sepiareverb
genius and moron
From the article:
This is the insidious out the administration has for every breach of the Constitution- it is a threat to our security. When the truth is a threat to our security it's time for something to change.
This is the insidious out the administration has for every breach of the Constitution- it is a threat to our security. When the truth is a threat to our security it's time for something to change.
40oz
...
Are you suggesting this is the first armed conflict in which it is "unsafe" for a Western journalist to cover without the protection of the US military? There probably are a ton of men and women who would vehemently disagree with the assertion that the situation in Iraq is somehow fundamentally different than the conflicts they covered at great risk to their own safety.
Let's put this into perspective - more people have died on Ohio's highways than US soldiers have died in Iraq since the beginning of the war. I'm not suggesting there is no danger in Iraq, just that it's not guaranteed death to set foot in the country the way you are describing.
If the photographer in this case doesn't feel safe returning to Iraq without a squad of Marines babysitting him, that's his decision and his business. But it's not like there is no way to document the conflict without military protection.
Since the rules are set by the military and the journalist is there at the discretion of the military, if they say he broke their rules that's the end of that. Since when has the US military been under any obligation to act as a news-gathering organization?
I don't think I'm defending anyone. I just don't feel any obligation to automatically cry foul just because some photog cries foul. There are facts and there are opinions. The fact is this man is not welcome as an embedded journalist anymore. In his opinion, that's unfair. Life goes on.
I fail to see how "truth" is served when virtually all images from Iraq have a US soldier standing in the background. If a journalist is going to cover a war, warts and all, don't you think they need to get out from under the wing of US servicemen occasionally, or risk becoming an unwitting tool for propaganda? This case points out the flaws in a system where all news has to be cleared by a military censor. Historically, such a system has been common, yet not relied upon for the entire story. I fail to see why people who are concerned about censorship demand the military accompany all journalists. Just seems ill-advised, IMHO.
Last edited:
40oz
...
I don't think Lt. Col. Hughes is wrong. That's why I don't think it's a good idea to insist the military be relied upon to approve all news of the conflict.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Embedded journalism is compromised journalism. The military knows that and so do journalists. It's been a shameful deceit on the public by both parties.
JTK
Established
As someone who actively opposed our invasion of Vietnam, I don't think anybody who actually did anything in opposition (beyond mere demonstrations) was ever significantly influenced by photos in the press. Nick Ut's photo, for example, was a mere thrill.
Few realize that the Pentagon Papers were rehashes of information that was widely known and better packaged in the mid 60s...by Robert Scheer, now of the LA Times, for example.
Information and response to wars and atrocities is worked out in public meetings (eg Vietnam War's teach-ins) , not by media. The Obama phenomenon may be moving in that public-meeting direction, but it's not physical so unless the man's elected it's just consumed bandwidth.
People with souls figure this stuff out among themselves, media is peripheral to opposition .
The NY Times has all sorts of opinions and news sources, typically conflicting with each other. People who summarize NY Times as having a unitary perspective are fundamentally ignorant propagandists (Rush Limbaugh types, but the leanings of their alleged politics, right or left, don't matter).
Few realize that the Pentagon Papers were rehashes of information that was widely known and better packaged in the mid 60s...by Robert Scheer, now of the LA Times, for example.
Information and response to wars and atrocities is worked out in public meetings (eg Vietnam War's teach-ins) , not by media. The Obama phenomenon may be moving in that public-meeting direction, but it's not physical so unless the man's elected it's just consumed bandwidth.
People with souls figure this stuff out among themselves, media is peripheral to opposition .
The NY Times has all sorts of opinions and news sources, typically conflicting with each other. People who summarize NY Times as having a unitary perspective are fundamentally ignorant propagandists (Rush Limbaugh types, but the leanings of their alleged politics, right or left, don't matter).
