Sparrow
Veteran
A well argued case, and it is difficult to fault rhetoric of that standard.
However you do not address the fact that by publishing the truth, if such a beast could be found, you are denying the individual soliders that choice.
P.S. Also, how exactly would broadcasting the details of some poor solider death help his family more than learning of them from his mates in private, I find that idea obscene
Last edited:
WigglePig
Newbie
Well, my take on this issue is that there is a whole world of difference between images being published and being broadcast.
To illustrate this, consider the Flickr set that started this thread off; this is publication. The images are there to be viewed if one should wish, under a big heading that clearly says "Images of War". Indeed, the Flickr set falls outside my usual filter settings and Flickr kindly asked me if I was sure I wanted to look. This is exactly the same as wandering in to the Photographer's Gallery in London and choosing to view an exhibition of images showing <insert subject here>.
Consider now that one is reading a newspaper. Next to the Page Three Lovley is displayed an image of, for argument's sake, the remains of a victim of a bomb placed in a restaurant. This is broadcasting and somewhat different in my opinion. One may have purchased the newspaper with the expectation of being informed (although with The Sun this may be a questionable motive!) but suddenly one finds oneself being confronted with a shocking image.
It is a matter of choice.
[The following comment may well cause a bit of a stir; it is not my intention to offend!]
Now consider the earlier comment about the rights and feelings of the service personnel "in theatre"; most elected military service requires the surrender of certain rights. This is quite clear if you consider the right to free speech; so important to most of us but clearly dangerous when dealing with sensitive information. Troops have chosen to work in this field and are paid for doing it (often not very well, granted) and they and their families benefit from this renumeration. To suggest that images should not be published simply because it may upset someone, or make their home life more difficult (explaining to the family why they feel the need to work in a dangerous trade, for example) is, IMO, tantamount to censorship in itself. I favour complete disclosure, where "security" is not immediately affected.
It can be a very difficult balance to strike when deciding what to do with images, etc, dealing with any subject (look at the discussions which occur over street photography!) but if the viewer makes a concious decision to look at material then there should be no major issue.
After all that, I seem to have forgotten why I started this post! I'll finish it off later when I remember what my point was!
Tra
WP
To illustrate this, consider the Flickr set that started this thread off; this is publication. The images are there to be viewed if one should wish, under a big heading that clearly says "Images of War". Indeed, the Flickr set falls outside my usual filter settings and Flickr kindly asked me if I was sure I wanted to look. This is exactly the same as wandering in to the Photographer's Gallery in London and choosing to view an exhibition of images showing <insert subject here>.
Consider now that one is reading a newspaper. Next to the Page Three Lovley is displayed an image of, for argument's sake, the remains of a victim of a bomb placed in a restaurant. This is broadcasting and somewhat different in my opinion. One may have purchased the newspaper with the expectation of being informed (although with The Sun this may be a questionable motive!) but suddenly one finds oneself being confronted with a shocking image.
It is a matter of choice.
[The following comment may well cause a bit of a stir; it is not my intention to offend!]
Now consider the earlier comment about the rights and feelings of the service personnel "in theatre"; most elected military service requires the surrender of certain rights. This is quite clear if you consider the right to free speech; so important to most of us but clearly dangerous when dealing with sensitive information. Troops have chosen to work in this field and are paid for doing it (often not very well, granted) and they and their families benefit from this renumeration. To suggest that images should not be published simply because it may upset someone, or make their home life more difficult (explaining to the family why they feel the need to work in a dangerous trade, for example) is, IMO, tantamount to censorship in itself. I favour complete disclosure, where "security" is not immediately affected.
It can be a very difficult balance to strike when deciding what to do with images, etc, dealing with any subject (look at the discussions which occur over street photography!) but if the viewer makes a concious decision to look at material then there should be no major issue.
After all that, I seem to have forgotten why I started this post! I'll finish it off later when I remember what my point was!
Tra
WP
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
Every casualty is someone's loved one, so in answer to your first comment it is impossible to present a record of what is happening if every time permissions needed to be sought, especially when it comes to news timeframes. It would make publication a nightmare and truth be told, nothing would get published because someone would always object. What happens if the parents say OK but the girlfriend objects? What about if they all say OK and the younger sister says no, or they all agree but a close uncle has an issue with it?
