Who would be a war photographer but without efforts we would never know the truth

[brainwood]

The Guardian have run an article today on war photograhers

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/18/war-photographers-special-report

Its makes grim reading but their shots speak for themselves

 

[Pickett Wilson]

So, there are war photographers and we know the truth. What difference does it make? Americans oppose by substantial majorities every "war" we are currently fighting. But we can't do anything to stop the politicians from getting into new ones or continuing old ones, even though the cost of these wars is devastating our country financially, as well as uselessly costing American lives (and the lives of tens of thousands of civilians in the country we "liberate").

These photographers are wasting their lives if they think what they are doing makes any real difference.

Rant Mode Off.

 

[johannielscom]

I think the intention of the war photographers is not to persuade the politicans that the war too horrific to fight and should be abandoned, but to persuade politicans that the consequences of not acting in the war are far too grave for the innocent people that suffer them.

Seems to me they are doing a pretty good job, considering that the governments are keeping at it, even though general public opposes.

I suppose the effect in the western world is limited, but in the countries where these pictures are shot they sometimes are the first truly free press actions in decades and that means a lot.

 

[Michael Markey]

I think the intention of the war photographers is not to persuade the politicans that the war too horrific to fight and should be abandoned, but to persuade politicans that the consequences of not acting in the war are far too grave for the innocent people that suffer them.

Seems to me they are doing a pretty good job, considering that the governments are keeping at it, even though general public opposes.

I suppose the effect in the western world is limited, but in the countries where these pictures are shot they sometimes are the first truly free press actions in decades and that means a lot.

Well said .
Brave men indeed and that is why the war criminals don`t want them there.

 

[_larky]

I'd go to war to photograph, in a heartbeat.

 

[heatherselkie]

I read the article last night and it was a bit harrowing. I could not get over the photographer still shooting after his legs had been blown off. And equally horrified over the woman sexually assaulted(she politely called it groping) in Libya this year. Why send women journalists into a country where they are bound to get sexually assaulted if caught?
I have seen some of the photos over the years and they are horrific. The photographers are very brave/crazy, but how much physical harm is worth a shot? Is post traumatic stress disorder, mental illness or very bad memories worth a shot?
Horrors exist everywhere, even in bland boring Vancouver we recently had an idiotic violent riot over nothing.
My question to photojournalists is what about the moral dilemma? Do you help? Do you get your shots and run? Do you risk life and limb for something you have no control over? I am curious to see the Bang Bang Club loosely based on real photojournalists.
To what extent are citizens responsible for their own destinies rather than having another country come in and intervene? We see all the time how the US and allies will go into one country, but not another largely for some other motive like oil, access to key locations etc. Why go into Libya but not Syria for example.
The photos in the Guardian article were brilliant, and I do remember seeing a photojournalist's work on the M9 flickr group of humvees in Iraq that are fabulous. But how much of this is war porn rather than straight documentation? In this day and age, we have twitter, facebook and cameraphones. I see less need for photojournalists to be going into foreign warzones when locals can take photos with much more context.