RFF Member's Article about Iraq Photojournalism and Censorship in NY Times

Status
Not open for further replies.
CameraQuest

CameraQuest

Head Bartender
Staff member
Local time
6:48 AM
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
6,600
Please read RFF member Michael Kamber's interesting and important article about Iraq photojournalism and censorship in the New York Times.

Michael Kamber wrote:
"hey folks,

i spent a few weeks on this piece about photojournalism and censorship issues here in iraq. give it a look and please pass it on if you like it, we can use the hits. also check out the really good accompanying slideshow by meaghan looram.

thanks, mike

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html

Michael Kamber
Photojournalist/Journalist
The New York Times Baghdad Bureau
currently in Baghdad"


 
Or worse... the American people don't want to KNOW. I suspect that the majority of Americans want only some sort of sanitized version of what's going on in a questionable war.
 
There are horror stories and reports about the depleted Uranium use and its effects on the Iraqi people in the southern part of Iraq. It is hardly ever mentioned in US news.
 
Why is anyone surprised?

What's surprising to me is how we cluck and wag our fingers at the lack of freedom of information in China.. that's what surprises me in this context of suppression of freedom of information. The 'West' looks no better than China in my opinion and we're all getting what we deserve.
 
“It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.” -Robert E. Lee

Everyone should have to see this war, especially those who supported it. The pain and suffering it has brought rests squarely on their shoulders.
 
Isn't it ironic that the American film industry pumps out movie after violent movie with simulated slow motion footage of blood and brain tissue splattering walls people etc, while the cannon fodder known as US Marines die bravely in inglorious anonymity in the middle east! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The reality - getting a visa to go to Iraq is a separate matter than getting embedded. There is nothing stopping journalists from going to Iraq on their own. Of course going there as a westerner on your own would be just a little dangerous. The military provides for protection (as well as food, shelter, transportation and medical care) under the embed agreement that the journalists have to sign. It is a contract, and they decide whether or not you have broken the contract. I have read the embed papers and it is clear that journalists can go to Iraq on their own and the military even tells you how to get there if you don't want to be embedded. However, they state that if you do so you are on your own and they won't guarantee your safety. In return for guaranteed safety journalists contractually give up their freedom to do what they want. I am not a lawyer, but it seems really simple to me.

Anyone can read the papers on the embed process. You should do so before you cry about censorship. It is a more complex matter than what everyone is assuming to be the case. In my opinion the only way truth can come out of the situation is if journalists abandon the embed process altogether.

Patrick
 
patrickjames said:
It is a contract, and they decide whether or not you have broken the contract. [...] I am not a lawyer, but it seems really simple to me.
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer either, but it strikes me as somewhat, um, one sided that one of the parties to the contract also decides whether the contract has been complied with.

Of course, as you say, journalists are free to do without military protection. Which is, it seems, extraordinarily dangerous. Which leads to something else I find puzzling: almost anywhere in the world, killing journalists, let alone doing it routinely, guarantees you and your cause bad press - but not in Iraq.

...Mike
 
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.

More:

"After nearly a year in Iraq, Miller presumably saw the bloody handiwork of Iraq's insurgency and Al-Qaida more than once. So he ought to understand the demented psychology and fanaticism of suicide bombers, and their sponsors. Yet Miller told one interviewer that even greater manifestations of evil exist in Iraq than is dished up by Al-Qaida.

Who does he blame? It seems it's the West -- America in particular. He stated: "Western nations, especially America, need to have the human face of war and suffering brought to them in hopes that they may understand the severity of situation that they are directly, and indirectly, responsible for."

And when expressing his concern about the feelings of the Marines' families, he wrote on his website:

If despite my safeguards these images end up hurting people, I offer you my sincerest apologies. Please know that my intent is to show the true nature of the abominations of war in hopes that this will deter others from committing or accepting senseless acts of violence.

It's an incredibly silly statement -- that publication of ghoulish photos "will deter others from committing or accepting senseless acts of violence." Does this include Al-Qaida's members? For Miller it seems that it does. And that's certainly odd: Al-Qaida is surely thrilled to see its handwork posted on the Internet! Indeed, such photos may well encourage Al-Qaida's fanatics to commit even more atrocities, as opposed to discarding their suicide belts, and stopping their gruesome predilection for beheading the infidels and Muslims opposing them.

Don't bother telling that to Zoriah, though. For him Iraq's violence stems from two sources: America and the West."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_case_of_expelled_embed.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well there are several factors at play, including the morale of the troops and considerations of the Marines' families.

