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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even though I was born and raised in Baghdad (Iraq) and all of my family and my wife's family are from Baghdad, I have not said much in this thread. No matter what you write about the effects of this war it will not come close to the reality on the ground. No matter what you show as photos about the was in Iraq, it will not fully convey the horrors and pain and suffering that the USA and Iran have jointly caused in Iraq.

An entire nation has been bombed, then starved out for many years, followed by an invasion and occupation. Hpw would you, as a reporter, show the damage? How do you illustrate cancer patients being denied treatment for many years due to the embargo on radioactive material? How would you photograph the pain of parents seeing their children losing morality and dignity?

It is easy to comment here and to say what you feel like saying about what should be reported and what should not be reported, but it is more difficult to absorb what kind of war tragedies [I am avoiding the use of "war crimes"] have been comitted and what we as civilized people can do about repairing such horrific damages.
 
Last edited:
40oz said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you may be wrong on this one.
The question is: how are the different sides considering press or civilians.
In most conflicts, as dangerous as they may be, they are seldom directly targetted. In Iraq, I can recall secveral cases of journalists and civilians caught prisoner, then beheaded in front of the cameras to tell "their" deep love for humankind...
Times may have changed....
 
Oh, BTW, as we are talking, there are 2000 casualties, in the Balkans, my guess is that most of them are civilians.
And not a picture of it.
Can you feel how much more comfortable it is when you don't see the victims?
 
Pitxu said:
I don't come to RFF to read about beheadings or other forms of violence.

Can we please get back on topic:




Thank you.
Click to expand...
Ok,

What I wanted to say is that the situation in Irak may be more complicated for foreign journalists, and thus the possibility of working "not embeded" much more limited than on other recent conflicts.
This may give a pressure mean to the military:

1- You have to be embeded, or else, you're in danger...
2- We won't take you if we don't like your pictures.

Sory if I was out of line...😱
 
Pitxu said:
I don't come to RFF to read about beheadings or other forms of violence.

Can we please get back on topic:

Thank you.
Click to expand...

But that is literally the topic of this thread: it was Miller's photos dead Coalition soldiers which caused the Marines to ban and censor him.

[I have removed a reference to a decapitated Coalition soldier because I believe it was in error. Apologies.]
 
Last edited:
raid said:
Even though I was born and raised in Baghdad (Iraq) and all of my family and my wife's family are from Baghdad, I have not said much in this thread. No matter what you write about the effects of this war it will not come close to the reality on the ground. No matter what you show as photos about the was in Iraq, it will not fully convey the horrors and pain and suffering that the USA and Iran have jointly caused in Iraq.

An entire nation has been bombed, then starved out for any years, followed by an invasion and occupation. Hpw would you, as a reporter, show the damage? How do you illustrate cancer patients being denied treatment for many years due to the embargo on radioactive material? How would you photograph the pain of parents seeing their children losing morality and dignity?

It is easy to comment here and to say what you feel like saying about what should be reported and what should not be reported, but it is more difficult to absorb what kind of war tragedies [I am avoiding the use of "war crimes"] have been comitted and what we as civilized people can do about repairing such horrific damages.
Click to expand...

That's an excellent post, Raid. It illustrates the central question raised by Miller's experience by asking: "An entire nation has been bombed, then starved out for [m]any years, followed by an invasion and occupation. How would you, as a reporter, show the damage?" There is also the question of to what purpose does one "show the damage."

 In answer to that, some have suggested that the purpose is to educate voters in the west, far removed from the reality you speak of. Zoriah Miller, for his part, was explicit in his answer. He hopes that those "offended" by these images will "do something to stop the political situations and foreign policy that facilitate these atrocities." The purpose for him then is clearly shock, not education. The means is by facilitating the brutality of the terrorist attack by mass communication. He will no doubt remain unmoved by the realization that the US Marines have done exactly what he proscribed by removing him from the front.

But that doesn't mean his images were "untrue." Of course they were factually true. As were the images of civilian casualties at Fallujah of various phosphorous attacks. Those images were important precisely becaused they proved the use of those weapons in urban combat.

But if those images were all that one could see, one simply could not come to any real understanding of the tragedy of war, nor to what we can do to repair this horrific damage.
 
