They've gone too far

[proton45]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[B-17engineer]

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


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKxhE9eY2uA

 

[RabidAlien]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

..... 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]

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)