Posted on 09/09/2009 2:32:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
Why did The Associated Press -- and newspapers across the country -- run the controversial and disturbing images of an American Marine dying in Afghanistan? The AP said it was "to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it."
It succeeded. Fortunately, we are not a nation of trembling children powerless to discern between news and exploitation. And it is, despite the anger surrounding the AP's decision, the job of the press to offer citizens a glimpse -- albeit slight, in this case -- of the war they cover.
When photographer Julie Jacobson was patrolling with a Marine unit that came under attack in southern Afghanistan, 21-year-old Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard was hit with a rocket-propelled grenade and died of his injuries. Embedded, Jacobson had photos of the unit prior to the attacks, of Bernard's death, of the evacuation and of the memorial service Bernard's fellow Marines held for him after his death. She did her job admirably.
Yet Sarah Palin, echoing the blistering condemnation of some conservatives and others, called the move a "heartless and selfish decision to turn its back on the wishes of a grieving family in order to exploit the tragic death of a true American hero." U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote a "scathing" letter to Tom Curley, president and CEO of the AP, bemoaning his "lack of compassion and common sense" and "judgment and common decency" for defying "the family's wishes."
When looking at the photo series, "Death of a Marine," I felt a heightened respect for the gravity of war. The pictures unquestionably added humanity and context to Bernard's death.
Now, if I could recall a wanton penchant of the press to run photos of dead Marines, my reaction might have been very different.
It is also conceivable, of course, that I'm a callous journalist, willing to set aside all decency to quench my baser voyeuristic instincts. There is an undeniable emotional component to these pictures that can't be disregarded. It is unfathomable to imagine the anguish the Bernard family must feel.
Yet the awful reality remains. As cruel as it sounds, those concerns should not guide the journalist's decision-making process; the press can't be solely beholden to notions of decency or compassion -- subjective, as they are in most cases -- when it has a duty to follow a story wherever it goes.
Whether the mainstream press has abdicated this obligation in certain circumstances is a matter of useful discussion (unquestionably, the AP's cowardly refusal to distribute the Muhammad cartoons in 2006 for fear of upsetting some Muslims was a perfect example of this surrender), but trying to limit the media's capacity to cover war is no way to make it more accountable.
It was only recently that the Pentagon finally rescinded the misguided restriction on the media's ability to photograph military caskets, overturning the ban instituted by President George H.W. Bush at the time of the Gulf War. Our delicate constitutions can handle the debate over war. Obviously -- at the risk of dropping a massive cliché on readers -- the troops exist to defend the First Amendment and things like it, as ugly as they may find the results.
There is now some question as to whether the agreement with the AP stipulated next-of-kin permission to publish pictures of deceased or wounded military personnel. That issue should be investigated.
But on the debate over the substance of these pictures, the press has one overriding question to ask: Do the photos help citizens better understand the story of the war in Afghanistan?
Obviously, they do.
In other words, screw our wounded and dying service members---we've got to make our deadlines.
That about sums it all up
Today's media is so far from this creed that they should be ashamed to even say it. They follow a story only to the extent that it fits their agenda. What surprises me about this picture is that, with Obama running the war, it was printed at all. Will Obama be the next Lyndon B. Johnson?
But they will be all up in arms and crazy if a anti abortionist shows pictures of a aborted baby in the news.
Garbage. It was a chance to put a high-wattage image on Page One above the fold.
Now, if I could recall a wanton penchant of the press to run photos of dead Marines, my reaction might have been very different.
Rack your brain, Einstein, and you may just recall the protracted running battle with the Bush Administration about photographing coffins coming home from Iraq at Dover AFB. Remember that one? Your wretched colleagues wanted propaganda images to grind into American families' faces.
Hey! Hey! LBJ! / How many kids did you kill today?!
Stop the war in ________, / Bring the troops home NOW!
It is also conceivable, of course, that I'm a callous journalist, willing to set aside all decency to quench my baser voyeuristic instincts.
DING! DING! DING! DING! DINGGGGG! No more calls, please, no more calls .....
It is unfathomable to imagine the anguish the Bernard family must feel.
Really? Do you actually care? No? Then why bring it up? It didn't play any role in the AP's editorial decisionmaking, obviously.
But they will be all up in arms and crazy if a anti abortionist shows pictures of a aborted baby in the news.A Free Press Is an Ugly PressWe need to define terms. A free press would not be a homogenous press. A non-homogeneous press would have internal conflicts and would not circle the wagons around a reporter who used fraudulent documents to attack a political opponent.A non-homogeneous press would not change the meanings of words, and create new expressions, to promote a single political perspective.
Certainly - because that could only be the act of a non-homogeneous, actually free, press. And nothing, to them, could be "uglier" than that.
David Harsanyi tries to defend AP by invoking the highest principles of journalism while trying to ignore what journalism has now become.
If only “journalists” had such concerns when it came to covering stories about Zero’s czars and his trampling our Constitution!
BECAUSE THE MEDIA ARE SELFISH, ANTI-AMERICAN LIBERAL SCUMBAGS.
That's why.
Will the AP show the dead bodies of the civilians killed in the US rescue of a New York Times reporter.
British rescue, actually.
Let’s give credit to our allies where it is owed.
More critically, will they show the “disturbing images” they have censored from 9/11? Why not? Might it contribute to political results of which they wouldn’t approve?
Warfare is torture. It is the butchering of humanity, and considered the wickedest and ugliest experience of mankind; something no sane person wishes to indulge in. Certain images are traditionally withheld from the general public out of respect for feelings. Given the opportunity pandering media will entice the prurient interests of some for gain and profit of their sponsors. Since the public at large may be ready to view such material, what does that say about us, and to what level have we descended? -Vietnam Vet.
Progress? From the Fourth Estate to the Fifth Column
What it all boils down to is the political agenda of the AP. I can't ever remember seeing this sort of argument out of them for showing graphic photos of the remains of the victims of September 11, 2001. In fact, it seems that the media is doing all it can to quash any sort of photo or story that might anger the American public, and show us just who it is we're fighting, and what needs to be done to them to ensure an attack never comes again.
This is no different than Cronkite's "the Viet Nam war is now unwinnable" diatribe in order to try to swing the country's opinion against the war. And the AP doesn't care who they hurt in the process, as long as they further their agenda.
Mark
A 9/11 curriculum is entering the nation’s school system.
Let’s see how many schools refuse to use the material provided.
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.