They've gone too far

[proton45]

Originally Posted by trackend

The problem with current war images is that the casualtiy rate is low enough that the identity of the sqauddie in almost any picture will be known but captioning it and printing the image gave no thought to the relitives at all. Although it pushes home better than 10,000 words the realitiy of the conflict this was a very heartless publication and as such deplorable. I just doubt that the public will show its disapproval by refusing to buy the paper as all news is fleeting and the public will be just as interested in the sports results on the back page by tomorrow

Just for the sake of discussion...

Whats the difference between printing pictures of crash victims or flood victims or any other "natural" disaster, and the printing of the soldiers picture? Do you remember the Oklahoma bombing...do you remember the picture of the fireman holding the baby? Someone here compared the picture of the soldier to printing a rape victims picture...Q; is it really the same thing? The rape victim is an innocent person who has been violated by a crazy f*cker, and the soldier is a professional who volunteered to do a job...does the soldier and his family have a special privilege (of respect) because he volunteered to serve in the military? Is the victim of a bombing or flood or earthquake entitled to the same considerations?

Maybe its wrong to print any picture of a dying person...or maybe all is fair game?

[syscom3]

It is a fine line the AP is straddling. Unfortunately, pictures like this do bring home the realities of war. But it's at the cost of privacy for the family. At what point does the 1st amendment take precedent over privacy? And if families wishes take precedence over pictures being published, can anything controversial be shown in public?

I dont think any mortal person could come to a just decision over this.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

No pictures of a wounded or dieing soldier should be posted until after the family has been notified. Even after that point, I am not sure if it should be printed at all. It is a very touchy situation. As Eric pointed out, I can understand where the journalist is coming from, but then the soldier in me says it is absolutely wrong to print such things.

[RabidAlien]

Originally Posted by proton45

Just for the sake of discussion...

Whats the difference between printing pictures of crash victims or flood victims or any other "natural" disaster, and the printing of the soldiers picture? Do you remember the Oklahoma bombing...do you remember the picture of the fireman holding the baby? Someone here compared the picture of the soldier to printing a rape victims picture...Q; is it really the same thing? The rape victim is an innocent person who has been violated by a crazy f*cker, and the soldier is a professional who volunteered to do a job...does the soldier and his family have a special privilege (of respect) because he volunteered to serve in the military? Is the victim of a bombing or flood or earthquake entitled to the same considerations?

Maybe its wrong to print any picture of a dying person...or maybe all is fair game?

I figure that no matter what photo is printed, someone somewhere will be offended by it. What really gets me about this particular incident is that the AP guys got together and printed it anyway, after the father of the Marine asked them not to. That, to me, is so far over the line of decency that the line doesn't even show up on the map anymore.

[GrauGeist]

It's the shock value that plays on the public's morbid curiousity. And by saying morbid curiousity, I mean that same curiousity that causes people to slow down and look at car wrecks and gather to watch a building burn. The media knows how that works, and plays on it.

The bar of decency has been lowering for years, as people get desensatized to scenes of violence that used to be socially unacceptable back in a time that even a photo showing a blanket covered body in the newspaper wasn't thought of.

They didn't have to show the Corporal's photo. There's enough going on that they could have used images taken during the firefight, like the others returning fire, or images gathered in the vicinity, and then added the caption that the Marine was mortally wounded during the engagement, etc. Journalists have shown creativity like that in the past, and there's no reason why they shouldn't have this time out of respect to the Marine's family, especially after their expressed wishes.

Not sure where society is headed, but when the media casts off all morals under the thinly veiled guise of "the people need to know" with little public objection, then what's next?

[proton45]

Originally Posted by GrauGeist

It's the shock value that plays on the public's morbid curiousity. And by saying morbid curiousity, I mean that same curiousity that causes people to slow down and look at car wrecks and gather to watch a building burn. The media knows how that works, and plays on it.

The bar of decency has been lowering for years, as people get desensatized to scenes of violence that used to be socially unacceptable back in a time that even a photo showing a blanket covered body in the newspaper wasn't thought of.

They didn't have to show the Corporal's photo. There's enough going on that they could have used images taken during the firefight, like the others returning fire, or images gathered in the vicinity, and then added the caption that the Marine was mortally wounded during the engagement, etc. Journalists have shown creativity like that in the past, and there's no reason why they shouldn't have this time out of respect to the Marine's family, especially after their expressed wishes.

Not sure where society is headed, but when the media casts off all morals under the thinly veiled guise of "the people need to know" with little public objection, then what's next?

I hear what your saying...but I'm not sure their ever was a "good old day" when it comes to this issue. Brady took photos of the dead on the Civil war battlefield, and "Life" magazine published the photo of a 23 year old woman who jumped from the Empire State building 1947.

[syscom3]

Heres some pics of dead and wounded from Vietnam. Are they any different from the Afghan picture?

[GrauGeist]

If you recall, those photos were run in magazines and not newspapers for the most part.

Life was always controversial in thier photojournalism...Time, not so much, at that point in time.

Newspapers and thier related websites have been changing thier photojournalistic ethics recently, though.

