| Photography Forum: Philosophy Of Photography Forum: |
 |
Q. More on War
Asked by Dai Hunter
(K=2028) on 4/3/2004
|
As a PJ I come to this question with my own ideas and based on my own training and sensibilities - but what do you all think?
There have been two recent discussions here on ethics relating to war photography and photographic intervention in world affairs: Is War Photography Necessary? - and - Should Photographers Intervene With World Events?. Here is a more specific question on the ethics of publishing photos when they are available - not whether they should be shot in the first place. Recent events in Falluja [Iraq] cross the boundary separating the two other discussions. First, these images already exist, BUT, they also have the potential to alter on-going world events...specifically the nature and extent of continuing US and British involvement on Iraq.
The question now is: When images are available, and those may be such that they have a political impact dimension, should they be published in full? - OR - alternately - should they be sanitised, pixellated, censored or just not shown at all so that the political impact of what is pictured is lessoned specifically for political reasons?
BACKGROUND STORY
Full text of the following extracts are at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3588751.stm
[extracts]
Images from Iraq haunt US
By Verity Murphy, BBC News Online
"The gruesome images of the bodies of four US civilian contractors being mutilated and lynched in the Iraqi town of Falluja have caused outrage across the US.
All the main television stations began their evening news broadcasts with footage of the attacks in which the Americans were pulled from their burning vehicle, decapitated, and two of the bodies left hanging on a bridge...." [break in text]
"...The incident has also ignited a debate on taste and the audience's right to know. The images were graphic, of that there is no doubt, but should an audience be cosseted from the truth; should war be sanitised?
Every war has its iconic images - be it a naked young girl fleeing a napalm attack in Vietnam or a young soldier being dragged behind a vehicle in Somalia - and by their very nature they are disturbing.... [break in text]
"...The graphic content of the 80 seconds of video from Falluja had news editors struggling once more to balance the need to tell the story with taste and decency.
Both ABC and CBS news showed the abuse in their evening newscasts, but ensured that the corpses were electronically blurred in their footage. NBC went one step further, editing the pictures so that the bodies could not be easily seen.
CNN shifted its position through the course of the day. Initially, the news channel refused to show the bodies at all, focussing their report on shots of the burning vehicles and cheering mob.
But as the day wore on they showed increasingly graphic images, culminating with footage of the bodies hanging from a bridge - a decision that was defended by a correspondent saying: "Some images are necessary to fully show the extent of the violence."... [break in text]
"...White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "We will not turn back from our efforts."
Nonetheless, recognising the effect that such images have had in the past, Mr McClellan also urged caution, telling reporters, "I hope everybody acts responsibly in their coverage." ..." [break in text]
BEYOND THE TV NEWS BROADCASTERS HOWEVER...
Both the New York Times and the Washington Post published un-censored images from this event in their print editions. On the front page in fact. In the case of the NYT an image of two bodies hung from the bridge; and in the case of the WP an image of two bodies in the street surrounded by the crowds.
POLITICALLY
Was the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, trying to put off the media from telling the whole truth of the matter and using the photos when they were clearly available to illustrate the full impact of the event? Was he trying to do that with the clear objective of lessoning the potential adverse impact on his political masters? Should the media comply?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 4/3/2004
|
Though it is not good form to follow my own post, here is more food for thought. It is not just the images of Fallujah...
Virtually NONE of the following images has received any US [or British] press coverage. They could be called "The pictures your government does not want you to see"
Images - the toll on Iraqi citizens
http://www.einswine.com/atrocities/iraq/ [11 pages of images]
and
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm [20 pages of images]
and
http://www.marchforjustice.com/3.22.php [ca 45 pages of images]
and - uncensored Fallujah images
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/fallujah_31mar04/ [stills and video]
and - more pictures Bush doesn't want you to see:
US Military Personnel Wounded in Iraq & Afghanistan: A Photo Gallery
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/wounded/gallery.htm
and - in case you wonder why you don't see these images...
extract from:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1118/p02s01-woiq.html
Media caught in Iraq's war of perceptions
Many Americans have seen news coverage as overly negative, but mounting troop deaths test support for war. By Ann Scott Tyson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
[extract}
"...Although media outlets, including this one, are regularly pummeled with hostile e-mails over reports perceived as antiwar and unpatriotic, experts disagree. "The press is almost congenitally patriotic and nationalistic," says Jamieson.
