[GB]

I am a journalist. To be specific, my job in journalism is designing pages, writing headlines and writing photo captions.

I've also been a committed conservative since age 10, going on 35 years now.

I say this to establish my credentials to speak here ... and to tell you that you are WAY out in the ozone on this.

First off, the AP includes a recommended caption on every photo. A newspaper is under no obligation or requirement ... repeat, NO obligation or requirement ... to use that caption. Most of them are poorly written because they are written by the photographers themselves and not by writers. I have "winged" it and written my own captions based on my view of the photo hundreds if not thousands of times in my nearly 25 years in the business.

Quite frankly, I might very well have used the cigarette line myself because it was a little more compelling. I placed a picture of two Brits lighting up in the paper a few days ago because it was a cool photo ... one of the Brits was a tank driver and he was sitting up in the entrance to the tank and lighting up for a colleague who was standing on the side of the tank. They looked supremely confident like it was just another day at the office and it was a compelling photo, and I didn't worry about any anti-smoking types calling to complain.

Secondly, the thing about the soldiers going through the palace for souvenirs ... in other words, looting, although that is kind of a perjorative term ... was not a falsehood, it was most definitely mentioned in the story that this photo (which I saw when going through the available photos that night) and several others accompanied, because I personally read every word of that story, wrote a headline for it (mine was something on the order of "U.S. troops make themselves at home in Saddam's palace") and placed it in my newspaper. And in hindsight, I probably should've used a pullout paragraph or something in boldface about them taking souvenirs because that is also cool and IMHO is no big deal. I mean, like victorious soldiers haven't helped themselves to the spoils of war for hundreds of year. A guy who lived down the street from me when I was a kid had a dagger he took off a German he killed in World War II and he was quite proud of it, and I always beheld it with awe.

So if our guys did help themselves to some of Saddam's toys ... again, so what? Big fat hairy deal! It's no insult to our guys.

Bottom line, I certainly have no use for the Boston Globe in a lot of ways, and I don't deny that there is bias in the media (I can curl your hair with stories of what it's been like trying to work in the trade as a conservative for a quarter-century), but don't go crazy and start seeing devious, eeeeeeevillll conspiracies in each and every thing and call for Freeping when you have no idea of what you're talking about.

[SpinyNorman]

I agree with you, but if they had written "Marines relax in palace splendor after a hard day of baby killing?" (probably the al Jizzera caption) would that be acceptable?

I don't mind them making a good caption, but I deplore a false one. Slanted isn't much better.

[Risa]

>>I say this to establish my credentials to speak here ... and to tell you that you are WAY out in the ozone on this.<<

I appreciate your edifying commentary, GB.

regards,
risa

[Khurkris]

Thank you for your post. Good clarification.

[TopQuark]

So if our guys did help themselves to some of Saddam's toys ... again, so what? Big fat hairy deal! It's no insult to our guys.

You draw an absolutely correct conclusion from an incorrectly framed situation.

In none of the wars I can recall there was ever as heated a discussion of the motives and, specifically, whether the military force came to liberate or to loot. When Jenghiz Khan came, there was no controversy becasue he said he came to loot. When we came to Germany, we said we came to liberate, and there was no controversy because no one accuse us of lyinh and pursuiong the contrary.

In sharp contrast, today, we --- our president, administration, and people in the streets --- keep reiterating that we are there NOT to concur. In response, we hear, from San FRanscisco to Paris, "Stop war for oil!" The Arabs go much further and impute to us all sorts of far-reaching conspiracis that would make Jenghiz Khan blush.

When any hint of looting appears in the newspaper it is explosive. When a newspaper places is on the front page, it is playing to that sentiment.

In sum: (i) a journalist ought not ignore the existing sentiment (imputation to us of evil motives) even if he himself does not share it, and (ii) being principled youself and not sharing the above-mentioned sentiment, you misread Boston Globe's deed: theirs was a deliberate play to the sentiment (we are out there to plunder oil, etc.) shared by the "progressive world."

[formercalifornian]

Agreed. AS a copy editor, I know that it's perfectly legit to replace photo captions. If you use info from a story connected to the photo or that you can accurately glean from the photo itself, it's no big deal. You wouldn't make up stuff wholesale though.

[JimVT]

I am a journalist. To be specific, my job in journalism is designing pages, writing headlines and writing photo captions.

I was a "journalist" too for a long time....although in my day we were simply "reporters" and my job (and everybody else's) was a simple one...get the facts right.

No matter how you justify the Globe's action, the simple fact is that Page One - above the fold is the place for SIGNIFICANT news of interest to the readers, NOT, the biased opinions of some liberal Pulitzer wannabe.

Let's see if tomorrow's Boston Glop prints a page one pix of enthusiastic newly freed Iraqis looting their government leaders homes and offices as shown on TV.

[WaterDragon]

Of course, it was the Globe's 'spin' that we object to, their determination to put the soldiers in a bad light, which liberals are quick to do, the same liberals who assiduously ignore the sacrifice and compassion of these same soldiers.

And we have to ATTACK the liberal media every time they do this, otherwise, they are so stupid that they believe we accept their spin as the truth.

Right on, Diogenesis.

[davidosborne]

So if our guys did help themselves to some of Saddam's toys .. again, so what? Big fat hairy deal! It's no insult to our guys...

As a U.S. Soldier I can assure you that this would be illegal and unethical... I assure you that any soldier caught taking "war trophies" are dealt with harshly by the military leadership...