Last edited:
The good news is that the despot and his family are gone, the resources of the country are not being exploited to create lavish palaces for same, and to provide kickbacks via a UN program to supporters in Europe. Instead, the resources are now back in the hands of the people, the rape rooms and mass graves are history, the terrorist goons have been decimated, preventing them from benefitting from those resources. The future of Iraq looks much brighter than anyone could have hoped for. The real censorship now at work is the fact that all this good news is largely unreported.
 
digitalintrigue said:
The good news is that the despot and his family are gone, the resources of the country are not being exploited to create lavish palaces for same, and to provide kickbacks via a UN program to supporters in Europe. Instead, the resources are now back in the hands of the people, the rape rooms and mass graves are history, the terrorist goons have been decimated, preventing them from benefitting from those resources. The future of Iraq looks much brighter than anyone could have hoped for. The real censorship now at work is the fact that all this good news is largely unreported.
Click to expand...

More Iraqi civilians died in the first year of the war than Saddam killed, jailed, or otherwise abused during his entire reign.

A rational person may make a rational defense of the war, but crowing about the closing of the "rape rooms" when, in fact, literally the same rooms became anal rape rooms overseen by US military is the height of dangerous inanity.
 
digitalintrigue said:
The good news is that the despot and his family are gone, the resources of the country are not being exploited to create lavish palaces for same, and to provide kickbacks via a UN program to supporters in Europe. Instead, the resources are now back in the hands of the people, the rape rooms and mass graves are history, the terrorist goons have been decimated, preventing them from benefitting from those resources. The future of Iraq looks much brighter than anyone could have hoped for. The real censorship now at work is the fact that all this good news is largely unreported.
Click to expand...

You must be kidding here; billions of [Iraqi] money are vanishing. Torture is a daily event, and it is supported by the government in Iraq. Ask the Iraqi people who have their relatives lost. They will inform you about the truth. Keep on dreaming.
 
The topic is censorship. Considering the media's overwhelming desire to paint as bleak a picture of possible of the status of Iraq, otherwise report nothing at all, why are they not reporting this?
 
Since this a thread about the role of media and journalists, let me ask you a few simple questions that the media smoothly covered up:

Q1: Do the Iraqi Kurds follow any particular religion?
Q2: Has this been even mentioned on US media outlets?
Q3: Is the true ratio of Sunni:Shiaa is 50:50 or 25:75 as we see on TV?
Q4: Do Iraqi women now have more rights than they had the past 20 years before the invasion of Iraq?
Q5: Why did President Bush meet with the leader of the worst of all death squads in the White House?


It's only a small challenge to get the right answers if you know the facts.
 
Last edited:
digitalintrigue said:
The topic is censorship. Considering the media's overwhelming desire to paint as bleak a picture of possible of the status of Iraq, otherwise report nothing at all, why are they not reporting this?
Click to expand...

No matter how bleak a picture the media is portraiting of Iraq, it is not even close to reality [which is far worse]. Talk to any of the 4-5 million Iraqis who had to leave their homes about it.
 
digitalintrigue said:
The good news is that the despot and his family are gone, the resources of the country are not being exploited to create lavish palaces for same, and to provide kickbacks via a UN program to supporters in Europe. Instead, the resources are now back in the hands of the people, the rape rooms and mass graves are history, the terrorist goons have been decimated, preventing them from benefitting from those resources. The future of Iraq looks much brighter than anyone could have hoped for. The real censorship now at work is the fact that all this good news is largely unreported.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe that the future of Irak looks better now than before the invasion?

Do you believe that this war had anything to do with restoring human rights and (imposing) democracy? kicking out some crazy despot and his family?

The despot list may be long. I hope you don't have to send US troops to any country whose population is suffering from dictatorship...
 
sanmich said:
Do you seriously believe that the future of Irak looks better now than before the invasion?
Click to expand...

Do the transgressions of Saddam really need to be listed here? Invasions of Iran and Kuwait resulting in the deaths of millions, killing tens of thousands of Kurds, 300,000 - 400,000 in mass graves, sending scuds into Israel, rewarding the families of suicide bombers...none of that is disputed, and that's just barely scratching the surface.

The American surge brought more solidiers to Iraq, yet the civilian death toll is now at an all-time low since the beginning of the war. Iraqi lives are being saved as a result and the statistics show this. And of course, the media would rather not report it.
 
The invasion of Iran was orchestrated by the USA and its allies, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Check the facts before making statements.
 
Well, the invasion wasn't orchestrated, but a couple of years later there is no question that the USA for many reasons was not wanting Iraq to lose to Iran. USA had no relations with either Baghdad or Tehran when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. Remember this was in the middle of the Iran hostage situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom