View Full Version : Freedom Of The Press???
RIP Warrior
Gates: AP decision 'appalling'
Mike Allen Mike Allen
2 hrs 59 mins ago
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting “in the strongest terms” to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision “appalling” and a breach of “common decency.”
The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.
The AP reported in a story that it decided to make the image public anyway because it “conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.”
The photo shows Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Maine, who was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, according to The AP.
Gates wrote to Thomas Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer. “Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed – as was the case with Walter Reed."
“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
The four-paragraph letter concluded, “Sincerely,” then had Gates’ signature.
The photo, first transmitted Thursday morning and repeated Friday morning, carries the warning, “EDS NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT.”
The caption says: “In this photo taken Friday, Aug. 14, 2009, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard is tended to by fellow U.S. Marines after being hit by a rocket propelled grenade during a firefight against the Taliban in the village of Dahaneh in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. Bernard was transported by helicopter to Camp Leatherneck where he later died of his wounds.”
Gates’ letter was sent Thursday, after he talked to Curley by phone at about 3:30 p.m. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said Gates told Curley: “I am asking you to reconsider your decision to publish this graphic photograph of Lance Corporal Bernard. I am begging you to defer to the wishes of the family. This will cause them great pain.”
Curley was “very polite and willing to listen,” and send he would reconvene his editorial team and reconsider, Morrell said. Within the hour, Curley called Morrell and said the editors had reconvened but had ultimately come to the same conclusion.
Gates “was greatly disappointed they had not done the right thing,” Morrell said.
The Buffalo News ran the photo on page 4, and the The (Wheeling, W.Va.) Intelligencer ran an editorial defending its decision to run the photo. Some newspapers – including the Arizona Republic, The Washington Times and the Orlando Sentinel – ran other photos from the series. Several newspaper websites – including the Akron Beacon-Journal and the St. Petersburg Times – used the photo online.
Morrell said Gates wanted the information about his conversations released “so everyone would know how strongly he felt about the issue.”
The Associated Press reported in a story about deliberations about that photo that “after a period of reflection,” the news service decided “to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.
“The image shows fellow Marines helping Bernard after he suffered severe leg injuries. He was evacuated to a field hospital where he died on the operating table,” AP said. “The picture was taken by Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson, who accompanied Marines on the patrol and was in the midst of the ambush during which Bernard was wounded. … ‘AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is,’ said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP.
“He said Bernard's death shows ‘his sacrifice for his country. Our story and photos report on him and his last hours respectfully and in accordance with military regulations surrounding journalists embedded with U.S. forces.’”
The AP reported that it “waited until after Bernard's burial in Madison, Maine, on Aug. 24 to distribute its story and the pictures.”
“An AP reporter met with his parents, allowing them to see the images,” the article says. “Bernard's father after seeing the image of his mortally wounded son said he opposed its publication, saying it was disrespectful to his son's memory. John Bernard reiterated his viewpoint in a telephone call to the AP on Wednesday. ‘We understand Mr. Bernard's anguish. We believe this image is part of the history of this war.
The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice,’ said AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski.
“Thursday afternoon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called AP President Tom Curley asking that the news organization respect the wishes of Bernard's father and not publish the photo. Curley and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said they understood this was a painful issue for Bernard's family and that they were sure that factor was being considered by the editors deciding whether or not to publish the photo, just as it had been for the AP editors who decided to distribute it.”
The image was part of a package of stories and photos released for publication after midnight Friday. The project, called “AP Impact – Afghan – Death of a Marine,” carried a dateline of Dahaneh, Afghanistan, and was written by Alfred de Montesquiou and Julie Jacobson:
“The U.S. patrol had a tip that Taliban fighters were lying in ambush in a pomegranate grove, and a Marine trained his weapon on the trees. Seconds later, a salvo of gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades poured out, and a grenade hit Lance Cpl. Joshua ‘Bernie’ Bernard. The Marine was about to become the next fatality in the deadliest month of the deadliest year of the Afghan war.”
The news service also moved extensive journal entries AP photographer Julie Jacobson wrote while in Afghanistan. AP said in an advisory: “From the reporting of Alfred de Montesquiou, the photos and written journal kept by Julie Jacobson, and the TV images of cameraman Ken Teh, the AP has compiled ‘Death of a Marine,’ a 1,700 word narrative of the clash, offering vivid insights into how the battle was fought, and into Bernard's character and background. It also includes an interview with his father, an ex-Marine, who three weeks earlier had written letters complaining that the military's rules of engagement are exposing the troops in Afghanistan to undue risk.”
I wonder did Jacobson ask the Marines involved what they thought of publishing the photo.
