Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Roger,
Your main idea about free press deciding what to publish, is clear, because it's simple.
But some of the times, what they decide not to publish, is finally hidden, precisely because of the contrary: because they are not free at all...
Maybe most of the times? Precisely the crucial times...
Regards,
Juan.
Your main idea about free press deciding what to publish, is clear, because it's simple.
But some of the times, what they decide not to publish, is finally hidden, precisely because of the contrary: because they are not free at all...
Maybe most of the times? Precisely the crucial times...
Regards,
Juan.
Last edited:
Merkin
For the Weekend
to paraphrase Clausewitz, war is politics by other means.
it is impossible to separate politics from war, especially when vast swathes of humanity see our current military engagements as wars of choice (or even, in the case of many people's opinion of the iraq conflict, one of aggression). sure, it may not be pretty, and it certainly sucks for the family members of the photographed dead and dying, but this is not "a splendid little war," it is hell. No one ever moans about the families of the dead and dying from the other side, because they are THE ENEMY. THEM BAD. ME GOOD- even though a significant portion of fighters in afghanistan are told that if they do not fight against the americans, their families will be murdered. If it was up to me, there would be such photos on the front page of every newspaper, every day. Sometimes people just need to be shocked out of their shells. Ok, that last bit is a touch hyperbolic, but i think you get my point...
it is impossible to separate politics from war, especially when vast swathes of humanity see our current military engagements as wars of choice (or even, in the case of many people's opinion of the iraq conflict, one of aggression). sure, it may not be pretty, and it certainly sucks for the family members of the photographed dead and dying, but this is not "a splendid little war," it is hell. No one ever moans about the families of the dead and dying from the other side, because they are THE ENEMY. THEM BAD. ME GOOD- even though a significant portion of fighters in afghanistan are told that if they do not fight against the americans, their families will be murdered. If it was up to me, there would be such photos on the front page of every newspaper, every day. Sometimes people just need to be shocked out of their shells. Ok, that last bit is a touch hyperbolic, but i think you get my point...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Sparrow,
the two are totally different things.
The "result" of the "falling man" is obvious to everybody without looking at the documented smashed body. No need to show any gore details.
The images in question are about a war. If only triumphant and celebrating images are shown, one is mislead thinking it's all fine, none of the "good guys" are suffering. In addition the image in question does not show any ripped off limbs or belly cut open. It does not need to do so. I think most of us agree on it.
the two are totally different things.
The "result" of the "falling man" is obvious to everybody without looking at the documented smashed body. No need to show any gore details.
The images in question are about a war. If only triumphant and celebrating images are shown, one is mislead thinking it's all fine, none of the "good guys" are suffering. In addition the image in question does not show any ripped off limbs or belly cut open. It does not need to do so. I think most of us agree on it.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Sparrow
Veteran
hyperbole, guilty as charged.
I was really just pointing out society requires limits, we are just discussing where they should be.
danwilly
Established
Matthew Brady should be here to read this discussion.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sparrow
Veteran
Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.
Oscar Wilde
P.S. I thought "war was the continuation of diplomacy by other means"
Oscar Wilde
P.S. I thought "war was the continuation of diplomacy by other means"
Last edited:
Ronald M
Veteran
3000 dead Americans, numerous terrorist cells in the US boken up since with one last week partially broken. The public has to understand they are still trying to get us and our service men and women are holding them back and for that we should be grateful.
Freedom is costly and the American people need to understand the whole costs. You can say pull out and come home, but that just gives them a place to regroup and try again and again and again with ever stronger efforts. It really comes down to fight them there or here, take your pick.
My opinion is it is ok to show a few bodies to tell the story. It is ok to show a few caskets being unloaded at Dover AFB and a funeral or two. A fitting tribute is the memorial pictures shown on the Chicago PBS television station, pictures, name rank, age, and home town. It makes one sad to see the vast majority are 19/25 year olds.
The same station ran a piece about a retired doctor, age 65+, going to Irag. Now that is someone trying to help.
Freedom is costly and the American people need to understand the whole costs. You can say pull out and come home, but that just gives them a place to regroup and try again and again and again with ever stronger efforts. It really comes down to fight them there or here, take your pick.
