many of us believe they could have been avoided if there had been better equipment or even equipment in some cases like the ones where soldiers died because they had no body armour issued.
There are calls to get the troops back and end the war because we have been told this war could go on for another generation and because we can see no difference being made. We don't believe that being in Afghanistan makes us safer which is proved by the fact that most of the terrorists are coming out of Pakistan,a lot of whom are being recruited in the UK. We certainly need a rethink on the way the way it's going whether it's to pull out completely or put more troops in and finish the job off totally. I don't think we can carry on as we are.


----------



## grydth (Sep 5, 2009)

I guess I am more cynical than the rest of you. I don't think the media is doing this to advance any lofty cause, but rather, they are exploiting this young patriot's death to make a buck.... and maybe win a prize...


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

grydth said:


> I guess I am more cynical than the rest of you. I don't think the media is doing this to advance any lofty cause, but rather, they are exploiting this young patriot's death to make a buck.... and maybe win a prize...


 
I doubt reporters have ever done it any other way tbh. Why else would they risk their lives in any war to take photos and report, I don't think any of them have ever seen it as an altruistic act, a by product maybe but the purpose has always been to sell newspapers and win prizes. Whats important is that they provide thought provoking pictures and stories, it's how we see things that counts.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

If we don't think that media execs/owners have political ambitions/influences/opinions/GOALS that influence what they CHOOSE TO SHOW US.....well I think we are being naive.


----------



## grydth (Sep 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I doubt reporters have ever done it any other way tbh. Why else would they risk their lives in any war to take photos and report, I don't think any of them have ever seen it as an altruistic act, a by product maybe but the purpose has always been to sell newspapers and win prizes. Whats important is that they provide thought provoking pictures and stories, it's how we see things that counts.



This hideous thing was taken by a reporter embedded with the Marine unit...which meant those Marines had to support and protect the reporter as one of their own. So tell me, what thoughts do you think were provoked among the other Marines by this act?

And no, I don't think reporters have always done it this way. Ernie Pyle and others were respected if not loved by the servicemen they were with. I'm not feeling the love for the current media.... wonder why.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The Media Cycle:
> 
> Write stories about the atrocities in third world countries like Darfur, Somalia, etc. (and the Taliban in Afghanistan previously)
> 
> ...



You might be on to something quite sinister here.  The MSM is owned by the same people who own the defense contractors and other who benefit from feeding the Military Industrial Complex.  The images of the war are being carefully manipulated in order to send certain messages.  That is an interesting cycle of public sentiment you pointed out.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

grydth said:


> This hideous thing was taken by a reporter embedded with the Marine unit...which meant those Marines had to support and protect the reporter as one of their own. So tell me, what thoughts do you think were provoked among the other Marines by this act?
> 
> And no, I don't think reporters have always done it this way. Ernie Pyle and others were respected if not loved by the servicemen they were with. I'm not feeling the love for the current media.... wonder why.


 

Seriously? If it were our troops they'd be having a competition to see who could shag her first and no I'm not joking. We don't do all that honour stuff, our lads are real men who are rude, crude and if they can get a legover in a battle zone they get bragging rights for a long time.The lads aren't angels they are soldiers, they shrug their shoulders and get on wih the job and yeah the civvies don't undertand their sense of humour or the way they think. If I told you the jokes that come back from there you'd be horrified but they are actually very funny. Our lads would have taken the film or whatever it is they use now off the photographer and wouldn't care if there was complaints. A smack in the mouth may offend but tough. 

The problem with this photo actually goes back to your invasion of Grenada where the American press got a photograph of a dead American officer and published it before the family could be told.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 5, 2009)

For me, the only real issue with this is that the parents asked for it not to be used and it was anyway.

In a matter of national security or some other circumstance where it would be derelict of the media to be silent, then I could condone their bulling through regardless.  But this is not one of those occasions.

By way of contrast, in one of Ross Kemp's excellent documentaries from Afghanistan, there was video of a young soldier dying as the medic tried desperately to save him.  Heartbreaking stuff in a film, even worse when you know it's real.  His parents *wanted* it to be shown as an illustration of what our military is going through.

That's the defining difference - consent.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Sep 5, 2009)

I think it's awful.  Had his parents backed it then who knows, but doing it against their wishes is awful.

I still don't watch the BBC news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1431081/BBC-cruel-to-show-dead-soldiers-say-families.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/36616.html



> "The eight-second clip is the minimum necessary to make the point. We are not going beyond what is absolutely necessary."



Wrong.

Sooner the licence fee is gone the better.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

I think perhaps our press wouldn't have printed this photo without the consent of the family but then our press has different issues with the war which the majority of us share.

There is the problem in that that it is cruel to show dead soldiers ( unless they are the enemy!) but on the other hand there is a need for truth in reporting. It's a fine line to walk.

What upsets me though is when people don't get upset at the dead being shown as they have become so innured to death and violence through watching graphic fictional films and television programmes that it means nothing.
One should scream and shout in outrage at these photos.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

Outrage at what? The war? Then we are back to my initial post on this thread...



> I just dont understand the "show them a soldier dying and we will end this war" mentality. ALL wars result in dead soldiers.
> 
> Maybe if we show some dead cops we will end crime.....



If I were still serving and made the ultimate sacrifice doing what I believed was right. I would be outraged that my death photos were being used to argue a political point in which I disagreed.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Outrage at what? The war? Then we are back to my initial post on this thread...
> 
> 
> 
> If I were still serving and made the ultimate sacrifice doing what I believed was right. I would be outraged that my death photos were being used to argue a political point in which I disagreed.


 
You miss the point too, people should always be outraged at *real *deaths, there is so much violence in films such as SAW and it's follow ons for example that they have become immune to emotion when they see death for real and it means nothing to them. Deaths in wars should not be glossed over as meaning nothing which is what happens when people get used to seeing death and gore in fiction. 

I'm not arguing from a political point at all,I'm arguing that people these days have become all 'warm and fluffy' and won't face up to the realities of war, many have trouble facing up to anything tbh. Some wars are necessary, right even but we shouldn't ever forget the cost of these wars. 
I also believe that politicians should also face the cost of wars in more than monetary terms before they start sabre rattling and sending troops off to fight. If they can send troops to war reluctantly but for a good cause then that is right, no one should send troops out to fight lightly.


----------



## grydth (Sep 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Seriously? If it were our troops they'd be having a competition to see who could shag her first and no I'm not joking. We don't do all that honour stuff, our lads are real men who are rude, crude and if they can get a legover in a battle zone they get bragging rights for a long time.The lads aren't angels they are soldiers, they shrug their shoulders and get on wih the job and yeah the civvies don't undertand their sense of humour or the way they think. If I told you the jokes that come back from there you'd be horrified but they are actually very funny. Our lads would have taken the film or whatever it is they use now off the photographer and wouldn't care if there was complaints. A smack in the mouth may offend but tough.
> 
> The problem with this photo actually goes back to your invasion of Grenada where the American press got a photograph of a dead American officer and published it before the family could be told.



Yes, even distinctly nonheroic me has such memories..... and that's exactly my point. There's lots of things you do and say that you are very glad will never be told outside. 

This reporter was placed in a position as if they were one of a brotherhood....and to me, did something immeasurably worse than barracks theft......they sold and exploited a photo of one of the men dying. I would not even want to be in a room with anyone who'd do this.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

grydth said:


> Yes, even distinctly nonheroic me has such memories..... and that's exactly my point. There's lots of things you do and say that you are very glad will never be told outside.
> 
> This reporter was placed in a position as if they were one of a brotherhood....and to me, did something immeasurably worse than barracks theft......they sold and exploited a photo of one of the men dying. I would not even want to be in a room with anyone who'd do this.


 
You are assuming the reporter was welcome and wanted. _It's more than likely that the reporter was foisted on them and they reluctantly followed_ _orders to take them along with them_ so I doubt there was any betrayal. Soldiers aren't that bloody naive, they knew what the reporters were there for especially war reporters. Do you think soldiers haven't seen the Vietnam photos, or those from the Falklands or the Gulf Wars?! they know it's their job to get stories, take photos and publish them. They will have also known that the photo published was being taken and they could have taken it away from the photographer if they wanted, whos going to naysay them out there, whats the reporters going to do, whinge to the NCO incharge? And he'd say what? Tough ****! thats what!


