Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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?
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.
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".
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?
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.
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.
..... 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.
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.