I don't think it is so much the soldier's choice, but that of the familyloved ones that is being discussed. The soldiers signs up for it and from my experience of such things, is very much less sensitive to these things than those claiming to be speaking on their behalf. After all, they have been through it...
Regarding your second point, I was in no way suggesting that the broadcasting of details pertaining to an individuals fate is inherently beneficial for the family, only the falsehood of the notion that disclosing (including pictorially) the nature of war, and its personal impact, is inherently bad for those personally affected. I am sure that for those who do not wish to know the details, seeing pictures in the paper is extremely distressing, but there are those who do wish to know the details, after which (for them) the issue of public disclosure is one of privacy rather then discovering details they would rather not know about. Everyone is different, but it is tough to inform the public while accounting for every taste. Like I said earlier, someone always objects.
I suppose one has to ask whether the public has the right to obtain information relating to the fates of their soldiers at war. I would say 'yes' and agree with AP that this has to over ride the wishes of those who object. If it were otherwise, there would be a lot of things which would be hidden from millions on the basis of one very personal objection. As awful and callous as this sounds, the 'greater good' comes to mind.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry no, that was not my point, I specifically made the point that the common solider should be able keep the graphic details private if he wished, not secret but private.
You seem to be applying civil rules to a martial environment, that isn’t practical.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
BOTTOM LINE: NO CENSORSHIP for documenting WAR
the public in general NEEDS to KNOW
what the real Reality is....
the public in general NEEDS to KNOW
what the real Reality is....
Jake O
-
I agree, and more. Even those who don't want to know should have it force fed to them.
You must have held some high rank to talk such PC. (read: bull sh!t).
Individuals are not deployed to conflict zones.
Boys and young men are sent to war.
If you think there's an absence of known risk, it's because boys and young men were sent to war believing that they were being deployed to a conflict zone.
Turtle
Veteran
I'm not sure I understand. How does the solider keep the details private if he/she is dead? Surely under such circumstances it falls to family?
Soldiers are public/civil servants and therefore their expectations of privacy in the line of duty are very different. Because we (or rather the Govt we elected) send them into harms way, we have a right to know what happens to them, surely? That includes the pictorial reality in my opinion. I think it is very different to, for example, the victim of a road traffic accident as our relationship to the victim is very different.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
I’m unconvinced, sorry, we send young, sometimes very young, men off to kill and die to preserve our nation states. We remove from them the protection of civil law and impose a martial one, they would murder in the one and yet simply do their duty in the other.
The rules we set and the laws we devise for those two worlds are quite properly different and it is unfair for the public to judge a photograph taken in one in the other, I believe.
The rules we set and the laws we devise for those two worlds are quite properly different and it is unfair for the public to judge a photograph taken in one in the other, I believe.
JohnTF
Veteran
In philosophy, I agree, but then there are exceptions.
If some victim of a crime is found defiled and naked, is it censorship to not publish graphic photos, and does the public really need to know every detail? In this case, what greater purpose is served? Where does "in general" apply, and who is to say?
There was probably a troll thread a few years back of a guy who wanted as many photos as he could get of people at the moment of death, close up and graphic, for publication. I would have deleted the thread if I had the opportunity.
What the essential details are and how they are presented is not an easy question.
All this in a country that spends two years litigating whether or not Janet Jackson's breast is matter for some sort of legal and financial consequences.
What roll did photography really play in the death of Diana?
Do you permit the publication of images of executions?
When I worked at a newspaper, we would occasionally have photographs of young victims who died in unfortunate and distasteful circumstances which were left out of the published account. A proper use of self restraint I believe.
But, here I am stuck with the idea of "public right to know" and "no censorship".
Hard to make and stick with "universal" rules, Kant only found a few.
Regards, John
Bob Michaels
nobody special
I am interested in your thoughts about photos. I am less interested in your thoughts about photo equipment.
I have zero interest in your political views.
I am dismayed when such an important topic as Bill Pierce originally posted takes a detour into individual's political views.