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You miss the point too, people should always be outraged at *real *deaths, there is so much violence in films such as SAW and it's follow ons for example that they have become immune to emotion when they see death for real and it means nothing to them. Deaths in wars should not be glossed over as meaning nothing which is what happens when people get used to seeing death and gore in fiction.
> 
> I'm not arguing from a political point at all,I'm arguing that people these days have become all 'warm and fluffy' and won't face up to the realities of war, many have trouble facing up to anything tbh. Some wars are necessary, right even but we shouldn't ever forget the cost of these wars.
> I also believe that politicians should also face the cost of wars in more than monetary terms before they start sabre rattling and sending troops off to fight. If they can send troops to war reluctantly but for a good cause then that is right, no one should send troops out to fight lightly.



10-4..that clears it up for me. I agree.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> 10-4..that clears it up for me. I agree.


 
Sorry, it's a bit of a rant subject for me that we and especially children are exposed to so much violence in games, films and television that the real thing no longer affects us. I'm sure there's plenty of people who looked at the very real suffering and subsequent death of that young soldier and though little of it having seen far worse things in games, thats what outrages me.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If we don't think that media execs/owners have political ambitions/influences/opinions/GOALS that influence what they CHOOSE TO SHOW US.....well I think we are being naive.



Fair enough. But the young (photo)journalists over there _are _motivated by loftier goals--that's what drew them into the profession, and such a high-risk assignment, in the first place.

People are taking the cynicism too far here in The Study. Not everything in life is a plot, or motivated solely by ill intentions.



grydth said:


> they sold and exploited a photo of one of the men dying. I would not even want to be in a room with anyone who'd do this.



Let's remember that the AP won't make any extra money from this. Only the newspapers that choose to run it possibly could. The AP doesn't publish a newspaper.


----------



## grydth (Sep 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You are assuming the reporter was welcome and wanted. _It's more than likely that the reporter was foisted on them and they reluctantly followed_ _orders to take them along with them_ so I doubt there was any betrayal. Soldiers aren't that bloody naive, they knew what the reporters were there for especially war reporters. Do you think soldiers haven't seen the Vietnam photos, or those from the Falklands or the Gulf Wars?! they know it's their job to get stories, take photos and publish them. They will have also known that the photo published was being taken and they could have taken it away from the photographer if they wanted, whos going to naysay them out there, whats the reporters going to do, whinge to the NCO incharge? And he'd say what? Tough ****! thats what!



No, I am not assuming that; indeed it makes no difference whatsoever whether the unit volunteered to take the reporter or whether they were ordered to. Either way, their duty would have been carried out..... a duty repaid by filming one of them in their death agony. 

I wonder if it ever occurred to the reporter to put the camera down and try to help save the man.......no, of course not.

As to your assertion that the Marines, "knew the photo published was being taken" .... that does not prove consent. They were a bit distracted at the time with incoming fire and trying to save their friend. 

Clearly, Secretary Gates' reaction demonstrates the military did not believe anything like this would ever be done. Well, one should never underestimate a reporter in search of a cheap buck and a Pultizer.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 5, 2009)

grydth said:


> No, I am not assuming that; indeed it makes no difference whatsoever whether the unit volunteered to take the reporter or whether they were ordered to. Either way, their duty would have been carried out..... a duty repaid by filming one of them in their death agony.
> 
> I wonder if it ever occurred to the reporter to put the camera down and try to help save the man.......no, of course not.
> 
> ...


 


As neither you nor I were there it's foolish to assume anything about what went on there. As for the photographer helping, they are told to keep out of the way and not endanger lives by butting in where frankly they aren't needed.
I wasn't implying consent but they knew what the journalists were there for. As for suggesting they take the film off them at the time they were helping their mate, thats just silly, they could have done it afterwards of course!
You also don't know what the motives were that made these journalist also risks their lives to take photos and report on the war. It may not be what you think it is.











