Photographing Combat Death

My comment at the Lens Blog:

"As a photographer and as an Army veteran, I can see little more important during war than to document how it really is.

I get so tired of people pretending to "support the troops" or who talk of "sacrifices" but are unwilling to really support those troops who are out there making the ultimate sacrifice. And, Good Lord forbid they should actually have to sacrifice themselves...

I am sickened by those who would censor these images - those who would steal and defile the meaning of these young men and women - their lives & their losses. Those who would censor these images are, in the end, the worst enemy we face in this war. "

And for that reason, thank you for the link, Brian.

William
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My problem is that he was recognizable in the picture. If it was that PJ's mother that was a victim, would it have been published? The few years I worked in broadcast TV, the mantra was don't show the face.

I spent twenty years in the U.S. Navy, my son did also and my grandson is aboard the sub Jimmy Carter right now. Death happens but making a political statement with a person that laid his life on the line for us is not right, in my opinion.
 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I don't believe the American public's right to know is a political gesture or statement. As a photographer and a Korean War vet, I honestly think the public should be required to know what they are endorsing, actively or passively. Call it 'greater good.'

Domestic violence is a completely different situation, and a little discretion is usually expected and respected. Usually only the bad guys get their mugs shown.

Thanks Bill Pierce for airing this thread. I know that nothing I shot in the early 50's ever saw the light of day.
 
Last edited:
If truth is a political statement to someone, then some serious rethinking of politics is required.
 
Many servicemen choose not to share the reality of combat with their civilian friends and families, what about their rights?

Do they not get some say in this? what do they say to their wives, going off on a second tour after lurid headlines and bodies scattered across the front pages?
 
Both my grandfathers were killed in World War Two, one off Crete, one on the Russian convoys.

Anything that reduces the risk of war is a good idea, but this is not the same as saying that no war is justified.

Pictures of death in combat may help people decide more reaistically whether a particular war is worth it.

Though old men will quite probably continue to think that young men's lives are expendable, and young men will comtinue to think they are immortal.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Both my grandfathers were killed in World War Two, one off Crete, one on the Russian convoys.

Anything that reduces the risk of war is a good idea, but this is not the same as saying that no war is justified.

Pictures of death in combat may help people decide more reaistically whether a particular war is worth it.

Though old men will quite probably continue to think that young men's lives are expendable, and young men will comtinue to think they are immortal.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

And are you content for the Sun to select which photos to publish and writing the editorial?
 
The closing quotes by Don McCullin really stood out to me. War and suffering and resultant photography gets recycled, "controversial" photographs are taken and the debates go round in circles, while war and suffering continues.
 
Mr. Pierce, thanks for the link, and thanks for your brave vision...

Maybe we should ask ourselves who could be in real trouble if american common people see american common people getting brutally and massively killed in a war they never started...

And maybe the answer would be, the few people getting profit from war, no matter who looses or dies.

Who has earned money, big 7, 8 or 9 zeros numbers of money when a war is created and carefully grown to become a huge expense of weapons?

Who couldn't earn more billions is weapons are not used?

Who wants to make more weapons?

Who makes US weapons for war?

I have never been to the States, and I am no expert on the subject, but I think half of american people vote for war.

With deep respect for the other half,

Juan.
 
jwcat said:
My problem is that he was recognizable in the picture. If it was that PJ's mother that was a victim, would it have been published? The few years I worked in broadcast TV, the mantra was don't show the face.

I spent twenty years in the U.S. Navy, my son did also and my grandson is aboard the sub Jimmy Carter right now. Death happens but making a political statement with a person that laid his life on the line for us is not right, in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Sometimes (actually, more often than not), NOT showing the deadly results of a politician's decision to go to war is "making a political statement."

These techniques involve propaganda and its twin brother censorship and has been the primary tool of politicians and despots for centuries. This is how, despite the promise of democracy, those in power remain in power, by manipulating public opinion for ulterior motives, through the power of mediation.

The policy you refer to, of media not showing the faces of the dead, is a political decision. And I will wager these decisions were not made at the level of the local office, but high up in the corporation (or above the corporate level, by political pressure).

The fact is that we have an "embedded" media (what I prefer to call "in bed with" media) whose presence within the conflict we are taught to somehow ignore. I can assure you that the military leadership did not ignore the presence of the media during the Iraq invasion; they were, and still are (to a lesser extent, perhaps) being manipulated by the military for political purposes.

It is only fitting that we consider the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as applying not only to physics but to politics; the very act of observation changes both the observer and that being observed. This is why cockroaches fear the light, as do despots.

I served in the US Navy, too. But when I did (the late 1970s), we were taught that, under our constitution, the military served at the whim of freely elected civilian leadership. That is, the military served the electorate. Not the other way around.

So those whom the military serves deserves the truth of what's happening in wars both far-off and nearby.

There are those in the military who would say (and I hope you aren't one of them) that the civilian population can't handle the truth; that they require the truth to be carefully manipulated and doled out to them piecemeal, in order to maintain some semblance of domestic peace. Like cattle in a holding pen, you don't want them busting up the fences. I call bull-sh#t. The military works for the country, for those ignorant civilians. Not the other way around. Otherwise you are left with a military junta system of governance.

~Joe
 
Sparrow said:
And are you content for the Sun to select which photos to publish and writing the editorial?
Click to expand...

Note for American readers: for many, the Sun is the epitome of the gutter press in the UK. It is only slightly ahead of the Daily Sport and (in the USA) the National Enquirer.

Dear Stewart,

Yes, because a free press is indivisible. As soon as you start saying which papers can publish what they like, and which can't, the press is no longer free.

I'd trust the Grauniad or even the Torygraph more, but I don't see how you can squash the Sun and the Mail (note for Americans again: the Daily Mail is a notorious right-wing rag) and retain the pretence of a free press.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Note for American readers: for many, the Sun is the epitome of the gutter press in the UK. It is only slightly ahead of the Daily Sport and (in the USA) the National Enquirer.

Dear Stewart,

Yes, because a free press is indivisible. As soon as you start saying which papers can publish what they like, and which can't, the press is no longer free.

I'd trust the Grauniad or even the Torygraph more, but I don't see how you can squash the Sun and the Mail (note for Americans again: the Daily Mail is a notorious right-wing rag) and retain the pretence of a free press.

Tashi delek,

R.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure, despite being implacably opposed to censorship, the thought of newspaper and TV editors involved in the publication of combat photos makes me very uneasy. We would end up with one side screaming “Our brave boys” and the other “Dogs of war” and vying to publish the most purulent shots to prove their case.

It would make life intolerable for the poor Squaddies families, and deployment unpleasant for the soldiers themselves; I agree such photos should be published but question weather the popular press is a proper place.
 
If you want to find the face of war these days, it is not too difficult with the Internet.

Those Americans in combat that carry cameras are free to post on the Internet in theater, as Jay (Tightsqeeze) has done.

If you want to find the information, it will be out there.
 
Sparrow said:
I’m not sure, despite being implacably opposed to censorship, the thought of newspaper and TV editors involved in the publication of combat photos makes me very uneasy. We would end up with one side screaming “Our brave boys” and the other “Dogs of war” and vying to publish the most purulent shots to prove their case.

It would make life intolerable for the poor Squaddies families, and deployment unpleasant for the soldiers themselves; I agree such photos should be published but question weather the popular press is a proper place.
Click to expand...
Dear Stewart,

Makes me uneasy, too, but as someone 'implacably opposed to censorship' do you see a realistic alternative? A free press is a free press. The alternative -- which can only be called censorship -- makes me even more uneasy.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Stewart,

Makes me uneasy, too, but as someone 'implacably opposed to censorship' do you see a realistic alternative? A free press is a free press. The alternative -- which can only be called censorship -- makes me even more uneasy.

Tashi delek,

R.
Click to expand...

We apply a taste and decency rule with such things, road traffic deaths to inform us of road safety issues, plane crash victims to improve air safety, victims of terrorist attacks to win an election, or do you think they should they be published too? You recall the Falling Man, would showing the result of that fall be in bad taste would you say?
 
Sparrow said:
We apply a taste and decency rule with such things, road traffic deaths to inform us of road safety issues, plane crash victims to improve air safety, victims of terrorist attacks to win an election, or do you think they should they be published too? You recall the Falling Man, would showing the result of that fall be in bad taste would you say?
Click to expand...

Dear Stewart,

You're saying that they should be published. Where?

Cheers,

R.
 
While there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Jacobson images publication against the wishes of the family, I wish to note that in the earlier Lens posting about that controversy, it is stated that the deceased man's fellow marines were shown the images and had no problem with them. They understand at a gut level, that this is their reality and that death can claim them all at will. The people at home do not like to be reminded of what combat really is like; certainly not parents, family & friends of those currently in harms way.

Secretary Gates, OTOH, only is concerned about the propagand value as that is his job. You can bet that if he felt it would help them, the pictures would have been publishe instantly with no consideration of the family whatsoever. A prime example of this can be found in the tragic farse that became Pat Tillman; there were no images to exploit but everything else sans the truth certainly was.

A truely free press is one of the most important checks and balances of our system. Without it all the rest will simply vanish in the rain.

William
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Stewart,

You're saying that they should be published. Where?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Sorry Roger, I don’t know, but there is a world of difference between published and broadcast, and I an unsure about the latter.

Enough soldiers end up taking there own lives as it is without adding to the pressures, as Brian said it’s there to see for anyone that wants to look without putting on the telly

These days soldiers can be sitting in their local pub a few days after their combat tours end, they have to rationalise their experiences at some point and it seems wrong to ask them to do that with the world looking over their shoulder, and images of combat on the TV
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom