photographer 'disembedded' for showing dead Marine

[Serpent7]

Check it:
This guy: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
got cut off from embedding because the USMC did not like the fact that he published a photo of a dead Marine.
So, that is bad. Censorship, right?

What I find also strange is the way the story is being carried by the 'old' media. For instance, the local newspaper (Ventura County Star) called him an 'internet blogger'. They failed to mention any of his NUMEROUS awards, or the depth and breadth of his experience...etc. The paper made him sound like a hobbyist, or something. Very strange....

[SShack]

This has been going on for the entire war and it's a very nasty trend. I read last week that even though the family of a dead soldier wanted to allow the media to shoot his funeral, the Army wouldn't allow it.

The problem is "embedding" is not a First Amendment right. The military/government can't forbid you from running pictures like this, but they can remove your access with little recourse. This leaves the media either having to play along or risk their ability to cover the war at all. It's a major problem and has been reported in mainstream media circles, but the general public doesn't seem to care that much and sadly, aren't interested in seeing these pictures.

[md21017md]

So, that is bad. Censorship, right?

Durring war time, I see nothing wrong with that. Do you really think we'd have won WWII if CNN was at every battle? People cry when a few civilians are accidentially killed, yet people forget when the US fire bombed Tokyo we killed at least 100,000 Japanese civilians. When we bombed Germany we killed thousands of civilians. There was no public outcry. Why? because we did not have the number of embeded freelance reporters, nor the liberal anything for a buck press of today. In my opinion war (or a fight between 2 people - conflict at its lowest level) should be the last option, only used when there is no other option. Once war becomes the only option, in my opinion you unleash the gates of hell - get it over as fast as possible and provide a deterant to anyone else that might want to attack. Korea was the last real war we won (a war with a hardened opposition), and the last war without embeded reporters. That might tell ya something.

[SShack]

I've seen the pictures in museums of dead American soldiers on the beach killed during the D-Day invasion taken by a photojournalists. Photographers have been documenting war since the time photography existed. If I remember correctly, those photos ran in "Life" magazine.

[blueback]

The world wars were different. The administration figured they could drum up more support for the war effort by showing dead American soldiers. The entire world, after all, was involved in a fight against ultimate evil. Today it's different. Most of the American population either doesn't want our soldiers dying in "durkadurkastan" or isn't sure why they are dying. America is bearing the burden of the "war on terror" pretty much all alone.

On the military side, they are trying to "learn their lesson" from Vietnam. The military failed to acheive its objectives in that war because of civilan discontent which was significanly influenced by embedded coverage of the war. The thing in Iraq, and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan, is an insurgency war which is even worse than Vietnam where at least the enemies usually belonged to an organized military.

I think I can understand their reasoning. I think they are thinking, aside from the practical aspects of limiting coverage of what's happening in Iraq, that it is appropriate morally. The people who died in the world wars belonged to everyone in the country. In a distant sense America was fighting for its own existence because if our enemies won they would eventually try to invade us too. On the other hand, the thing in Iraq isn't defensive. The soldiers who die aren't defending America, so they don't belong to all Americans, they belong to their families.

[Monte314]

Members of the press know up front that this is not allowed, and they agree to it as a condition of participation. So, if there is any "censorship" here, it's self-censorship to which they have agreed.

[acyckowski]

durka durka





acyckowski added to this post, 14 minutes and 7 seconds later...

Lincoln suspended many civil rights. The union was preserved and slavery abolished.

World War II was heavily censored, including personal correspondence. The Nazis and Fascists were stopped, then destroyed.

Vietnam had free and open press access; citizens got tired of seeing their boys die and the war lost its support. Communism prevailed and a Democracy was eradicated.

Jihadists want to destroy western culture, are willing to use any means necessary to do so, and their strategy is based on patience and exploiting our "softness." Think a little mutual back-scratching between the military and the press corps is too much to ask?

[Jack]

It's because the Government doesn't want you to realize how many Americans died because of this war.

When the People see how bad it is, they likely won't want to go into another one... Going into Iran will destroy the Great U.S of A.

[SShack]

durka durka





acyckowski added to this post, 14 minutes and 7 seconds later...

Lincoln suspended many civil rights. The union was preserved and slavery abolished.

World War II was heavily censored, including personal correspondence. The Nazis and Fascists were stopped, then destroyed.

Vietnam had free and open press access; citizens got tired of seeing their boys die and the war lost its support. Communism prevailed and a Democracy was eradicated.

Jihadists want to destroy western culture, are willing to use any means necessary to do so, and their strategy is based on patience and exploiting our "softness." Think a little mutual back-scratching between the military and the press corps is too much to ask?