*Dead on the Beach 1943*​ 





"When LIFE ran this stark, haunting photograph of a beach in Papua New Guinea on September 20, 1943, the magazine felt compelled to ask in an adjacent full-page editorial, Why print this picture, anyway, of three American boys dead upon an alien shore? Among the reasons: words are never enough . . . words do not exist to make us see, or know, or feel what it is like, what actually happens. But there was more to it than that; LIFE was actually publishing in concert with government wishes. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was convinced that Americans had grown too complacent about the war, so he lifted the ban on images depicting U.S. casualties. Strocks picture and others that followed in LIFE and elsewhere had the desired effect. The public, shocked by combats grim realities, was instilled with yet greater resolve to win the war."​ 






http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm02.html​ 





from the same​ 










​ 






http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/johntusainterview/mccullin_transcript.shtml​ 



an interview with the famous war photographer.
Larry Burrows the photographer who took the Vitenam photo was killed there​


----------



## grydth (Sep 5, 2009)

Concerning the motives for taking and publishing such as odious photo...We have a saying here in jurisprudence, ' res ipsa loqitur '.......' the thing speaks for itself.'

Any resemblance between today's media and that of the Second World War era is purely coincidental. For one thing, the correspondents of that era wanted our side to win.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

grydth said:


> concerning the motives for taking and publishing such as odious photo...we have a saying here in jurisprudence, ' res ipsa loqitur '.......' the thing speaks for itself.'
> 
> any resemblance between today's media and that of the second world war era is purely coincidental. For one thing, *the correspondents of that era wanted our side to win.*




qft!


----------



## arnisador (Sep 5, 2009)

People really think American newspapers want the Taliban to win?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 5, 2009)

arnisador said:


> People really think American newspapers want the Taliban to win?



Try asking a reporter..or media exec "who do you want to win?" and see what kind of PC..."unbiased yadda yadda"..."is there any winner?"  answer you get.


----------



## grydth (Sep 5, 2009)

I'm not sure its so much a case of the media wanting the Taliban to win as it is wanting the US _not_ to win.


----------



## Andrew Green (Sep 5, 2009)

grydth said:


> I'm not sure its so much a case of the media wanting the Taliban to win as it is wanting the US _not_ to win.



That's a bit of a spin on it... 

I doubt you are going to find many Americans that want the US to lose.  You will however find quite a few that think the US should pull its forces out and bring its soldiers home as they don't think it is a war the US has any reason to fight.

Which, given your definition of winning would lead to not winning.  

Of course if you view "winning" as avoiding lose of life and huge tax burden in a war that shouldn't have been fought, then staying the course or investing more resources would lead to "not winning"

Just a matter of perspective.

As for the topic at hand:

Showing the consequences of war is important.  If the consequences are forgotten then people will take war much less seriously.  I believe this is part of the reason many Americans value military experience in their political leaders, as they have first hand knowledge of the consequences and won't be reckless with the military (and the lives of soldiers)

The photographs from concentration camps and the genocide in Europe  (Crap... Godwin...) are far worse then this, and I would bet no one gave permission. Yet they are important, and it is important that people realise what happened, and not try to censor it, even if the reason is a good one, like respect for those being bulldozed into mass graves.  It is something we never want to allow again, and to ensure that it is important that we remember what happened, and the horrors that where inflicted because of it.

Maybe it is different because this was 65 years ago, and no one in those photographs can be identified, and even if they could there is likely no one still alive that remembers most of them, and very few if any that anyone is still morning.

But, war still sucks.  And to be perfectly honest a lot of western media tries to paint it as "clean", or with casualties on the 'good side' as rare.  As long as they are just numbers and names doing that is a lot easier, start putting faces and images of people suffering, who are our friends, neighbours and family and the reality of the situation is a lot harder to ignore.

I see the argument that they are being used as a case against the war, a case the soldier might not have even supported.  I don't buy it.  This is a picture of what happened, nothing more.  It is politically neutral, all it does is show what happened.  The reality of war is the case against war, that man is a hero.  He died for his country doing a job that he knew the risks of.

Pictures can influence public opinion, the young Vietnamese girl running from her village that had just been napalmed naked and burnt definitely evokes an emotional response, and made people aware of the really ugly side of that war.  I suspect she didn't sign a consent form.