Please can we have some respect for those who have given so much in the pursuit of journalism and free speech.
I have zero interest in your political views.
I am dismayed when such an important topic as Bill Pierce originally posted takes a detour into individual's political views.
Please can we have some respect for those who have given so much in the pursuit of journalism and free speech.
Last edited:
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
This is very difficult to achieve in a discussion arranged around issues of censorship and self-censorship and especially so where the discussion involves warfare past and present.
...Mike
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
One thing I picked up on from the lens blog article was:
Much better to keep the public's eyes away from any hint of reality. They won't thank you for showing it to them, and those in power won't like the public being informed and perhaps even becoming more thoughtful (however unlikely that may be).
...Mke
It is a long, long time indeed since governments of any pursuasion have wanted their populations to act as adults. Adults might decide for themselves, rather than simply doing as they're told without asking too many questions. And it seems a similarly long time since the populace in many places have wanted to act or be treated as adults. Looking at reality and making difficult choices, with few good options, is something most prefer to avoid. Much better to leave such things to "someone else". Of course "someone else" can be trusted. They'd never mislead us, nor take advantage of us, now would they?
Much better to keep the public's eyes away from any hint of reality. They won't thank you for showing it to them, and those in power won't like the public being informed and perhaps even becoming more thoughtful (however unlikely that may be).
...Mke
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Mike, I very much appreciated you tongue in cheek analysis. It was philosophical, not political.
I believe you are correct that many citizens do not want to see reality. Likewise, many in power do not want to show it. I appreciate those hard core journalists that put it out there without regard for the desires of those in power who do not want in the open. They realize that many people may just flip the page or click the mouse and not look. But they want it out there for those who do. I see that as freedom of expression in it's purest form.
As Roger Hicks said earlier, you either have freedom of speech or you have censorship to some degree. I never want to debate what degree is acceptable.
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
For anyone in Sydney interested in this topic, there's an exhibition on "South:WAR" at the Australian Centre for Photography in Paddington running from October 16th to November 21st, and a free entry talk by the five photographers involved from 1 pm to 4 pm on Saturday next, October 17th.
Turtle
Veteran
But as you say, it is an artificial delineation, which is not as black and white as you suggest, certainly not in the last 50 years anyway. The nature of conflict has changed and you cannot apply concepts based on conflict under the old paradigm of nation states going toe to toe in total war in the modern age. Its out of date and the constant conflict we see between the media, soldiers, victims, combatants, ' insurgents' and governments is a product of this. Any desire to play the counterinsurgency agenda at home in order to manipulate public opinion is offset by the sense of dishonesty.
Having spent the last 10 years in four insurgency/counterinsurgency theatres with little break, I am firmly convinced that Govt censorship has created contempt and suspicion that in the long haul has done more damage than good. IMHO we have created a populace that is all too easily surprised, arguably less tough than it needs to be, and has nowhere near enough understanding of the conduct and consequences of the conflict. I'd actually go so far as to say that a lot of the supporting staff/civilian contractors etc are so incredibly ignorant of what is really going on that it is crippling our ability to determine and execute a successful strategy.
Photography and journalism do have a significant role to play and sensorship happens at every level, either by design or insulation designed to reduce risk. It can be in the form of a company boss who will not allow incident reporting to be sent to staff for fear of 'upsetting them' down to civil servants not allowed to leave base (despite the threat arguably being entirely manageable. They then sit inside and contribute to national and international policy without the foggiest idea what is going on. Pictures/articles make people ask questions and explore their own personal understanding. We then also have the issue of the character assassination of any journalist who embeds with the enemy. After all, they are collaborators in the eyes of the same people who would deny us basic reporting on the ground truth experienced by our troops.
Most of the censorship in my experience is bungled information control that irritates our own population, winds up the host population (we do frequently lie to them even when flying in the face of verifiable facts) and the only people who believe it has been a success are the half witted camp vultures who spin the rubbish in the first place.