Yes.

The government serves us, not the other way around. If the American people do not support a military action, than the American government has no right to carry it out, regardless of how you perceive the risks to western culture.

The government does not give us our rights. We give the government rights. Forgetting that is far more dangerous to our future than jihadists from another country.

Oh, and an INTJ should know better than anybody that correlation does not imply causation.

[Saint]

Members of the press know up front that this is not allowed, and they agree to it as a condition of participation.

Is that so? I value photographers and journalists that break this "rule" much more highly than those that don't. Don't you agree?

[Valiyn]

Part of it is also that in the military, the guys you are with become family. I wouldn't want anyone who has ever protected my back to be shown dead....much less so people who disliked what he died for can use it to their own political gain. I wouldn't want to be put on the front page when I die so people can ponder if I died for something worth it and decide my death was in vain. Kinda horrified at that thought in fact.

The American Revolution took longer, caused more American deaths, and destored alot more American property then the Iraq war has. If you can't see yourself giving the chance for freedom to a neighbor...do you deserve it yourself? Freedom is an interesting thing, you either have it handed to you on loan, or need to forge it yourself with a massive paycheck in blood and treasure -- eitherway, it sure as hell ain't free and no peacefull talks will bring it about forever. Ever now and then you have to pay a tax of blood and treasure to keep freedom, or you lose it. As far as Iraq goes, we're just the bank trying to loan them some. It's up to them if they want to pay to keep it.

I don't think we should have attacked in the first place, but I don't think because we didn't have a solid starting reason we should end it. No matter how bad the situation your in, you play it smart and make the best of it. In war you find yourself in plenty of bad situations to be in, show your back and run and you will get shot in the ass. You have a better chance outflanking the enemy then running or even a firing retreat. You don't have eyes in the back of your head, don't run and fire blindly or fire and run blindly. Go forward, forward doesn't have to be toward the enemy, but don't divide your sights. Stay focused and fight to your full advantage, instead of being rash and opening the door for your enemies while your run.

Just my 2cents.

[phantasma]

Lincoln suspended many civil rights. The union was preserved and slavery abolished.

World War II was heavily censored, including personal correspondence. The Nazis and Fascists were stopped, then destroyed.

Vietnam had free and open press access; citizens got tired of seeing their boys die and the war lost its support. Communism prevailed and a Democracy was eradicated.

Jihadists want to destroy western culture, are willing to use any means necessary to do so, and their strategy is based on patience and exploiting our "softness." Think a little mutual back-scratching between the military and the press corps is too much to ask?

In both the civil war and World War II, censorship was a lot more acceptable because both were more extreme situations. In both wars, if they weren't won, the US as we know it would be lost. They couldn't afford to have open dissension. I also think the two wars were a lot more justified, because it was in the name of self defense.

Vietnam was not in direct defense of the US, so it's not as justified. Also, it wasn't only because the masses didn't want to see their soldiers die. It was because of the horrific war crimes there. The Vietnamese civilians were massacred, raped, and tortured. That's obviously wrong, and to the US, that made the war wrong.

Also, the relationship between the government and the media is much more than just "back scratching". The government has the mainstream media on a leash while the media practically "chooses" government leaders and political ideology. (I'm referring to how news channels place more influence on one candidate, namely Obama, to control elections.) Thanks to the media, the US as a whole is ignorant of what is happening in Iraq. With the masses, if it isn't covered, it isn't happening. It's one thing to have propaganda posters and slogans, but it's another for the media to practically "hide" what's going on and let the government wage the war in Iraq behind closed doors. The people have a right to know.

Also, sometimes we forget how important and profound photojournalism can be. Here's an example of how I've learned from photojournalism. Thanks to the way they don't cover much history past WWII in American high schools, I know hardly anything about the Vietnam war other than the famous photos associated with the war. Otherwise, I'd be totally oblivious when it comes to Vietnam.

[acyckowski]

Yes.

The government serves us, not the other way around. If the American people do not support a military action, than the American government has no right to carry it out, regardless of how you perceive the risks to western culture.

In point of fact, the American people really have no say about it until election time. (Nor should they, from a practical perspective.) Under the Constitution, Congress declares war and levies taxes to fund it. In the case of both Afghanistan and Iraq, the Congress authorized military action and appropriated funds to do so. The People get their say every two years.

Functional democracies don't operate like "American Idol." The term lengths of the two houses of Congress were deliberately set at 2 and 6 years, so that the People's representatives would be more in touch with their constituents, and the Senators would feel secure in taking a long view. On top of that there are the checks and balances provided by the Executive and Judicial branches. The founders feared the tyranny of the mob as much as the tyranny of a monarch.