All that said, it does seem to be handled in poor taste.  The identity of the soldier could easily have been left out and the family left out of the situation.


----------



## grydth (Sep 5, 2009)

I choose to ignore this. Allege whatever you wish.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 5, 2009)

I have no wish to incite you, *Grydth* but I cannot help but think that a refusal to even acknowledge an interpretation of an event other than your own is not a positive thing.

I happen to agree that the use of this photo against the wishes of the fallen soldiers family was not a socially or morally acceptable thing to do. That is really the issue this thread is covering but we are widening the scope with each post we make it seems.

The role of the media in war is always going to be troubling and it is always going to be suseptible to political manipulation of one order or another. It is either going to be used to propogandise 'success' or 'failure' and both of these are unimportant on the human scale when set against the lives lost (on both sides of any conflict). Sons and daughters not coming home are what any conflict boils down to at the level of families. It is up to them to decide if it was 'worth it' or not. It most certainly is not up to us.

If anyone wishes to start threads on the role of media in war or whether the war in Afghanistan is in anyones interest then that would be perfectly fine. It's probably not best to try and shoehorn those concepts into this discussion tho'.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not on our backs.  The 'we' you speak of is society.  The 'we' I speak of is my fellow soldiers.  Your 'we' hasn't the right (morally) to claim to speak for mine, nor to use photos of our pain and suffering to remind yourselves of anything at all.
> 
> Your 'we' dishonors mine by ignoring our wishes.  'We' are not your tool for social justice.  Stop using us as one.


I don't agree with this thinking. 

Showing a dying soldier doesn't necessarially mean that the statement by publishing the picture is, "war is bad!" The heavy lobbying campaign by the military to prevent any such images is largely due to them blaming Viet Nam's outcome on the media turning public opinion against the fight. (Buck passing at its finest.) 

The problem with this sterilization of the media feed is IMO, that it's denying reality. People die in wars. If you show nothing but sanitized pictures, then the public perception of the sacrifices of the soldiers and their efforts is thinned. It gets reduced to a smattering of cheesy car magnets and general apathy towards the effort. 

So, give the public a dry and empty report on a conflict and they'll lose interest. (Afghanistan's been on the fringe of public perception at best since we went into Iraq.) A long running war is now more likely to be lost due to public apathy rather than public outcry. You can blame the media, but the public reaction to what the gate keepers choose to show them and what results is the real issue.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 6, 2009)

Maybe the reason Gates doesn't want the images in the media is because it might scare people off from enlisting.  In an all volunteer force, selling the fantasy is paramount.  The grim reality beyond the veil is bad for business.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 6, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Maybe the reason Gates doesn't want the images in the media is because it might scare people off from enlisting.  In an all volunteer force, selling the fantasy is paramount.  The grim reality beyond the veil is bad for business.


Another good reason right there. 
Possibly another reason why there were draft dodgers in the Vietnam war ... they weren't (just) against the war... just (also) against getting maimed or killed.
The U.S. body count from Iraq and Afghanistan is climbing not decreasing.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 6, 2009)

Grydth, do you realise the picture you are painting of your country is a horrific one and makes it sound almost worse than Iraq in Saddam's time?
I find it hard to believe that every journalist and every one of your newspaper is wanting America to lose the war. I can't imagine for the life of me why they'd want that.
The issue of this particular photograph comes down to basically as others have said, of whether it should be published against the wishes of the parents or whether it's should be published because he was everyman's son and the truth should be told.
The truth in this case of course is that war is hell and the people should know that. People have the right surely not to support a war they don't believe in and I've heard it said a great many times by Americans that they don't support the war but support the troops, which I think is admirable. 
No one in their right minds, except arms dealers and those profitting from it, wants a war to continue. This war must be stopped as soon as possible, how that should be done is open to discussion but surely no one disagrees that the war should be stopped and the troops brought home asap. Even the supporters of the war should want it stopped.