A local paper ran a photo of a child horribly mauled by a pitbull a few years ago, and got the people here in a huge franzy, so they've toned it down a little.

[RabidAlien]

Once again, Sys, newspapers and magazines can run whatever photos they like. Its part of that whole "freedom of speech" that our military is out there defending. But when the family asks for the photo to NOT be run, and they run it anyway to generate a few more sales....common decency and courtesy have just been sold for a few extra rating points or magazine purchases.

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by RabidAlien

Once again, Sys, newspapers and magazines can run whatever photos they like. Its part of that whole "freedom of speech" that our military is out there defending. But when the family asks for the photo to NOT be run, and they run it anyway to generate a few more sales....common decency and courtesy have just been sold for a few extra rating points or magazine purchases.

If the families were to have veto power, then we effectively have censorship.

Sometimes, brutally candid pictures are needed to remind people that there is a human cost for the war. And considering the political bent of the AP, they thought that showing this picture would generate some opposition to the war. In that case, its a valid use of the picture.

[proton45]

I guess it should be said that a lot of the attitudes in the military about the "press" where inflamed because of the Vietnam experience. A lot of people felt betrayed by the press coverage of that war, they felt it was "one sided" and frequently "taken out of context". Many felt that the negative response that the returning veterans received, here at home, was fueled by the shocking news coverage seen almost nightly. The ironic thing is that many of the horrible photos seen where taken by military photographers...but published by the media.

The issue of printing the picture of wounded soldiers and war casualties has become jumbled up with negative issues regarding the experiences of returning vets... Our contemporary attitude may have been further fueled by the horrible photos showing the dead US soldiers in Somalia.

An interesting thing that has happened is how the perception of the medias motivations has changed...Many here feel that the overriding motivation of the media (press) is profit, but during the Vietnam war the military feared the "crusading press" and their power to change minds. Although money is an important consideration in any editors (publishers) decision the thing that really worries the Military Brass is the medias power of persuasion. I think that a lot of the "jumbled up" feelings regarding the issue now runs both ways...the media is suspicious about what is motivating the military regulations regarding press coverage and the military is concerned with running an effective and tidy campaign.

Its interesting to note that the current domestic attitudes regarding the press and their "need" for sales may have been fueled by two (very contemporary) issues...dwindling newspaper sales and the paparazzi craze of the 1990's. All the negative focus placed on the paparazzi and their motivations may have "spilled over" and splashed onto the legitimate press, and the issue has been further confused by the fact that newspapers are now having to find a new business model...a new way of making money.

[GrauGeist]

I don't see the wishes of a family would be considered censorship, since the article can run the details of the wounding/death and perhaps a related photo, like a photo taken at the time of the battle (as mentioned already)...thier wishes were that the photo of thier dying son not be printed, is all.

Let's suppose a minivan carrying children home from school gets in a wreck. And let's suppose it was violent enough to fatally eject the children onto the street. Would it then be ok for the paper to run detailed images of the children's bodies (even against the family's wishes) all in the name of journalistic expression...perhaps under the auspices of "better traffic laws" or a "need for better vehicle safety"?

It seems to me that a true journalist can convey a point to thier readers by alternate means without relying on "shock journalism".

[proton45]

Originally Posted by GrauGeist

I don't see the wishes of a family would be considered censorship, since the article can run the details of the wounding/death and perhaps a related photo, like a photo taken at the time of the battle (as mentioned already)...thier wishes were that the photo of thier dying son not be printed, is all.

Let's suppose a minivan carrying children home from school gets in a wreck. And let's suppose it was violent enough to fatally eject the children onto the street. Would it then be ok for the paper to run detailed images of the children's bodies (even against the family's wishes) all in the name of journalistic expression...perhaps under the auspices of "better traffic laws" or a "need for better vehicle safety"?

It seems to me that a true journalist can convey a point to thier readers by alternate means without relying on "shock journalism".

I think its all a judgment call and its all a balancing act...I think an editor has to constantly weigh the pro's & con's of printing any picture. It could be that the editors who chose to run the photo, at this time, where "testing the waters". Its all timing...if they had printed this picture 2 or 3 years ago the outrage would have shook media. It would have been a major campaign issue and everyone would have commented on it...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by syscom3

If the families were to have veto power, then we effectively have censorship.

So we should forget about the wishes of family members? Not taking sides here, just trying to understand where you are coming from.

If it was your child, would you want them on the cover of every magazine in the United States?

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

So we should forget about the wishes of family members? Not taking sides here, just trying to understand where you are coming from.

If it was your child, would you want them on the cover of every magazine in the United States?

I'm a first amendment purist. The less control there is of the press the better we all are.

If I was in the same boat as that family, the results would still be the same. I could ask and hopefully they would respect my wishes. But if they don't, that's the price we pay for the freedom of the press.

I would like to ask you a question; in 1969, was it OK for the press to publish the pictures of the dead civilians at My Lai (Vietnam)? Like I said, sometimes a brutal picture of the dead or dying drives home the reality of war.

And in this case, the AP was correct in running the picture.