... Thursday afternoon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called AP President Tom Curley asking that the news organization respect the wishes of Bernard's father and not publish the photo. Curley and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said they understood this was a painful issue for Bernard's family and that they were sure that factor was being considered by the editors deciding whether or not to publish the photo, just as it had been for the AP editors who decided to distribute it.
Jacobson, in a journal she kept, recalled Bernard's ordeal as she lay in the dirt while Marines tried to save their comrade with bullets overhead.
"The other guys kept telling him 'Bernard, you're doing fine, you're doing fine. You're gonna make it. Stay with me Bernard!'" As one Marine cradled Bernard's head, fellow Marines rushed forward with a stretcher.
Later, when she learned he had died, Jacobson thought about the pictures she had taken.
"To ignore a moment like that simply ... would have been wrong. I was recording his impending death, just as I had recorded his life moments before walking the point in the bazaar," she said. "Death is a part of life and most certainly a part of war. Isn't that why we're here? To document for now and for history the events of this war?"
Later, she showed members of his squad all the images taken that day and the Marines flipped through them on her computer one by one.
"They did stop when they came to that moment," she said. "But none of them complained or grew angry about it. They understood that it was what it was. They understand, despite that he was their friend, it was the reality of things."
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_as/afghan_death_ap_photo
His State honored him.
Lance Corporal Bernard Remembered
by WABI-TV5 News Desk · Aug 24th 2009
Governor John Baldacci has ordered flags across Maine to be flown at half staff on Monday.
The order is to honor the funeral of a Marine from Maine who was killed in Afghanistan.
Lance Corporal Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland died on August 14th while supporting combat operations in Afghanistan.
The funeral will be held Monday morning at the Crossroads Bible Church in Madison at 10 o'clock.
One more example of how the voyuers of history fail to understand that honoring our members of the US military that are fighting for their 1st Amendment rights is (should be) a patriotic duty of a free press of this nation. I could understand if it was a non-US reporter/photogrpher, but fellow Americans of the press should not dishonor a marine's families wishes / memory of their son for ratings or shock value of a story. Most people understand war wounds are horrific and gastly, the words alone tell the story and provide a record. Dishonoring the wishes of the family is the outrage, not the war against the taliban and their war against modernity (western civilzation).:mad:
I found a random NYT blog with some of her comments. I would love to find her personal blog but haven't been able to yet.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/behind-13/
I don't think I've seen any pictures of dead Americans that weren't released by Al Jazeera. I suppose statistically there must have been but I don't remember any stories this big.
Abu-Shakra
09-04-2009, 15:54
I don't have a problem with her taking the photos. I do have a huge problem with her submitting the photo in to be published. Even with her and AP's "journalistic" justifications for doing so, it's out of line and completely disrespectful. How can you not respect the families request in such a situtaion???? She knew what she was doing when she submitted that photo. She knew the sensitivity of the photo. But she was thinking Pulitzer, Time Magazine, Life, AP Photo of the Year, etc. Kick that bitch out of country.
Red Flag 1
09-04-2009, 16:05
I found a random NYT blog with some of her comments. I would love to find her personal blog but haven't been able to yet.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/behind-13/
I don't think I've seen any pictures of dead Americans that weren't released by Al Jazeera. I suppose statistically there must have been but I don't remember any stories this big.
With all the people, cameras, cell phones, and www internet (not Al Gore's), very little is missed today. Photos will be published for personal profit, at the expense of victims and families. There is not a thought beyond this, IMMHO. Nice photo of her and her friends.
Would calling her home every night @ 0200 for a month equal the pain she caused to his family?
Rest In Peace LCPL Joshua M Bernard!!
Thank you for your service, and your sacrifice!!
Prayers out!!
RF 1
RF 1
Kyobanim
09-04-2009, 16:28
I don't think I've seen any pictures of dead Americans that weren't released by Al Jazeera.
Picture of the incident in question is right there on the front page in the picture show.
Maybe Gates should refuse to let anymore AP reporters in on ANY military related matters.
FWIW, the journal entries quoted in the New York Times blog mentioned in dac's post are available here (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/AP/v-print/story/1217136.html).
A photo of Ms. Jacobson is attached to this post.
I wonder did Jacobson ask the Marines involved what they thought of publishing the photo.MOO, this is a very important question.
Sigaba - a question.
Does she have a photo blogged anywhere of her standing with American Troops?
Just wondering? Not dinging on you but the picture shown was of her with others. Just wondering if it was your choice of a few - or that was the only one handy.
You would think somebody hangin' with America Troops would be right happy to be posting "Hey! Look at the great bunch of Americans I'm working with." pictures.
Saturation
09-04-2009, 16:53
The family's wishes were disregarded- completely unacceptable.