----------



## grydth (Sep 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Grydth, do you realise the picture you are painting of your country is a horrific one and makes it sound almost worse than Iraq in Saddam's time?
> I find it hard to believe that every journalist and every one of your newspaper is wanting America to lose the war. I can't imagine for the life of me why they'd want that.
> The issue of this particular photograph comes down to basically as others have said, of whether it should be published against the wishes of the parents or whether it's should be published because he was everyman's son and the truth should be told.
> The truth in this case of course is that war is hell and the people should know that. People have the right surely not to support a war they don't believe in and I've heard it said a great many times by Americans that they don't support the war but support the troops, which I think is admirable.
> No one in their right minds, except arms dealers and those profitting from it, wants a war to continue. This war must be stopped as soon as possible, how that should be done is open to discussion but surely no one disagrees that the war should be stopped and the troops brought home asap. Even the supporters of the war should want it stopped.



Tez, you are wise in your assertion that one cannot ascribe one set of motives or values to *every *member of a trade or profession. I am properly corrected.

Would I paint a horrific picture of my country right now? Indeed I would and I believe it to be in steep decline.... and I feel that the *general* role that *most* of the media plays is one of accelerating that decline.

Some of this can be seen in general trends of 'reporting', such as the 'good news isn't news'. Well if one only reads of flaws, and the majority of good deeds done go unreported, can it be a surprise that so many here have such negative views? 

Mall and school shooters receive endless publicity; true heroes who earn the Silver Star or Soldier's Medal are obscure and unknown.... When did infamy become the equal to, and then the better of, true fame? And whodunnit?

Then there is the relentless assault upon the privacy of any unfortunate who comes into the public eye...... and this is coupled with a perverse obsession with the trivial. One cannot escape the endless, lurid stories of the death of Michael Jackson..... while across the country large numbers of people are dying.... often needlessly and often ignored. Recall the publication of death photos of John Lennon, Michael Jackson - so is this exploitation of a dying Marine any surprise? 

The worst thing about the modern media is that it appeals to the worst in us. Americans love to gossip, love to snoop and above all love to be excited. Entertainment shows, talking heads all have to become more and more outrageous in what they say and do in order to stay ahead, make a buck. This photo is but one more step on that downgrade.

Do I think the media moguls have posters of Osama over their beds? No. (Obama, perhaps)  But I do think they have ceased to function as Americans. One need only recall Sulzberger the Lesser's Viet Nam era quote that he would wish the Viet Cong soldier to kill the American Marine.  Sorry, to me that is _*never *_an acceptable answer. 

What once would have been propagandizing for the enemy is now "fairness"... Remember Monday Night Murders, featuring the sociopathic killer Zarkawi murdering hostages? (I know, it's now an 'oldie'). Why were those things and Osama's rants given any play in wartime?

The media also reflects our flaws, such as the need for endless and ultimately meaningless prizes and (dis)honors. (The martial arts world is also no stranger to this). So what will they not stoop to when..... I......smell......a........Peabody!!!!!

No, I think the relationship of most of the media to the public, once symbiotic, has now become mutually parasitic and degenerative. The publication of this horrible picture is simply a symptom of that...and soon that will be enough.....there will next be a video of some soldier dying. Watch and see - - - "News" at 6.

The media is also a relentless driver in the what's hot/what's not mentality, as well as our instant gratification need. From Viet Nam to present, our enemies have known they need only wait us out. The war is an oldie. End it...... now. Never mind winning it.

Just my opinions........:soapbox:


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 6, 2009)

Then change things. Do you think one person couldn't change anything, then find like minded people. 
In the summer of 2007 a couple went to Selly Oak the military wing of the hospital there to visit troops wounded in action. From that visit Bryn and Emma Parry started Help For Heroes which two years later is a huge charty that is helping wounded soldiers.  A national newspaper has taken it up as their charity to support and publicise. Best still people all over the country are raising money and *awareness*. The Sun made ads that were shown on national television for the charity. All these people's efforts are recorded in the local media and in many cases the national media. politicians are keen to be involved, the troops of course are and most of all it's becoming a national effort. 
It's not just about the money, it's about support, it's about making people aware, keeping it in the news. The media can't afford to ignore this because the people are making them follow the stories. 
The British Legion also has a big campaign to make the government support the troops, what it takes is people who don't sit there and moan but who will get off their backsides and say enough is enough and refuse to think theat David can't beat Goliath. After all a mouse can eat an elephant..one bite at a time.
Start up 'Help for American Heroes'. I'll help.