Imagine if your daughter got killed in a car wreck... wouldn't you be upset if pics of your dead mangeld child's body was splashed over every media outlet?

Now the question is, do those considerations outweigh informing the general public about the gravity of the war. In WWII, pictures of dead soldiers were completely censored. When public support for WWII began to moderate in '43, FDR allowed Life magazine to print these photos.

If you think censorship of dead soldiers is something new then you are mistaken. Its been done by every President, Republican and Democrat.
 
IMHO, it's not about posting pictures of someone's dead, mangled child. It's about control and access. I don't think there is anything wrong with a Marine unit agreeing to shepherd a journalist documenting the efforts of the Marines. I don't think there is anything wrong with said shepherding coming to an end.

And for what it's worth, I'd hope it's possible to look at a dead soldier as something other than a dead child. These are adults who for whatever reasons or circumstances volunteered to put their lives in danger. I don't like the idea that thousands die and nobody sees the evidence. Their passing deserves notice.

I think the military and administration's response is ludicrous and ill-advised, but that is their right. Just as it is Mr. Miller's right to go back to Iraq and continue shooting from other perspectives.

I laugh at assertions that there is some sort of censorship going on when the journalist in question was allowed to publish his photos. Nothing was suppressed. Of course the wants and needs of military commanders in the Gulf are at times at odds with the wants and needs of individual journalists. Of course the desires of the man with the gun will trump the desires of the man with the camera. But the man with the camera is free to pursue his objective independent of the soldier. If said journalist is denied access as a result of his behavior, so be it. That should be considered the cost of doing business, the price of sticking to your ideals.

That isn't to say I don't appreciate the fact that this topic is up for discussion. Personally, as long as people on both sides are free to argue with each other, the system is working.
 
It is possible for a western photographer to go to Iraq with out an embed. It is also possible to step in front of a moving train. Both will get you the same result. The question is, did he follow the embed rules? Those of you defending the military in this should ask yourselves that question. If the military is going to limit the way truth is told, it should at least follow it's own rules.
 
digitalintrigue said:
And when expressing his concern about the feelings of the Marines' families, he wrote on his website:

If despite my safeguards these images end up hurting people, I offer you my sincerest apologies. Please know that my intent is to show the true nature of the abominations of war in hopes that this will deter others from committing or accepting senseless acts of violence.

It's an incredibly silly statement -- that publication of ghoulish photos "will deter others from committing or accepting senseless acts of violence." Does this include Al-Qaida's members? For Miller it seems that it does.
Click to expand...

I believe the senseless violence was the decision to invade and occupy Iraq, illegally, with lies and deceit used to persuade a chicken Congress.
 
Let's face it, the war is not going as the Powers That Be would like. It's become a huge political liability for the Pubs, in particular Dubya himself! The Powers That Be seem to be unable to make the war popular or effective, but they are doing what they can to discourage those radical journalists from rubbing the world's noses into the fact that the war has turned into yet another major cluster-{f-bomb}!

Oh well, so it goes ... and so do I ... :(
 
(This is a serious question, please respect it, also note I was in the British army for nine years myself.) I am curious when was the last time any major journalistic entity in USA maintained a campaign against the incumbent politicians of the time on a political matter ? Was it the 1960's ?

I personally think there is no particular reason for not showing injured or dead people on the evening-news or the days newspapers, whether they were working for ones government or just bystanders, only assuming that the intention of the reporting is not some sort of weird pornographic perversion.

Even in the UK, during the conflict in former republic of Yugoslavia we saw a half hour daily news program from Sarajevo after the regular news (on Ch4). That went on for many months and had a considerable effect politically, eventually.
 
Last edited:
I know of at least two freelance journalists who've worked in Iraq recently. Michael Totten and Michael Yon. They're both doing reporting from other countries now (Kosovo and Nepal, respectively) but their Iraq archives are extensive. It can be done, and those two certainly no one's lapdogs. The better question may be why the larger media outlets are unable/unwilling to cover the situation as extensively and fairly as the freelancers.
 
Ahh, that's exactly what I mean - from my internetting and even reading Herald Tribune occasionally, the major news providers seem to be rather quiet.

It is consistent and admirable that there are individuals, and even smaller agencies, digging for facts - but the end result is limited unless their work is widely publicised and assessed.

Maybe there is some sort of chicken-and-egg situation with the larger news organisations following "what the public wants", which is itself shaped by the news presented to them ??? Is this perhaps the apocryphal result of the advertising dollar ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom