I think Harry had to play at being a Private for a couple of days until his worthless arse can be promoted out of harm's way. Still, if gives him less time to dress up in SS uniforms, so it's all good.
/end of derail
AP Photo Controversy
- Thread starter regdog
- Start date
I think Harry had to play at being a Private for a couple of days until his worthless arse can be promoted out of harm's way. Still, if gives him less time to dress up in SS uniforms, so it's all good.
/end of derail
There is also the video footage of a solider is Burma shooting a Japanese photojournalist in the head taken during the recent uprising
A picture of a dying man does not assist readers in understanding the price of war as they sit comfortably in their homes reading a newspaper or watching the news. Those paying the price are the only ones who will know.
are you saying that only those people involved or have loved ones involved can understand the price of war?
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 14,945
- Reaction score
- 8,145
Can't speak for Tiny Terror, really, but I doubt it. Thing is, it's always different when it's your loved one, you know? I agree that these can be powerful, moving pictures, and they do illustrate rather graphically (pardon the unintended pun) the cost of war for those who may not think of it in such human terms on a regular basis.
That said, nobody understands more keenly than the family exactly what price was paid. They can't. They can empathize, they can sympathize, but they aren't paying it themselves. That's why I wish the family and the Pentagon's request had been honored by the AP.
Last edited:
I think she's saying more if you don't already understand the price of war, a picture is unlikely to change that unless you live it.
I could be wrong though.
If the picture wouldn't help then what would? Words? Are those at home simply incapable of understanding?
Doubtful. But I think from an outsider's perspective pictures and accurate depictions--even fictional ones--can help you come closer to understanding and empathizing with the heartbreak not just of the family left behind, but of the fallen as well.
War propaganda has been used since the dawn of time that softened the impact of death, or glorified the purpose of dying on the battle field, in order to win popular support. There's a difference, I think, for the citizens at home between envisioning a soldier being felled by a swift bullet vs. something as horrific as Johnny Got His Gun.
Nowadays most of us probably have some understanding the realism of death in war even as we're distanced from death and graphic hardship in general as compared to previous generations. But we are aware of that realism because of the pictures and stories that came before.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 14,945
- Reaction score
- 8,145
I don't disagree, to tell the truth. I just feel the AP should have respected the family's request. There are probably family members of other fallen soldiers who would agree that, hard as it may be, publishing a picture of their loved ones death might help others understand. Why go against their wishes? It's just coldhearted to me, and that's what I object to, at bottom.
So, it begs the question, what about caskets (called "transfer cases" by the DOD) being sent home. What of those photos? The furor over photos of those transfer cases was no less exclamatory than it was for the photo of this young Marine.
The young man was an adult. When he turned 18, his family became bystanders to his life, not the stakeholders they were just a day before. It's not to say the family's wishes aren;t important here. In the big picture of public relations, decision making at AP and the Pentagon as well as in the court of public opinion, yes. The family's say in this mattered. But as a matter of business; as a matter of legality; and as a matter of moving information that some lawyer would say holds up the tenants of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, there's no argument here.
The DOD gave the photographer permission to be there (the embed). The reporter had access to return the photos to her editor. The editor probably conference with several of his bosses. The bosses went to AP bosses. They all made a decision to run it. Sure. They listened to the family. But in a time of dying newspapers, sagging advertising profits and other maladies affecting big media, their decision rested strictly on the tenants of finance and moving the meter for their own cause, however celebrated or ballyhooed it might be. Key, too: The Marine was alive when the photo was taken. The photog had no idea when she shot the photo if he would live or die, or perhaps even what condition the Marine was in. He died. She probably didn't know that until AFTER she transferred the imagery. I've lived similar scenarios that played out like this with embedded reporters in the field more than once.
Again, I don't agree with running the photo. As someone who's escorted and traveled with embedded media as a military public affairs person, I would tell you (again) this photo being published is rare. And I would tell you that there was probably a failure of some kind in the communication process between the photographer and the public affairs Marine on the ground. And certainly, that public affairs person on the ground feels as horrible about that photo slipping past him/her than anyone does. Further, I would tell you that there will be steps taken internally to ensure that doesn't happen again.
I started this out with a discussion about the transfer cases and got to the end realizing this: those are nothing more than square symbols with flags draped over them. Sad. Terribly sad. But still, just symbols, more a political message to be sent by the nation's media to the general public than news.
The AP photo showed a young human being whose future was probably brighter than any of ours dying in the arms of his comrades. And later, he died.
Somewhere in between that is a line that many of us in a civilized, intelligent society do NOT want crossed. We don't want it crossed because we understand and have been educated on the costs of war. That sometimes the cost of war is a 22-year-old from Louisiana who drives a crane on an Army compound in Baghdad. He died in an auto accident. His death is no less gruesome or necessary than the Marine's death, but both are dead. And those who do understand the costs and can make effective decisions about our viewing don't need to have that First Amendment right reasserted.
Ever.
The young man was an adult. When he turned 18, his family became bystanders to his life, not the stakeholders they were just a day before. It's not to say the family's wishes aren;t important here. In the big picture of public relations, decision making at AP and the Pentagon as well as in the court of public opinion, yes. The family's say in this mattered. But as a matter of business; as a matter of legality; and as a matter of moving information that some lawyer would say holds up the tenants of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, there's no argument here.