My opinion is it is ok to show a few bodies to tell the story. It is ok to show a few caskets being unloaded at Dover AFB and a funeral or two. A fitting tribute is the memorial pictures shown on the Chicago PBS television station, pictures, name rank, age, and home town. It makes one sad to see the vast majority are 19/25 year olds.
The same station ran a piece about a retired doctor, age 65+, going to Irag. Now that is someone trying to help.
peterm1
Veteran
The reality of course is that such photos will inevitably increase opposition to the war for better or for worse. Just as they have done in conflicts since WW2 - especially Vietnam. It is not an easy thing to look at death and such images will be used (and misused) to argue for cessation of conflicts. You need to consider whether this is a good or a bad thing. The reason that the administration in WW2 was able to get away with allowing images to be shown (eventually) was that by then the world was so mired in war that showing the sacrifice would only help bolster support for troops. And of course the aggression being shown by Nazi Germany an Japan was so unambiguous that there could be little opposition anyway - it was clearly a war of self-defence as well as a war to rid the world of a deep evil.
Such questions are always political. Never easy. I do however think that the previous (Bush) administration's ban on showing returning coffins of the dead was like many other things done by that deeply, deeply flawed and frankly corrupt presidency both cynical and morally abominable.
I am not a US citizen but when the US goes to war and takes its allies with it - such questions become ones for the world to ponder.
Such questions are always political. Never easy. I do however think that the previous (Bush) administration's ban on showing returning coffins of the dead was like many other things done by that deeply, deeply flawed and frankly corrupt presidency both cynical and morally abominable.
I am not a US citizen but when the US goes to war and takes its allies with it - such questions become ones for the world to ponder.
Last edited:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Who then decides which photos to publish and what is the "popular press" that should not exercise its editorial peroragative? There's slick mud on the path to answering those questions.
Once on a CBC television news broadcast I saw video of bodies being recovered from an accident at sea. Faces were shown. I was shocked and my initial reaction was to judge the CBC as "wrong" to show such footage. Indeed, later broadcasts of the incident were edited to exclude the faces.
However, I later changed my mind; the images that still inhabit my memory are important and have helped me to appreciate the reality of that situation, of the danger at sea and the absolute miracle of life.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
How in the world can anyone still conflate 9/11 with Iraq? The only al Qaeda in Iraq have been those who moved in as a result of the Bush war there. Good job.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Roger: you summarized my personal feelings so succinctly and eloquently that the best I can do is repeat them.
peterm1
Veteran
Damn right!
A cycnic (well OK perhaps me) would conclude that the war was about nothing so much as enriching the coffers of Haliburton and Blackwater. If it truly, truly was based on a belief that Sadam Hussein was harbouring WMD, I can only repeat the old joke that : No Sadma Hussein was not trying to buy Uranium from Africa - he was trying to buy Geraniums from Africa. That scenario is about as plausible as the WMD argument.
Like I said in my post below - the Bush administration was deeply flawed and corrupt. That is a much more plausible explanation for being in Iraq.
pakeha
Well-known
Clausewitz, Wilde etc. How about a quote from Geddy Lee?
`Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world than the pride that divides when a colouful rag is unfurled"
The question has become , who`s causualties to photograph
`Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world than the pride that divides when a colouful rag is unfurled"
The question has become , who`s causualties to photograph
John Camp
Well-known
As far as I know, nobody -- not even Gates -- suggested that the press didn't have a "right" to publish the photos, but the press also had the "right" not to publish the photos on grounds of discretion or good taste or deference to a grieving family, or whatever. One problem is that whatever is done, it becomes a propaganda victory for someone, and will be exploited far past a single publication. The photos are now all over the net, and will be for a hundred years, assuming that Iran doesn't get the bomb.
It's not really a matter of showing a war. People know a war is going on -- they see the reports of local kids killed in the war, they see the numbers, they see the body shots...but to me, it seems that a face shot can be disrespectful, and can actually do damage to the victim's family. Somebody here said he saw photos from a sea disaster where the faces really impressed him: well, imagine seeing the face of your son as he's dying an awful and painful death, and probably seeing it over and over again. Who pays for that?
As a former longtime reporter, I'm an advocate both of the free press and of discretion, of the idea of doing no further damage unless it's critical. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Again, there really weren't any "free press" questions in the AP case, but there was a question of simple humanity, and the AP, IMHO, failed.
It's not really a matter of showing a war. People know a war is going on -- they see the reports of local kids killed in the war, they see the numbers, they see the body shots...but to me, it seems that a face shot can be disrespectful, and can actually do damage to the victim's family. Somebody here said he saw photos from a sea disaster where the faces really impressed him: well, imagine seeing the face of your son as he's dying an awful and painful death, and probably seeing it over and over again. Who pays for that?
As a former longtime reporter, I'm an advocate both of the free press and of discretion, of the idea of doing no further damage unless it's critical. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Again, there really weren't any "free press" questions in the AP case, but there was a question of simple humanity, and the AP, IMHO, failed.
Turtle
Veteran
This is very true and the pressure on loved ones is incredibly intense when an individual deploys to a conflict zone. However, being in a state of denial, fueled by the excessive sanitisation of information, hinders rather than helps IMO. It is important for everyone to have a good idea what they are getting themselves into, both for soldiers, their families and society as a whole. This is the real moral issue as far as I am concerned. Both societies and individuals react particularly badly when they feel they have been deceived or manipulated based on the control of information and rightly so. All deaths and injuries are a shock, but none more than those which emerge in the absence of known risk.
I am fully in support of more complete disclosure. As a former serviceman and someone who has spent the last decade in conflict zones, I believe that effective leadership is the key to managing that information and reactions to it. If, as a commander, you cannot manage your soldiers heading into a dangerous environment then either you have the wrong soldiers or you are not up to your job. This is not to say it is easy, but it is the inescapable challenge of command and leadership responsibility.
It may seem contrary to common sense, but an understanding of what actually happened to loved ones can act as a real comfort to those left behind. The sanitary nature of a military funeral, followed by the absence of any real information as to what - actually - happened can cause more distress than relief, so it is overly simplistic to assume that graphic images only do harm. Some people need to be able to picture what happened to their loved ones, or at least be able to come up with some visual possibilities, to achieve any kind of closure. They know their son or daughter did not float away (after being hit by an IED), so there is no point in trying to pretend otherwise.
The pictures in question are nowhere near as graphic as those associated with Vietnam and some other conflicts and while I respect the wishes of the family, there is another perspective: Armed forces belong to us collectively. They are our soldiers who do the bidding of the government we elected. They are responsible for our safety and national integrity and we in turn are responsible for looking after them. Every soldier who falls, is not only a loss to the family, but a loss to us all and I do not believe that anyone has the right to hide that reality from us. While the family would undoubtedly rather their son's image was not in the papers, I suspect they are affected by the controversy as much as the publishing of the image itself. Were the issue less contentious, I very much doubt that the effect would be as great.
Rather than feeling a sense of guilt or disgust, I would hope that people seeing such an image would be moved by a sense of compassion and pride as well as empathy for the family and everyone else affected by similar circumstances, unseen and unknown to us. There is nothing to be ashamed of here. The photograph is not degrading. It does not humiliate. I feel the word is grossly overused, but the image honors the man, the family and those who have made sacrifices for us, whether we agree with the war or not. That sense of connection and collective responsibility then allows us to decide what it means to us going forwards, how it will affect our votes and ultimately the conduct of our nation when future young men and women are to be put in harms way. Only then can we take true, informed responsibility for the consequences of our actions as citizens.
JohnTF
Veteran
On the face of it, it seems simple to be against all war and censorship. Who, in their right mind, would be pro war?
Yet, people tend to politically decide the good wars and the bad.
Today, a good war is perhaps one in which the opponent can be shown to be evil, the cause a necessary one, and the victory swift with innocents spared.
Always colored by the eyes of the observer, and of course the process of observing changes the event.
The technology today allows information to flow very much uncensored, to the point that anyone can be on the News every day with a tweet. Does not make what they say valid or sound.
In many ways a journalist is a professional witness and recorder of events.
The first censorship is the one that filters what he records, as there is no way to record everything.
The second is what to report, you cannot report everything.
The third is, what is distasteful and lacking in value.
In the end, the hope is for results in media reportage which accurately reflect a distillation of the event, the truth, with less rather than more unnecessary distaste.
It is a goal, sometimes reached for, not always obtained, not always simple.