As in Vietnam, initial US media coverage of Iraq was fairly supportive of the administration's line, says Watson. Skepticism set in more quickly than in Vietnam, however, beginning with the occupation phase and coinciding with reporters leaving the embedded media program...." [ends]
|
|
|
|
Kevin Bjorke
(K=960) - Comment Date 4/3/2004
|
The media I've seen appears to be using the footage to portray the Iraqis who did this as lunatic animals, perhaps for the sake of inciting angry aggression among the American populace.
Al-Arabiya et al have run numerous stories (almost unseen here) of victims of the American bombing campaign, apparently to portray the USAF as inhuman and distant, perhaps for the sake of inciting angry aggression among the Arabic populace.
So much for the idea that graphic PJ shooting of the "realities of war" might help end wars.
I know there are plenty of PJs who are earnest and honest in their pursuit of such an ideal. Some are deservedly among the most lauded photographers. But the sad truth is that their images are distributed by people whose interests do not coincide with those ideals. Face it: the people who are running the media networks are NOT our friends.
|
|
|
|
Dai Hunter
(K=2028) - Comment Date 4/3/2004
|
Kevin noted: "Face it: the people who are running the media networks are NOT our friends"
My comment: Editorial timidity as a result of a corporate bottom line mentality.
|
|
|
|
John Lamb
(K=9687) - Comment Date 4/4/2004
|
The first casuality of war is truth. The responsible journalist is there to act as witness, not to condemn, cajole or make the news. War mongers would love to be able to carry out their adgenda in secrecy. The more eyes there are the less chance that the dictator can get away with murder without some retribution.
The problem is that with so much entertaiment violence on T.V, in the movies, computer games etc the human response can become almost imune to brutality.
Why focus on the violence of war and the rights and wrongs of recording it? Focus on all violence in society.
Photojouralists take the images. Editors and media owners decide what is published and what is ignored for political reasons.
If every person with a digital camera was to become the all-seeing eye in their community just think what effect that would have on crime & violence. This will seem like big brother to some people, but every one needs a big brother on their side now and again.
To quote that singer song writer from the seventies "All you need is Love."
|
|
|
|
James McGinnis
(K=6045) - Comment Date 4/6/2004
|
I find this a bit interesting in that as I read that Dai was a "PJ" I immediately thought he meant "Para-rescue Jumper", part of the USAF Special Operations Command. (AFSOC) Of course, now, after reading his comments completely, I recognize that he is a Photo Journalist. My, how our backgrounds and experiences alter our perceptions of even the smallest things!
Having been on the "other side" of the photojournalist lense/memo pad/tape recorder and having just returned from 9 months in that general part of the world, I am approaching this from a rather simplistic view.
War sucks. People die, people suffer and it happens on both sides of any conflict. If you see it and you feel the need to record it (photographically or otherwise) then go for it. But, as a "journalist" (photograhic or otherwise) report it fairly and report it accurately. Don't spin it!
Are U.S. military servicemembers doing some really bad things to some really bad people? Sure they are.
Are some really bad people doing some really bad things to there own people AND to U.S. servicmembers...you bet your sweet ass they are!
In 9 months I ran medical outreach programs throughout East Africa (think Somalia). We treated over 6,000 people, built clinics and schools and dug wells. But, in one town the Imams threatened to stone anyone who accepted medications from us! Any photo journalists covering that story??? Hell no!
You know why? Because it doesn't sell papers and magazines nearly as well as dead bodies hanging from a bridge!!!
Cover the STORY not the Photo OP!!! War sucks, people die...you want to report it, then report it but don't paint the big ugly picture on the U.S. Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine...he/she is just doing his/her job. Never, ever, ever forget that Saddam murdered thousands of ethnic Kurds, kept rape and torture cells for his son's amusement and essentially subjugated an entire nation through routine use of torture and wholesale execution.
|
|
|
|
|
