Gates to AP: Take that photo down!

That kind of thing is happening with Twitter now.

A quote that may have otherwise been ignored is given more importance because it was "tweeted."

A few months ago Dwyane Wade made an inoccuous tweet that he's "expecting some good news in a couple of days."

So local scribes go on alert and see if this is about Wade agreeing to sign a contract extension (instead of testing the free agent waters in 2010).

But it was just about him switching shoe endorements.

 

This is such a tough call. On one hand I'm in favor of showing what war does so all these people so anxious to go marching off into it can see the consequences. On the other, I don't believe readers really want to see real blood and guts violence on the front page or really any page of the newspaper. I would probably be inclined not to run it but thankfully, I don't really make those decisions. I do think the photos of the flag-draped coffins are important. They are not bloody and more of a tribute to those who gave their lives. And maybe it will make those who never even offered their lives (yes, you, Cheney and Rummy) and those like them, to think twice about putting those lives on the line.

 

That photo looks like it was taken with a 2 megapixel cell phone camera. By the time my paper's press got done with it, it would look like skidmarks in underwear.

 

As someone who has had a son, as well as other family members, serve in Iraq (and who all came home safely, thank God), I will say flat-out that AP should not have run this photo. I don't buy this bullshit that they're, "telling the story of the horrors of war." They are sensationalizing this tragedy and I think it's despicable. You can drive home the point that war is hell without exploiting this young man and his family, which is what they did here. I have no problem with showing a whole planeload of flag-draped coffins. I can even get showing the men and women in the hospital or in physical therapy recovering from the grievous injuries they received in combat. But this is way over the line. If I was Gates, I'd be sorely tempted to jerk this photographer's credentials and send her home on the first plane out.

 

As someone whose sibling is set to deploy to Afghanistan soon, and who has already attended funerals for other veterans who didn't return, I disagree.

The photo quality is not good; that's the reason I wouldn't run it. But I don't see how it's "exploitation" at all.

 

Or "sensationalizing."

The emotional responses only reinforce my opinion, which is more on the side of AP than with the family (with whom I do empathize).

We live in a world with pre-dawn vertical insertions rather than invasions, collateral damage instead of innocent civilians being killed, forced disarmament instead of war, negative patient care outcome rather than death, defensive weapons rather than weapons that can be offensive or defensive, pain compliance instead of torture, pre-emptive strikes rather than unprovoked attacks, servicing the target rather than killing the enemy or destroying a targeted facility, shaping the battlefield rather than killing some people or destroying facilities to make it easier to kill or capture others, surgical strikes (nice use of a healing metaphor) instead of military attacks, transfer tubes instead of body bags, vertically deployed anti-personnel devices instead of bombs and Video news releases instead of fake news in video format.

Coverage of war -- and dying -- has become so sanitized, so like watching a video game complete with reset buttons, we're desensitized to what can and does happen to our young people when we send them overseas in our name. The first Gulf War was John Madden's CBS Chalkboard on cable news, about war -- boom! -- instead of -- boom! -- football. It was networks playing with toys -- not toys as sophisticated and deadly as those the military had, but fascinating, impossible-to-resist-using toys. A generation later, war coverage is so cleansed, it is apples and oranges compared to the Vietnam days.

I have read William Lutz and his "Doublespeak" books (from which much of the above is lifted), and I think they should be required reading for everyone before they register to vote. I do have empathy for the families of victims, but there is a reason these things sting: it's reality. We do our best to shield ourselves from it so much, it no longer has real meaning for us.

Do you recognize this quote? "Nothing in life is certain except negative patient care outcome and revenue enhancement."

That's analogous to what's left of the substance of war coverage stripped of its blunt truths, including real and powerful images rather than numbers and language designed to cover up.

I apologize to no one for my beliefs. They are about saving lives through promoting honesty, so people can make informed -- not emotional, propagandized -- decisions about war, about killing and about dying.

 

Great post JD. Draped coffins pretty up the war and make the soldiers just theoretical deaths. Statstics. It's important to see that these aren't statistics, but real people dying.

I'd have told this family that perhaps the impact on the public and the politicians of photos like this one is to end the war sooner, saving countless other lives. If one life is saved, it's worth it. Because not publishing it saves no one's life, just some feelings.

Also, I don't think the photo was that graphic. It would have been different if you'd clearly been able to make out the face on a mutilated body that was already dead.

If I understand correctly, the soldier is still alive in the photo. He died later. What if he hadn't died? Would the reaction be different? It's the same photo.

 

And in my opinion, the photo in question is not very good. It's not clear, and you cannot see what is happening. Some of the other photos in the package are much better,

 

As the Secretary of Defense, Gates HAS to issue this admonishment. He has to be seen as defending soldiers and being an advocate of them and their families. He has to look like he cares that they are being put in harm's way. As a person who has served in the military and whose two brothers, father, grandfather and uncle all served in the military, I would expect the SOD to say just about what Gates said.

On the other hand, having a free press in essence guarantees that said press is sometimes going to be inflammatory. How ironic that this Marine fought to the death to protect that right. Should the picture of his mangled body -- I couldn't tell that from the photo, either -- be published to show the consequences of war?

His family's position on this is a sympathetic one. Do we show the same publishing courtesy to them as we do to families with asypathetic positions? Let's say a convicted murderer and rapist were executed -- and they still are in mulitple states. Do news organizations publish pictures of their dead or dying bodies? If not, then why would we publish pictures of a dying soldier?

 

My roommate made a great series of points last night. We have volunteer armed forces. People freely enlist to serve and fight for their country, and they know they could die for their country. Photos that bring home the reality of these wars not only tell us, the people paying for the war and to send our young men and women there, a more complete story of what we're supporting with our tax dollars, but they also show the sacrifice made by these troops. The photo as much honors that sacrifice as it pains us to see it.

If it's considerable acceptable losses to have civilian casualties in what we call a just war, then it's just as acceptable -- if distasteful -- to have grieving families upset as a consequence of the rightful full coverage of the wars we choose to fight in the name of freedom and human rights.

 

Holy slippery slope arguments, Batman!

A play in which a kid drops a potential game-winning touchdown pass is nowhere close in severity to a kid being killed during a war. I hope you have a good defense for trying to make THAT analogy.

 

I don't think anything "happens" to the photo of the ball-dropping kid. I don't think this would've had wider consequences at all if a decision not to publish had been handled quietly between the AP and the family.

The AP absolutely had the right to make that photo available for publication.

Should their managing editor have put it out there after the family objected? (and I think the only objection that was relevant for consideration was the family's. Though I've read Gates' statement and don't find anything in it objectionable. He made a phone call. The conversation was reportedly polite. He voiced his feeling that the photo shouldn't run but didn't make a federal case out of it, and he didn't push the issue.)

I don't know if it should have ultimately run or not. But I don't think it's a cut-and-dried journalism decision. As has been stated, the photo is /not/ very good. I don't think the package would have lost much journalistic impact by not including it. I think, if you're an editor, you have to sit down with something like this and way the impact of this for the people closest to the story, versus the journalistic consequences of not running it.

In the end, I don't think I would've run the thing. But I'm also too much of a softie to ever be an editor.