Posted on 05/23/2005 10:21:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
American photojournalists and their editors are frustrated that they can't show more photos of U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq, saying that the nation isn't getting an accurate picture of the horrors of war.
In a comprehensive report on Saturday, the Los Angeles Times noted:
"A review of six prominent U.S. newspapers and the nation's two most popular newsmagazines during a recent six-month period found almost no pictures from the war zone of Americans killed in action."
The paper explained:
"Many photographers and editors believe they are delivering Americans an incomplete portrait of the violence that has killed 1,797 U.S. service members and their Western allies and wounded 12,516 Americans."
During World War II, the Roosevelt administration strictly prohibited news outlets from printing photos of dead U.S. soldiers because of the obvious blow it would be to American morale. And the press willingly complied.
The same sensibility largely prevailed during Korea, Vietnam and the First Gulf War.
But with many in today's media opposed to the Iraq war, some say it's time to change the rules.
"There can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that," veteran war photographer Chris Hondros told the Times. "I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war."
Pim Van Hemmen, assistant managing editor for photography at the Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., agreed, telling the Times:
"Writing in a headline that 1,500 Americans have died doesn't give you nearly the impact of showing one serviceman who is dead."
By censoring the photos of GI's as they lay dying, Van Hemmen said, "We in the news business are not doing a very good job of showing our readers what has really happened over there."
Steve Stroud, deputy director of photography at the Los Angeles Times, also thinks the public needs to see more photos of dead American soldiers.
"I feel we still aren't seeing the kind of pictures we need to see to tell the American people about this war and the costs of the war," he explained.
Michele McNally, New York Times director of photography, concurred, observing: "War kills men, women and children, and we would be remiss if we couldn't in some way show that this is what happens in war . . . It's our responsibility to bear witness to these events."
Media support for showing more American bloodshed comes despite the risk that soldiers' families may consider the display a horrible violation of privacy.
Deirdre Sargent, whose husband was deployed to Iraq, recently complained to editors of the News Tribune of Tacoma, Wash., after the paper printed a photo of a dying GI that she said left her "shaking and in tears for hours."
"It was tacky, unprofessional and completely unnecessary," Sargent said.
Executive Editor Dave Zeeck told the Times that he tried to address the complaints in an essay published on Page 2 of the main news section. He explained to readers that he believed the picture, taken by John Moore of the Associated Press, epitomized the sacrifice of the American soldier.
"We not only have the right, but the responsibility to run such photos," Zeeck told the Times.
MSNBC.com posted the same photo to their website, prompting complaints from the dying soldier's family.
"At first we thought it was a really iconic photo of the terrible violence going on in Iraq," MSNBC.com editor in chief Dean Wright told the Times.
But when it turned out the soldier could be identified, Wright took the photo down, saying, "We thought it was too horrific, because it was more personalized then."
Hell, they're complaining about pictures of Saddam wearing his own underwear where it belongs!!! Besides, I think he looked entirely too healthy and well-kept.
LA Times rymes with slimes. A perfect description of a leftwing rag. Need I say more?
We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
Comes on at five
She can tell you ’bout the plane crash with a gleam
In her eye
It’s interesting when people die-
Give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation?
Is the head dead yet?
You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
Running bet
Get the widow on the set!
We need dirty laundry
You don’t really need to find out what’s going on
You don’t really want to know just how far it’s gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
Kick ’em when they’re up
Kick ’em when they’re down
And the MSM is outraged
Thanks, Chris. I mean, if it weren't for the journalists we'd all be thinking that war is just one big campfire weenie-roast, right?
Underlying all these people's comments is a condescension so ingrained that they don't even notice it anymore. And it is definitely more than the usual cliches about "bearing witness."
"I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war."
Which, translated, says "America was wrong and we're going to keep showing distressing images until it reforms." Thanks but no thanks.
If the media would like to publish pictures of the horror of innocent death, I think they should put together a 20/20 or Dateline show that shows the horror of abortion.
They could cover a funeral at a National Cemetery. Of course, that runs the risk of a punch in the nose...can't do that.
Anymore? They censored most of those pictures from the start. How about the media helping get this war over with instead of prolonging it for a change? Why doesn't anybody talk about them shutting up so we can get the damn job done. This makes me angry so far down deep I can't even express it.
Yes, they should just show more pictures of 9-11. Maybe some of the pictures that they thought to horrible to print.
That is very, very sick.
I keep thinking that the left and the MSM can't go any lower and they continually prove me wrong.
Why didn't the MSM make this request during the Kosovo War?
On an Eagles roll, how about Don Henley's 'Get Over It' for the filibustering Dims, about this time tomorrow.
I know right? I mean look how the media reacted when those photos came out.. "It will enflame Iraqis, it will anger Muslims!!" and then they start pushing "We need an investigation, who took the pictures! This is an outrage of the Geneva convention!"
This is a mass murderer, thousands of mass graves in Iraq and they are concerned about his freggin` honor and privacy. Unreal. If it was up to me, I`d throw the mutt naked in the street in the middle Baghdad, and film it as he`s torn apart by the Iraqis. Let them do a Mussolini to him and hang him upside down like a dog.
Because that would only incite us to anger and violence towards Muslims, so they say. They can't have that when they want to incite us to anger and violence towards the Bush Administration instead.
American soldiers are saying that the MSM is not giving an acurate picture of the successes and progress being made in Iraq.
Who ya gonna believe?
Besides, we know the horrors of war. We don't need the likes of Newsweek to show us.
This is only true if you're a photography editor propagandist who wants to affect the war. The rest of us know what 1,500 dead soldiers means, and you can bet the Iraqis know what it means: It means they get to do the purple finger thing instead of the finger-beaten-off-with-an-iron-rod-thing.
Did you ever see the movie Harrison's Flowers? It was about the journalists who went to document the war in former Yugoslavia.
They dedicated the movie to the forty-eight journalists and photographers who died there; as though going into a war zone in of itself is some kind of badge of honor.
How would they like their families to see their bodies smashed up all over the front pages? Bloody hypocrites. I despise these jackals.
Furthermore, I am writing those SOB's at that paper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.