We would like to think that everything can be boiled down to its basics, you sometimes hear someone say "explain it to me as if I were a child", -- not always possible, and I am afraid people have limited abilities to stay with any issue very long. We can hardly stay with a post longer than a few lines. ;-)
It is a viable strategy for any political entity to just keep the other side occupied long enough to tire of the struggle, to change their opinion of what is a "good" war, so that the victory, if there can be said to be one, belongs to the persistent, not necessarily the morally right.
Then the history is written by both sides, and rarely agrees.
Because a camera is a device that mechanically records, it has potential as a less biased witness. What happens to the data from there involves all kinds of issues.
Hopefully the more lofty goals prevail, the baser ones are relegated to the levels they deserve, and the truth is not driven by petty politics, profits and spectacle.
Regards, John
Yet, people tend to politically decide the good wars and the bad.
Today, a good war is perhaps one in which the opponent can be shown to be evil, the cause a necessary one, and the victory swift with innocents spared.
Always colored by the eyes of the observer, and of course the process of observing changes the event.
The technology today allows information to flow very much uncensored, to the point that anyone can be on the News every day with a tweet. Does not make what they say valid or sound.
In many ways a journalist is a professional witness and recorder of events.
The first censorship is the one that filters what he records, as there is no way to record everything.
The second is what to report, you cannot report everything.
The third is, what is distasteful and lacking in value.
In the end, the hope is for results in media reportage which accurately reflect a distillation of the event, the truth, with less rather than more unnecessary distaste.
It is a goal, sometimes reached for, not always obtained, not always simple.
We would like to think that everything can be boiled down to its basics, you sometimes hear someone say "explain it to me as if I were a child", -- not always possible, and I am afraid people have limited abilities to stay with any issue very long. We can hardly stay with a post longer than a few lines. ;-)
It is a viable strategy for any political entity to just keep the other side occupied long enough to tire of the struggle, to change their opinion of what is a "good" war, so that the victory, if there can be said to be one, belongs to the persistent, not necessarily the morally right.
Then the history is written by both sides, and rarely agrees.
Because a camera is a device that mechanically records, it has potential as a less biased witness. What happens to the data from there involves all kinds of issues.
Hopefully the more lofty goals prevail, the baser ones are relegated to the levels they deserve, and the truth is not driven by petty politics, profits and spectacle.
Regards, John
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
I strongly recommend reading a historical overview of the region's Islamic conflicts called, "God's Terrorists." The name is misleading as it is not one of the usual band of superficial, edgy 'terror books' overflowing with intrigue and spies, but about the deep historical roots. It talks a great deal about the British Empire, the formation of Pakistan, Afghan conflicts, the formation of Saudi, the origins of Wahabi Islam etc... after which the last ten years all of a sudden have a very clear (complicated and old) context. In this light, the consequences of western involvement, both positive and negative, are much easier to understand. They are, however, exceedingly complex and deeply woven.
Read the book and come back and see if you still feel comfortable with the same statement. There is a strong element of chicken and egg in whats going on in Afghanistan and the region in general. We are fanning the flames while attempting to put them out. In many respects we are giving them what they want and in return getting what we fear most. The last ten years are merely the last 5% of 200 years of the same, with extremism ebbing and flowing and being dealt with both successfully and unsuccessfully.
I wish our men and women could simply come over here and keep the west safe in the long haul. Unfortunately, it does not work like that from my understanding. We have made the most spectacular balls up of Afghanistan and I firmly believe there is little hope of improvement in the next two to three years, if ever, all the while more people are becoming radicalised and everything we are supposedly here to try to prevent.
Sorry for the digression, but I feel this is the backdrop to the sacrifices; a much more bitter pill to swallow and one where we have yet to find the silver lining.
The truth is that a lot more soldiers will die and we have no real clue what, if anything, we will actually achieve. We are getting in deeper and deeper and have decreasing time available to carry out change. The Afghan Govt is corrupt beyond your wildest imagination (I deal with them) and is the last partner you would dream of choosing in taking a counterinsurgency forwards. The security forces are killing insurgents, but creating more in the process, at which point one has to conclude that the cause and solution to the problem are one and the same at the present point in time. Things needs to change direction (particularly wrt our partnership with the Afghan Govt) and dramatically so, because having soldiers over here and 'doing something' are not enough. 'They are still trying to get us' in part because of what we are doing now. We need to be much smarter and while the right noises are being made now, they are five years too late and Karzai may have another five years to run...