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."
Exactly, but the leftwing MSM will never understand
...Read.
Why don't they show a picture of the cemetary at Arlington and Normandy then? They piss on every one of those graves every time they publish an American-hating troop bashing diatribe.
Well said Shieldmaiden of the Infidel!
The MSM is the enemy from within... doing everything in their power to defeat our troops, hurt our President and destroy this great Country!
What scum.
Stand by for "fake but accurate" POSED pictures from the MSM.
I gather that Journalism Schools have made "Reporting Just the Facts" a seldom-offered elective course...
Stand by for "fake but accurate" POSED pictures from the MSM.
I gather that Journalism Schools have made "Reporting Just the Facts" a seldom-offered elective course...
photos of religion of peace for Newsweek
Yup, virtually all of the LSM morons embraced the view that showing photos and video footage would be 'inflammatory' (i.e., might further motivate REAL Americans to fight Islamo-fascist terrorists) and so our LSM had been almost devoid of any visual depictions of the thousands of victims of 9/11 since the day itself.
So let's see, showing the public the actual carnage of 9/11 terrorists is too 'inflammatory' yet it is vital, essential, mandatory that the LSM show every possible dead US soldier, Marine, etc.
Yeah, I don't detect any depraved left-wing agenda here....
We definitely need more dead journalists, after all, they're becoming useless anyway with all the bloggers and truthful eye witness accounts of things going on....
bury them... no big loss...
So Michelle how many photos of people falling from the WTC did the New York Times publish?
About time for a little "necktie" party at the big oak at the end of town. Lets start with the Newsweak editorial staff.
I'm ready for some 'adult assembly'.
all hail the religion of Peace
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/052170.php
all hail the religion of Peace
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/052170.php
Here are some of the consequences of that war, the ones that the noble American servicemen and women risk their lives to accomplish:
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.