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/mar/30/the-sun-help-for-heroes-ads
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/sun_campaign.html


----------



## grydth (Sep 6, 2009)

Never assume I am not trying to change things.... and by now you should expect that I am as much of a bothersome nuisance everywhere I go as I am here.

Imperfect though I may be, I am a veteran. I vote. I write. I donate. I parent. Many do such things, and more.... but I sense "we" are losing.

I view part of changing things as coming here, exchanging views and supporting nonmainstream media sites. Sending in a Supporting Member check (my renewal is due) is a part of said effort, and I wish everyone here would do that.


----------



## grydth (Sep 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I have no wish to incite you, *Grydth* but I cannot help but think that a refusal to even acknowledge an interpretation of an event other than your own is not a positive thing.
> 
> I happen to agree that the use of this photo against the wishes of the fallen soldiers family was not a socially or morally acceptable thing to do. That is really the issue this thread is covering but we are widening the scope with each post we make it seems.
> 
> ...



Consider me unincited - or is it uninspired?

I should freely admit the possibility of error in just about anything I write here. Unlike our enemies, I claim no divine sponsorship by Allah or any other diety. I try to be always cognizant of mortality and limitations.

You and Tez could well be correct. I simply strongly believe that you - most unfortunately - are not.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 6, 2009)

grydth said:


> Consider me unincited - or is it uninspired?
> 
> I should freely admit the possibility of error in just about anything I write here. Unlike our enemies, I claim no divine sponsorship by Allah or any other diety. I try to be always cognizant of mortality and limitations.
> 
> You and Tez could well be correct. I simply strongly believe that you - most unfortunately - are not.


 
Nah, I'm a woman, I'm always right!!! I do believe strongly though that you can always turn things around to your own advantage, the photo may have been printed with the wrong motives but I believe you can turn that around on them and make the publishing of the photo a very positive thing. Shout at people that 'look, here is a hero' instead of oh this is disgusting, make them see that hero! make a big noise about it, drown out the negatives of it. Look at it differently yourself, study it and see a sacrifice for the greater good, friendship under fire and the hope of better things, then these people have lost haven't they, they haven't made you angry, they have made you proud and respectful of these brave men. Turn this on itself and the nay sayers lose.

I don't assume you aren't trying, I just think you are maybe looking in the wrong direction and are feeling down about it, we aren't losing, trust me, it just needs a little snowball to make the avalanche and it will come, I have no doubts!

Margaret Mead (American Anthropologist) _"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."_


----------



## blindsage (Sep 8, 2009)

Americans are sanitized to the realities of violence.  We need to see images from the front lines so it can be made real, regardless of political ideology.  That is not disrespecting anyone.

The U.S. media is largely sensational these days, though not entirely.  That doesn't change the above.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Americans are sanitized to the realities of violence.  We need to see images from the front lines so it can be made real, regardless of political ideology.  That is not disrespecting anyone.
> 
> The U.S. media is largely sensational these days, though not entirely.  That doesn't change the above.



I am aghast that the MIC was able to rebrand the idea of reporting the realities of war into a slight against the troops.  The marketing is so obvious and so self-serving and people have eaten it up without an ounce of critical thought.  As was pointed out earlier, war photos have been published in all kinds of wars...and only now has it become verboten.  People are making up all kinds of stories, but the bottom line is these excuses for sanitizing war's image are rooted in a marketing strategy that was cooked up in a think tank somewhere.


----------



## KELLYG (Sep 9, 2009)

If this young man's next of kin said do not print it, it should not have been printed period. I also think that if the family wanted the images to be printed they should have been.  Where is the respect owed to the parents of the child. 

 How it got printed I'll never know.  I remember photos taken early in the war of caskets being loaded onto a cargo ship that caused a sharp debate.  

I also feel that if war is sanitized too much then it cheapens the lives of the people that are called into service.