You say the People don't support the war, yet even the new Congress feels safe enough to continue appropriating funds. Sure, the current Democratic Congress pays lip-service to opposing the war in Iraq, but follow the money. If the people don't care enough to exercise their rights to vote or petition their congressman for a redress of grievances, their opinion is no more than a minor academic curiosity.

The government does not give us our rights. We give the government rights. Forgetting that is far more dangerous to our future than jihadists from another country.

And forgetting that the executive arm of government secures your rights is self-delusion.

The press is free to report as it may, but that right does not imply a demand to carte-blanche access. Any American journalist is free, as an American, to leave an embedded patrol on his own in search of The Truth: at that point, though, the patrol no longer has an obligation--or option--to divert from mission to secure his safety. Yet, not many embedded journalists seem to be exercising their rights. Funny how those who cry loudest about freedom aren't willing to risk their necks for it.

Oh, and an INTJ should know better than anybody that correlation does not imply causation.

Of course it doesn't. But until you can provide a more scientific technique for showing linear cause and effect in the historical study of something as complex as a proxy war, the correlation has to be considered seriously.

In the case of Vietnam, the NVA and VC were militarily routed after the Tet Offensive...as part of our departure agreement, we told the South Vietnamese goverment that we would send troops back in if there were any more problems. Two years after we left, the NVA rebuilt their strength and invaded....and the U.S. Congress, afraid to get us back into an "unpopular" war, reneged. In short, we lost Vietnam at home....exactly the lesson that OBL and his ilk have learned and are counting on.

Is it true? Are Americans weak-kneed?

Consider Somalia. We were fighting pretty hard, and boys were dying, in this "Humanitarian" effort before Task Force Ranger came on the scene. Then, during the Battle of Mogadishu, TFR was surrounded on all sides by an overwhelming enemy, hopped up on drugs and hiding amongst women and children. We lost 18, they lost over a thousand. But the image of a couple of soldiers being dragged through the streets was enough for the American people to declare defeat and bring the troops home, mission-not-accomplished.

The jihadists have taken our measure, and find us lacking. Images of dead Americans is a demonstrably proven technique for making the People quit, regardless of the reality on the ground. Aside from being blatantly disrespectful to the families of the fallen soldiers, showing their broken and bloodied bodies plays into the main effort of the enemy.





acyckowski added to this post, 10 minutes and 7 seconds later...

In both the civil war and World War II, censorship was a lot more acceptable because both were more extreme situations. In both wars, if they weren't won, the US as we know it would be lost. They couldn't afford to have open dissension. I also think the two wars were a lot more justified, because it was in the name of self defense.


Neither was defensive in nature.

The South seceded from the Union, then staged troops along the border. After a single border incident, Confederate troops remained behind their fortifications. It was the North that continued to invade, until Lee's ill-fated excursion into Pennsylvania, and even that was simply an attempt to deliver the message that the Confederacy wanted to be left alone. Your point about the U.S. not being the same had we lost is true, though, in this case.

World War II was purely offensive. We had been instigating the Axis in both directions for years before Pearl Harbor. Even then, the intent of the Japanese was to send us a message to keep out of their way by crippling our fleet. In 1941, there was no real way for Hitler to attempt an invasion of the U.S., especially considering he was fighting on two fronts. The security of our nation was never really a serious issue, at least not for a decade or so, and yet we mobilized an entire nation and attacked on two fronts until we utterly annihilated the armies, navies, and populace of our enemies.

So I guess the real reason you feel those wars are "different" is because you already know who won?

[44sunsets]

People should read Zoriah's blog before they start these right-wing diatribes.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Marines that he's embedded with support him. And so do officials of the Multi National Force Iraq. It's a beat-up over something relatively insignificant. The guy does exemplary work that honours the soldiers who are serving.

[zibber]

The problem the people in charge of this have might be that showing dead "good guys" makes war something concrete, whereas it's much easier for the public to go along with their current MO when the war (on terror) remains somewhat abstract. I mean, I definitely understand this from a PR perspective.

[Danisty]

I really don't know the story because I didn't hear about it. The thing I'm wondering is how fast he published the picture. Had the family been contacted already? If not, then I understand why he lost his job.

[127001]

Durring war time, I see nothing wrong with that. Do you really think we'd have won WWII if CNN was at every battle? People cry when a few civilians are accidentially killed, yet people forget when the US fire bombed Tokyo we killed at least 100,000 Japanese civilians.

Not the same thing. An invasion plan for Japan was analyzed and found infeasible since the losses for the Allies were projected to be much too high.

With negotiation not being an option, what course would you take? Surrender?