AP Photo Of Marine's Death Upsetting to High Command

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

People really think American newspapers want the Taliban to win?

 

[Archangel M]

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]

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]

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]

I choose to ignore this. Allege whatever you wish.

 

[Sukerkin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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