The DOD gave the photographer permission to be there (the embed). The reporter had access to return the photos to her editor. The editor probably conference with several of his bosses. The bosses went to AP bosses. They all made a decision to run it. Sure. They listened to the family. But in a time of dying newspapers, sagging advertising profits and other maladies affecting big media, their decision rested strictly on the tenants of finance and moving the meter for their own cause, however celebrated or ballyhooed it might be. Key, too: The Marine was alive when the photo was taken. The photog had no idea when she shot the photo if he would live or die, or perhaps even what condition the Marine was in. He died. She probably didn't know that until AFTER she transferred the imagery. I've lived similar scenarios that played out like this with embedded reporters in the field more than once.
Again, I don't agree with running the photo. As someone who's escorted and traveled with embedded media as a military public affairs person, I would tell you (again) this photo being published is rare. And I would tell you that there was probably a failure of some kind in the communication process between the photographer and the public affairs Marine on the ground. And certainly, that public affairs person on the ground feels as horrible about that photo slipping past him/her than anyone does. Further, I would tell you that there will be steps taken internally to ensure that doesn't happen again.
I started this out with a discussion about the transfer cases and got to the end realizing this: those are nothing more than square symbols with flags draped over them. Sad. Terribly sad. But still, just symbols, more a political message to be sent by the nation's media to the general public than news.
The AP photo showed a young human being whose future was probably brighter than any of ours dying in the arms of his comrades. And later, he died.
Somewhere in between that is a line that many of us in a civilized, intelligent society do NOT want crossed. We don't want it crossed because we understand and have been educated on the costs of war. That sometimes the cost of war is a 22-year-old from Louisiana who drives a crane on an Army compound in Baghdad. He died in an auto accident. His death is no less gruesome or necessary than the Marine's death, but both are dead. And those who do understand the costs and can make effective decisions about our viewing don't need to have that First Amendment right reasserted.
Ever.
Last edited:
Perhaps not, but for many people the image they have of war is what the see when the play video games, or the video image from a smart bomb.
Too many people see war as an abstract, computer simulated entity that is removed from humanity. They don't understand that "troops" doesn't mean a thing, but rather men and women.
Perhaps the image of that young man might make some people realize that war is not fought by computers with a reset button, but by men and women just like themselves. And that death in war is not a score but the tragic loss of a life.
An image will never convey the pain and price in the way being there does. I would never think to claim I understood the price of war the way my SO does, even though it has touched me in a very real way through his PTSD. He worked on those boys and carries with him the ones he lost.
A picture will never ever give me an inkling as to the price he and others have paid. That said, the pain this family is feeling was needlessly intensified by the printing of a picture so the general public could pretend it brings them enlightenment about the war. I find it distasteful. Want to see the price of war, show his picture when he graduated from boot, his eyes free of the thousand yard stare, and place the dates under it.
A picture will never ever give me an inkling as to the price he and others have paid. That said, the pain this family is feeling was needlessly intensified by the printing of a picture so the general public could pretend it brings them enlightenment about the war. I find it distasteful. Want to see the price of war, show his picture when he graduated from boot, his eyes free of the thousand yard stare, and place the dates under it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
And the picture when he graduated high school.
This is an unfair generalization that (I'm betting) comes from a place of deep emotional entrenchment. I'm betting because I'm right there with you, TT. But it's not really fair of either of us. Some WILL understand, other's may pretend. My guess is that more THINK they understand, but it's a version that doesn't fit ours. But ain't that the way with everything? Good and bad?
I know it sounds harsh, but I really believe very few even attempt to understand because they don't have to. Because they're lucky. Many will read the papers, shake their heads, and say what a shame. Those same people will then look at an old Vietnam vet dressed in his cammies and wearing his beret and think to themselves why the hell can't he get over it. Many pretend because they know it's supposed to touch them, but it doesn't, because they're lucky.
Death is not the only price of war, hell I'm starting to believe it's not even to steepest price.
I was one who thought I understood because I'd read stories and seen images. Over the past two years I've learned more than I ever wanted to about the price. I remember when Chris told me they set up triage with body bags on all the beds, but it wasn't that horrible detail that struck me, it was the look on his face. That look, that's when I got the slightest realization as to the full price.
Maybe images help some understand, maybe, but the family asked this photo not be released. They asked because it pained them. Because they felt they had some say over the memory of this young man they'd raised and loved. Because he wasn't just a soldier, he wasn't the DoD's property, he wasn't a pawn to further a cause. He was their son. Their child, and he deserved dignity. He deserved to not have his dying moment be used as a tool. He and the men he patrolled with deserved this private moment of grief.
It was wrong and there are better ways to understand the war. Ways that don't deny a family's last wish for their dead son.
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 20,569
- Reaction score
- 4,814
- Location
- youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
- Website
- www.ifoundaknife.com
I think this is probably true. "because they don't have to". That doesn't give us reason to find fault with them, and it doesn't make them pretenders. That's a different emotional species all together.
And, btw, as I think I said somewhere upthread, I agree with you. The AP should have, and apparently could have, used a different photo to make their point.