Last edited:
JohnL
Very confused
Leaving aside the issue of whether any specific war is or is not justified, all wars are extremely unpleasant affairs, and that is a masterpiece of understatement. Some wars, unfortunately, are perceived to be neceesary, at least when started, even by supposedly responsible governments. This creates a need for soldiers to fight, and to fight well they must believe in what they are doing. Making extreme sacrifices, they have a right to expect support from the people they are fighting for. However, very few civilians have an appreciation of the rigors of a battlezone, and when they are exposed to such images, they quite naturally recoil. This undermines their support for the war, and consequently for the difficult and hazardous mission their soldiers are committed to. If the war was a bad idea in the first place, this change of heart may be a good thing in the long run, but while the process plays out it may cause a justified sense of betrayal among those doing the heavy lifting. There is more than one side to this issue. To reject all war is morally right, but not practical.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Well put. I feel better now. I was preparing about two pages that would have said much of what you did so much more eloquently. You have saved RFF readers from my poor attempt.
pachuco
El ****
You are 100 percent correct that you can cover this conflict without military protection and there are photogs doing that, but they are not western photographers. There is a reason for that. If you study past conflicts and compare them to this one you will quickly realize the flaw in your logic and why you can not just walk around Sadr City and snap away. BUT! The fact of the matter is that you are so right in what you say, absolutly correct but.....this aint your daddy's war.
The point I am making, and the one that people are not wanting to admit, is that this guy followed the rules and was kicked out, that is all I am saying.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Is anyone surprise by this? The US military is a huge bureaucracy and can be very Orwellian in their official line. My Army experience during the Vietnam War taught me there is the right way, the wrong way and the Army way.
Solinar
Analog Preferred
I suspect that every Iraqi in this specific area of operation already knew the after-action report. The local population will know if the occupation forces suffer a casualty.
V
varjag
Guest
It just shows how uninformed you are on situation in Iraq. If you are an outsider, alone you will die on Iraq streets. It is not exaggeration but a sad truth, mortality rate for unarmed/unguarded westerners outside the Green Zone is 100%.
There were/are journalists, including those who worked in the toughest conditions before, and on the past conflicts you refer to. Dworzak, Nachtwey, you name them. They all stopped working solo around 2004, because the conditions became such that pursuing it would mean an ensured and useless death.
anselwannab
Well-known
Embed with US Army = food, shelter, protection, access with some constraints
Embed with Al Qaeda = Decapitation
Embed with Al Qaeda = Decapitation
40oz
...
Sorry, but that has nothing to do with my point, and I made no suggestions as to how a journalist should go about their business. Yes it is dangerous in Iraq for journalists. That's pretty much why war reporting isn't for everyone.
The danger doesn't appear to be limited to Western journalists however. There are reports of journalists from all over the world, including Iraq, that have been arrested, beated, and even killed, while pursuing their careers in Iraq. According to this article from the UPI:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2007/11/28/Survey_Bleak_view_of_Iraq_by_journalists/UPI-16771196258197/
"Of the 124 journalists killed in Iraq since 2003, 102 of them were Iraqis."
On the other hand, I can't think of another conflict where journalists were actually capable of walking the streets and capturing and reporting on whatever they felt with no need to be concerned for their safety. It might be more dangerous in Iraq for journalists than past conflicts, but it's not like the risk is something new in war reporting. And realistically, it's most certainly *not* a given that a Western journalist will be killed just for being in Iraq. So let's not inflate the risk to make it more sensational, OK?
giovatony
Well-known
Sorry but the NYT just isn`t a credible source . And I think your article is out of place here.
pachuco
El ****
furcafe
Veteran
What actually happened may have been much simpler than that, i.e., a clash of personalities. I think the guy just pissed off the Marines he was embedded with (who may not have liked him to begin with) when he posted the photos on his web site after they told him not to. Mr. Miller may have thought he was following the rules, & he may have been faithful to their text, but, as the saying goes, "you dance w/the one who brung ya."
I was @ a photojournalism lecture/discussion last week, & 1 of the participants was Peter Van Agtmael of Magnum (http://www.petervanagtmael.com/) & a member of the audience brought up the Miller controversy. Van Agtmael said he had taken, & eventually published, photographs from Iraq that were similar to the 1 that got Miller in trouble but was never censored. Van Agtmael noted that 1 major distinction was that he was not shooting for a publication @ the time & was not uploading his photos to the world every night, which removed most of the security/tactical considerations & gave the military time to vet his material (informally, if not formally). He also was able to build a rapport w/the soldiers w/whom he was embedded, so much so that they backed him up on 1 occasion when brass wanted to exclude him from accompanying them on raids.
