They've gone too far - Page 3 - Aircraft of World War II

B-17engineer · 09-07-2009, 07:26 PM

Watch 1:28 on, it shows dead soldiers in WWI

YouTube - The Hell of Verdun - 1916

RabidAlien · 09-07-2009, 10:29 PM

Sys, I agree that the general population needs to be reminded of the cost of their freedoms. My issue is that the family requested that THAT ONE PARTICULAR PHOTO not be run. Now...as an ameture photographer myself, I KNOW that no photographer takes one frame and packs his gear up. If the photographer in question was halfway decent, he'd have a good hundred or more photos on his memory card, most of which concerned that one particular ambush. Now. Tell me. Out of all of those pictures, he couldn't get his point across without trampling on the very raw emotions of a family who most likely hadn't even gotten their son back yet, much less had a chance to bury him and attempt to deal with the pain? Publish pictures all you like! Publish a thousand of them! But respect the wishes of the family members involved. I'm pretty sure there will be families across the US who would not mind a photo such as that being shown, for various reasons (including educating the rest of the public). It would have been a very easy thing to pick another photo instead of going for the "shock value".

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-08-2009, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

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.

As stated before, I am torn on the issue.

I too believe in freedom of the press, and in that regard I can completely understand printing such things. The other part of me (the soldier in me) does not believe that such things should be printed (at least when requested by the family or until formalities with the family are concluded).

It is the same with the TV News. I absolutely can not stand seeing a wounded soldier or a soldier who was KIA on the evening news, when the family has not even been notified yet. That is not the way I would wan't to find out my child was killed in combat or was wounded. That is tacky and disrespectful.

Butters · 09-08-2009, 06:07 PM

I'm with syscom when it comes to freedom of expression. It is the single most important right there is. However, in this case it's not a question of legality (which is what rights are really about) but ethics. And because the two are not the same, one can wholeheartedly support the paper's right to publish those photos while at the same time you can justifiably condemn them for unethical behavior. IOW, you're not saying that it ought'a be illegal, only that it's sleazy and callous.

Reminds me of something Voltaire once said in regard to a similar situation:

"One cannot truly blame them, one can only despise them..."

diddyriddick · 09-09-2009, 11:33 AM

Great posts, all! Particular kudos to Proton for the courageous dissent. Additionally, thanks to the soldier in question who gave "the last full measure of devotion," and to his family. May God grant them peace.

parsifal · 09-09-2009, 11:34 AM

screw the 1st amendment. The famillies of these boys have paid the biggest price that can be paid, and their wishes should be respected. Respect is not just mouthing some fashionable words, and then publishing the pictures for a quick buck anyways. Respect means, that if you can you meet their wishes.

Death should be a private thing. If the famillies dont want you to see their boy in his final seconds of suffering, then screw your curiosity, and screw your "right to a free press" If that had been my boy in his last moment, and some smart arse journalist printed his last moments on earth, I'd have killed the journo....no hesitation

syscom3 · 09-09-2009, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsifal

screw the 1st amendment. The famillies of these boys have paid the biggest price that can be paid, and their wishes should be respected. Respect is not just mouthing some fashionable words, and then publishing the pictures for a quick buck anyways. Respect means, that if you can you meet their wishes.

Death should be a private thing. If the famillies dont want you to see their boy in his final seconds of suffering, then screw your curiosity, and screw your "right to a free press" If that had been my boy in his last moment, and some smart arse journalist printed his last moments on earth, I'd have killed the journo....no hesitation

We've had a 1st amendment for nearly 220 years, through good times and bad.

diddyriddick · 09-09-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syscom3

We've had a 1st amendment for nearly 220 years, through good times and bad.

An excellent point, Sys. If I might add my two cents...Among the rights that soldier died protecting was freedom of the press and freedom of speech. We don't want to cheapen that sacrifice by ignoring it.

syscom3 · 09-09-2009, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

..... at least when requested by the family or until formalities with the family are concluded).