I don't believe the delineation between the legal conduct of war and illegal activities in a civilian context is at all complicated and we must remember that service personnel start out as civilians and end up civilians. Keeping things in check is what good SNCOs and officers are for. We can't hide the truth and all that happens IMO is that we get caught trying to deceive. There are exceptions where grave national interest is at stake, but in the context of the routine conduct of conflict, the more we hide, the more we alienate our support base that is critical at home.
Sparrow
Veteran
Hold your high standards if you will, and I will keep my view that they deserve a bit of dignitary in death, after all haven’t they given enough to society at that stage? should they still be required to supply entertainment for some rags readership?
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Agree. Censorship only aids lying politicians. A free press keeps those who would otherwise deceive the people in check. A little humanity and discretion by the press is welcome.
Turtle
Veteran
Stuart, not suggesting your view is unworthy- I just disagree thats all.
On the issue of entertainment for rag readership, is this really what it comes down to? This argument is to suggest that what should and should not happen must be pegged to the lowest common denominator. Sure, some will abuse it, but can one deny an entire society access to fundamental truths on the basis that some will not show the necessary respect. I simply say shame on them and those who support them. In the main, I think most rags are not interested in the real gore. They want flashy stuff, not true grit; besides the VAST majority of seriously hard core material released onto the internet comes from soldiers and ends up on 'liveleak' or similar.
The problem with the censorship concept is that it may contribute to two things:
- The perpetuation of conflicts the soldiers should not, arguably, be sent to.
- The loss of support for the govt in conflicts that need to be fought and won.
In either of the above scenarios the soldier arguably dies in vain. I would argue that respect is not contingent upon visibility of the body. It is a state of mind and an attitude that exists independent of these things.
As a former soldier, the last thing I was worried about was being photographed after death or when injured. I was much more worried about my colleagues, my own health and the understanding on the part of the people back home. Not acknowledgment, but understanding of what we were doing and what it meant. Luckily I went home safely each time and found a public starved of information, hungry to know more, but quickly back to their cornflakes. That was largely because of the inability to really explore and understand what was going on. I find the same now every time I go back to the UK from Afghanistan. Nobody has the first clue; not really.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
I admire your faith in the press and general public.
As you say there publication would make sustaining a conflict impossible, so the decision to do so would be political one and nothing to do with truth or press freedom.
The public could not be expected to understand the context of such pictures
Artorius
Caribbean Traveler
Bill.
This is a sore subject for me. As a Navy Combat Photographer with two tours, from 1970 to Nov. 1972, I personally experienced the war in Viet Nam, as well as having to photograph the atrocities on both sides. As a Combat Photographer, I had to send all my work to NPC(Naval Photographic Center in DC). They would determine the photos to distribute to the media.
Long story short, about 1979, an unknown media outlet found a photo I had taken, and published it. In 1984, I received a letter from the parents of one of the soldiers in one my many thousand photos(he was deceased, headad for a Dust Off). Anyway the parents through their perseverance, and with some great detective work , found me through NPC. All they wanted was to thank me, and let me know they had finally found closure. I was told by them that he had been listed as an MIA. They had recognized him in that picture, and were happy to finally to end their grief. If I had been able to publish more, how many more families would be relieved?
For me, one is not enough. I really think the Media Policy had screwed up. Although I am thankful that, what I did, at least helped one family of the many.
This is a sore subject for me. As a Navy Combat Photographer with two tours, from 1970 to Nov. 1972, I personally experienced the war in Viet Nam, as well as having to photograph the atrocities on both sides. As a Combat Photographer, I had to send all my work to NPC(Naval Photographic Center in DC). They would determine the photos to distribute to the media.
Long story short, about 1979, an unknown media outlet found a photo I had taken, and published it. In 1984, I received a letter from the parents of one of the soldiers in one my many thousand photos(he was deceased, headad for a Dust Off). Anyway the parents through their perseverance, and with some great detective work , found me through NPC. All they wanted was to thank me, and let me know they had finally found closure. I was told by them that he had been listed as an MIA. They had recognized him in that picture, and were happy to finally to end their grief. If I had been able to publish more, how many more families would be relieved?
For me, one is not enough. I really think the Media Policy had screwed up. Although I am thankful that, what I did, at least helped one family of the many.