I was @ a photojournalism lecture/discussion last week, & 1 of the participants was Peter Van Agtmael of Magnum (http://www.petervanagtmael.com/) & a member of the audience brought up the Miller controversy. Van Agtmael said he had taken, & eventually published, photographs from Iraq that were similar to the 1 that got Miller in trouble but was never censored. Van Agtmael noted that 1 major distinction was that he was not shooting for a publication @ the time & was not uploading his photos to the world every night, which removed most of the security/tactical considerations & gave the military time to vet his material (informally, if not formally). He also was able to build a rapport w/the soldiers w/whom he was embedded, so much so that they backed him up on 1 occasion when brass wanted to exclude him from accompanying them on raids.
The point I am making, and the one that people are not wanting to admit, is that this guy followed the rules and was kicked out, that is all I am saying.
That is what I ventured earlier.
"Doesn't appear to be censorship, as the photo is right there on the NY Times as well as on the photographer's website.
This appears to be the case of an idealistic embed who has lost the respect of the Marines that protect him."
The photos haven't been censored, they are still posted.
"Doesn't appear to be censorship, as the photo is right there on the NY Times as well as on the photographer's website.
This appears to be the case of an idealistic embed who has lost the respect of the Marines that protect him."
The photos haven't been censored, they are still posted.
furcafe
Veteran
Yes, I am not a right-winger & certainly not a regular reader of "The American Thinker," but I think Mr. Paulin's essay is essentially correct in its assessment of what happened in the 1st part, particularly as an explanation of what really motivated the Marines on the scene. However, his citation of Mr. Miller's admission about his willingness to break photography rules (like centering the subject) as evidence of leftist perfidy is just a wee bit overwrought.
Last edited:
sjones
Established
I am sorry, but this is an absurd statement; if you think that censorship in the West is comparable to that which occurs in China, you might want to study up on the extensive suppression of media and related arrests that takes place in China.
In regards to the overall issue of publishing photos of the dead, I do agree that it should be allowed, and thorough sanitization of combat---along with jeopardizing journalistic freedoms---only does a disservice to military personnel, as the depths of their sacrifice go unrecognized by the public. Even so, management of it is an extremely sensitive issue, that is, of course, if the editors involved have any degree of respect for the feelings of the victim's family (and when I say victim, I am referring to all war dead, regardless of side, regardless of combatant or civilian).
That said, exploiting the dead for self-aggrandizement, whether in regards to professional advancement or sense of sanctimony (of which I am not accusing Miller), is morally reprehensible. And that is the problem, publishing graphic images usually incurs tendentious politicalization, whether by the government or its opposing activists. Imagery, particularly without proper context, is highly susceptible to demagogic abuse by all sides, and issues of foreign policy should not be decided on manipulated emotion alone.
It is unclear if the United States had the logistical capability of militarily intervening in Rwanda in 1994, and personally, it was not the sole responsibility of Washington to do so. The point being, that even if it was hypothetically possible, and even if such intervention could have spared tens of thousands of lives, it was politically infeasible due in part to the lingering images of dead US soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu a year earlier. I am not arguing that the images should have been suppressed, and if they, even for a brief period, imprinted a distaste for combat on the American psyche, that would certainly be a positive. Yet, situations do arise where military action might be necessary (although very rarely), and Rwanda might have been one of those rare cases.
So yes, you can show images of dead bodies to protest against Iraq, but someone else could have used similar images in an attempt to deter military action against the Third Reich. I also wonder if excessively displaying the dead might backfire, as it could possibly lead to collective desensitization; I don't know, just a consideration.
As for censorship (which certainly exists in the US/West, I do not deny that), it is worth noting that for a week, if not more, the New York Times published on the front page, above the fold, images of Iraqi prisoners abused at Abu Ghraib. These images marked a significant setback for Washington and America's overall credibility; perhaps more so than frequent pictures of dead soldiers. The photos undoubtedly inspired the insurgents and bolstered recruitment. The press was not at fault, of course, the blame falls squarely on the rogue US soldiers. If Washington were Beijing, the photos would have never made the mainstream press.
M C H
Member
I'm curious about the unspoken assumption, running through many of the posts in this thread, that access to images of the Iraq, taken with benefit of Coalition protection, will provide the average American citizen the information required to make the correct assessment about the war.
Is that not a fair characterization?
And yet, I suspect that the numbers of American citizens who do not understand that war is a brutal, terrible, and awful thing is much less than 100%. So I am immediately suspicious of the idea that these kinds of photos have all that much informational value - just as many have been incredulous at Christopher Hitchens recent pronouncement that waterboarding is indeed torture. I think these photos aren't intended to inform, really, but to shock.
Frankly, images of carnage in Iraq are not hard to come by - now. That wasn't true before 2003, when CNN "embedded" itself with the Hussein regime and voluntarily censored not just its output, but where it looked for stories at all. You won't find much material evidence of life for the average Iraqi under Hussein in the Western press.
This is important, for it is not possible to evaluate ethical responses to war without understanding alternative courses of action. So again, what "truth" is being told about Iraq in photos that document rent flesh and broken bodies?
Not that there isn't truth there, mind you. Absolutely there is. It's a truth that has been documented since well before photography became journalistically viable. Goya's illustrations of Napolean's peninsular war, collectively called "Disasters of War," presage photographic collections such as Ernst Friedrich's World War One collection called "War Against War."
These works and many others today comprise a documentary corpus of the grim visage of war that has never been more accessible. Indeed, the very idea of censorship in Iraq has its ironic undertones, since no other war in history has been as well documented as this, with such free and instant access. Not to say that censorship doesn't exist, of course, and it plainly has in Miller's case.
But what does that mean?
It does not mean that Americans do not have access to ghoulish images of the war, even of Coalition dead. Important information voters need to voice their opinion of the prosecution of the war has not been curtailed by Miller's absence. Miller has had his voice stilled for the time being. He is no longer in a position to leverage access to the front into his anti-war message. An anti-war message, by the way, which blamed the Coalition explicitly for facilitating an attack against Iraqis to whom the Coalition was ceding authority.
Perhaps it is too "sterile" for Miller simply to describe the facts. And if we allow ourselves to think that close ups of mutilated corpses is in any meaningful way factual - that is, contingent with events as they actually happened - then we must return to the pretense that the camera simply records without any directive or motive and that nothing exists outside its frame.
Far from changing the world through his photography, Zoriah Miller wants to subborn photography through his politics, to its great detriment.
Is that not a fair characterization?
And yet, I suspect that the numbers of American citizens who do not understand that war is a brutal, terrible, and awful thing is much less than 100%. So I am immediately suspicious of the idea that these kinds of photos have all that much informational value - just as many have been incredulous at Christopher Hitchens recent pronouncement that waterboarding is indeed torture. I think these photos aren't intended to inform, really, but to shock.
Frankly, images of carnage in Iraq are not hard to come by - now. That wasn't true before 2003, when CNN "embedded" itself with the Hussein regime and voluntarily censored not just its output, but where it looked for stories at all. You won't find much material evidence of life for the average Iraqi under Hussein in the Western press.
This is important, for it is not possible to evaluate ethical responses to war without understanding alternative courses of action. So again, what "truth" is being told about Iraq in photos that document rent flesh and broken bodies?
Not that there isn't truth there, mind you. Absolutely there is. It's a truth that has been documented since well before photography became journalistically viable. Goya's illustrations of Napolean's peninsular war, collectively called "Disasters of War," presage photographic collections such as Ernst Friedrich's World War One collection called "War Against War."
These works and many others today comprise a documentary corpus of the grim visage of war that has never been more accessible. Indeed, the very idea of censorship in Iraq has its ironic undertones, since no other war in history has been as well documented as this, with such free and instant access. Not to say that censorship doesn't exist, of course, and it plainly has in Miller's case.
But what does that mean?
It does not mean that Americans do not have access to ghoulish images of the war, even of Coalition dead. Important information voters need to voice their opinion of the prosecution of the war has not been curtailed by Miller's absence. Miller has had his voice stilled for the time being. He is no longer in a position to leverage access to the front into his anti-war message. An anti-war message, by the way, which blamed the Coalition explicitly for facilitating an attack against Iraqis to whom the Coalition was ceding authority.
Perhaps it is too "sterile" for Miller simply to describe the facts. And if we allow ourselves to think that close ups of mutilated corpses is in any meaningful way factual - that is, contingent with events as they actually happened - then we must return to the pretense that the camera simply records without any directive or motive and that nothing exists outside its frame.
Far from changing the world through his photography, Zoriah Miller wants to subborn photography through his politics, to its great detriment.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.