It is the same with the TV News. I absolutely can not stand seeing a wounded soldier or a soldier who was KIA on the evening news, when the family has not even been notified yet. That is not the way I would wan't to find out my child was killed in combat or was wounded. That is tacky and disrespectful.

That is quite reasonable, and doesnt conflict with the freedom of the press.

proton45 · 09-09-2009, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

Great posts, all! Particular kudos to Proton for the courageous dissent. Additionally, thanks to the soldier in question who gave "the last full measure of devotion," and to his family. May God grant them peace.

I don't know if I would call it "courageous dissent". I completely understand the emotional outrage some people feel. And if I where a editor I'm not sure I would work for a newspaper that was only concerned with the bottom line. Their are lots of different newspapers out their and they all have their own style... I'm just interested in an extended dialog because the issues are not so "black & white". The fact that the AP went to the family and showed them the photos before publication shows great respect...the issue becomes complicated because the family made a request of the AP that they where not offering. Death is a private affair but war is not...the government is very quick to remind someone who has joined the army that their life is no longer their own, they have signed up for the great adventure (as it where) and their fate it tied to policy. So where does ones personal expectation of privacy begin and end once a soldier is involved in the world arena?

(shoot, I got an emergency I must attend to...will finish on return, sorry)

09-07-2009, 07:26 PM	#31
B-17engineer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,675	Watch 1:28 on, it shows dead soldiers in WWI YouTube - The Hell of Verdun - 1916 __________________ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe36UMRkRbk

09-07-2009, 10:29 PM	#32
RabidAlien Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Hurst, Texas Posts: 2,823	Sys, I agree that the general population needs to be reminded of the cost of their freedoms. My issue is that the family requested that THAT ONE PARTICULAR PHOTO not be run. Now...as an ameture photographer myself, I KNOW that no photographer takes one frame and packs his gear up. If the photographer in question was halfway decent, he'd have a good hundred or more photos on his memory card, most of which concerned that one particular ambush. Now. Tell me. Out of all of those pictures, he couldn't get his point across without trampling on the very raw emotions of a family who most likely hadn't even gotten their son back yet, much less had a chance to bury him and attempt to deal with the pain? Publish pictures all you like! Publish a thousand of them! But respect the wishes of the family members involved. I'm pretty sure there will be families across the US who would not mind a photo such as that being shown, for various reasons (including educating the rest of the public). It would have been a very easy thing to pick another photo instead of going for the "shock value". __________________ Pillage, then burn. Argue not with dragons, for thou art crunchy and go well on toast.

09-09-2009, 11:34 AM	#36
parsifal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,989	screw the 1st amendment. The famillies of these boys have paid the biggest price that can be paid, and their wishes should be respected. Respect is not just mouthing some fashionable words, and then publishing the pictures for a quick buck anyways. Respect means, that if you can you meet their wishes. Death should be a private thing. If the famillies dont want you to see their boy in his final seconds of suffering, then screw your curiosity, and screw your "right to a free press" If that had been my boy in his last moment, and some smart arse journalist printed his last moments on earth, I'd have killed the journo....no hesitation __________________ Do not judge on abilities, but on choices

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-08-2009, 06:07 PM	#34
Butters Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: South Shore of Nova Scotia Posts: 299	I'm with syscom when it comes to freedom of expression. It is the single most important right there is. However, in this case it's not a question of legality (which is what rights are really about) but ethics. And because the two are not the same, one can wholeheartedly support the paper's right to publish those photos while at the same time you can justifiably condemn them for unethical behavior. IOW, you're not saying that it ought'a be illegal, only that it's sleazy and callous. Reminds me of something Voltaire once said in regard to a similar situation: "One cannot truly blame them, one can only despise them..."

09-09-2009, 11:33 AM	#35
diddyriddick Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Hamlet, NC, US Posts: 720	Great posts, all! Particular kudos to Proton for the courageous dissent. Additionally, thanks to the soldier in question who gave "the last full measure of devotion," and to his family. May God grant them peace.