----------



## grydth (Sep 9, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I am aghast that the MIC was able to rebrand the idea of reporting the realities of war into a slight against the troops.  The marketing is so obvious and so self-serving and people have eaten it up without an ounce of critical thought.  As was pointed out earlier, war photos have been published in all kinds of wars...and only now has it become verboten.  People are making up all kinds of stories, but the bottom line is these excuses for sanitizing war's image are rooted in a marketing strategy that was cooked up in a think tank somewhere.



Why would you disbelieve the 'Military Industrial Complex', and yet trust the mega corporations which own and control the mass media?

It was no MIC rep that protested here - it was fellow veterans who despise what was done here, and why. Making a buck and engaging in sensationalism at the expense of a fallen patriot and his family is hardly in service to higher values.

Posting of war photos has not become "_verboten_"..... this film was *not* confiscated. It *was* published. If the mass media can publish under the First Amendment, then I can claim my rights under that same provision to call them the putzes they are. It is that simple.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2009)

grydth said:


> Why would you disbelieve the 'Military Industrial Complex', and yet trust the mega corporations which own and control the mass media?
> 
> It was no MIC rep that protested here - it was fellow veterans who despise what was done here, and why. Making a buck and engaging in sensationalism at the expense of a fallen patriot and his family is hardly in service to higher values.
> 
> Posting of war photos has not become "_verboten_"..... this film was *not* confiscated. It *was* published. If the mass media can publish under the First Amendment, then I can claim my rights under that same provision to call them the putzes they are. It is that simple.



Listen to the stories you are making up in response to what was once a commonplace act.  These attitudes are a direct marketing response to the events of Vietnam when the journalists reporting on the war effectively stopped it.  The bottom line is this, you don't know what this person's motivations were.  The claim is that it was done to the true cost of the war.  Why do you think that you need to question that intent?  Where did that idea come from?

Also, I don't necessarily trust much that is reported on in the MSM, however, I don't think we are going to be privy to what the end result on these reporters' career will be.  When news rooms are non-existent and press releases are published verbatim instead of being fact checked and reported on, I suspect a few more people will be added to a very long blacklist.


----------



## grydth (Sep 10, 2009)

"Stories you are making up"  ?

One ought to be able to disagree in a rational manner without accusing anyone who differs of being dishonest or brainwashed.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2009)

grydth said:


> "Stories you are making up"  ?
> 
> One ought to be able to disagree in a rational manner without accusing anyone who differs of being dishonest or brainwashed.



I'm not saying any of those things.  Just watch where those ideas are coming from.  Hell, I could completely be full of ****.  These reporters very well may just be *******s and the reason I am defending them is because I think this war should end and I think that the release of these photos is a good way to do it.  They could have any motivation and the fact that the release of these photos coincides with something that I believe has me a lot more willing to take their word for it in regards to their motivations.  So, there's the story I'm making up about it.  

The bottom line is this, and we can agree or disagree if you like, I truly believe that the release of photos from this war will work to end it.  US citizens need to see the real cost of this thing and, thus far, that cost has been hidden by an aggressive marketing campaign.  This marketing campaign started after Vietnam and was responsible for many of the attitudes we see to day that are in opposition to the release of war images.  The slogans they come up with play on our emotions and they have a particular end in mine.  

"Don't release these photos, you'll upset the families of the deceased."

It's a clever message designed to sanitize the war through the manipulation of media consumers.


----------



## grydth (Sep 10, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Listen to the stories you are making up in response to what was once a commonplace act....



Yes, you did say that thing. Everyone can see that.

One thing I'm done with on this Forum is getting into spraying contests that involve accusations like this. Its just not worth it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 10, 2009)

The "stories we make up" are assumptions.  They aren't lies, however, they are dishonest if we don't recognize them for what they are.  Anyway, here are some useful questions...

1.  Why am I making this assumption?
2.  Where does the assumption come from?
3.  Who benefits from the assumption?
4.  What are the results of the assumption?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 10, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> I'm not saying any of those things.  Just watch where those ideas are coming from.  Hell, I could completely be full of ****.  These reporters very well may just be *******s.



Finally! Something we can agree on.  :rofl:


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 20, 2009)

UPDATE: Pentagon reverses the ban... 


> *Military Reverses Ban on Publicizing Fatal War Photos*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 20, 2009)

Well, well, well!


----------