I agree death is a part of life and war (part of her justification). However the family is bearing the cost of this Marine's death & dying image being published. This should NOT be about her and her justifications - this one IS about the Marine and his family. Many photojournalists/photographers may be missing the ethics class that is intended to teach basic humanity.
May her efforts not be rewarded with any type of prize/award for photos.
Submitting the pictures against the express wishes of the family is enough of an answer for me. She's a selfish bitch.
Too bad it was the Marine that got hit.
RIP LCPL Bernard...prayers out for your family and Brothers.
I wonder did Jacobson ask the Marines involved what they thought of publishing the photo.
I wonder if any of the other Marine's asked to have their dying photos shot/published by her.
Although, it was interesting to watch the Marines from his squad flip through the images from that day on my computer (they asked to see them). They did stop when they came to that moment. But none of them complained or grew angry about it.
It never occured to her they were still in a shocked mental state?? Could these young Marines be numb from the horrors of battle. Would she join them for beers when they get back and tell them how she discarded LC Bernard's father's wishes:confused::mad:
she was thinking Pulitzer, Time Magazine, Life, AP Photo of the Year, etc. Kick that bitch out of country
Abu, completely agree, dreaming of the memorial that would be made from her photograph:mad:
RF 1: Would calling her home every night @ 0200 for a month equal the pain she caused to his family?
I'll join the call list, hell let's include her family, just as she did to the Marine's
Red Flag 1
09-04-2009, 17:19
Picture of the incident in question is right there on the front page in the picture show.
Maybe Gates should refuse to let anymore AP reporters in on ANY military related matters.
Great start!!
RF 1
Red Flag 1
09-04-2009, 17:25
PR31C,
Your time is 0205!
RF 1
Sigaba - a question.
Does she have a photo blogged anywhere of her standing with American Troops?
Just wondering? Not dinging on you but the picture shown was of her with others. Just wondering if it was your choice of a few - or that was the only one handy.
You would think somebody hangin' with America Troops would be right happy to be posting "Hey! Look at the great bunch of Americans I'm working with." pictures.
Pete Sir,
My thoughts exactly!
IMHO, this pond-scum sucking wannabe prize-winner "journalist" needs to have her lenses stomped! I mean come on!!! WTF kind of bubble are the AP trash living in?:mad:
Guess they think All Americans are idiodts and will buy their rediculous exuse!:mad:
Rotten Bitch!:mad:
Holly
Dozer523
09-04-2009, 17:42
Pictures of American war dead have been with us since Matthew Brady during the Civil War Check his work from Gettysburg, Antietam and Shiloh. It was horrific then and still is today. There is a piece of D-Day film showing American Soldiers running up beach and one is hit and goes down in mid stride. I've seen it over and over and over (of course, I couldn't find it for this post). What about the photos taken by Joseph Galloway during the Ia Trang Valley battle?
The difference is that we did not have a name. Then it is sort of like the Tomb of the Unknown -- An unknown who gave his all as many did, many do. But, having the person's name makes it different.
She is a photographer. Taking pictures is her job. Pulling the trigger on a camera during a battle has to be as hard too. It is impossible to know her motivation, to ascribe ill is beneath us.
The Marine should not have been identified. That is not the last image the family should carry. This is an editor error not, the photographers.
Sigaba - a question.
Does she have a photo blogged anywhere of her standing with American Troops?
Just wondering? Not dinging on you but the picture shown was of her with others. Just wondering if it was your choice of a few - or that was the only one handy.
You would think somebody hangin' with America Troops would be right happy to be posting "Hey! Look at the great bunch of Americans I'm working with." pictures.
QP Pete--
It is the only photo of her that I've found so far.
having the person's name makes it different.
I read the heated discussion (that I can't seem to locate now) and that same argument was the final reason wikipedia removed the photo and videos of Danny Dietz. Add a few years into the mix and it would have been no big deal to publish this photo.
Can any of the greatest generation on here remember those WWII or Vietnam photos being published while the family was still grieving?
What if ....while embedded she was wounded/injured and a Soldier took a picture of her dying while on that patrol and sold them without any regard for her family's wishes? The Soldier would be tried and convicted, reduced in rank if not dishonorably discharged by pressure from the (liberal) media.
I think someone should just follow her around now waiting for fate to fall upon her just to take a picture of it (and prove a point).
Dozer523
09-04-2009, 19:20
What if ....while embedded she was wounded/injured and a Soldier took a picture of her dying while on that patrol and sold them without any regard for her family's wishes? The Soldier would be tried and convicted, reduced in rank if not dishonorably discharged by pressure from the (liberal) media.
I think someone should just follow her around now waiting for fate to fall upon her just to take a picture of it (and prove a point).Yeah, What if? Well I suppose there would have to be a law against it to try, convict blah, blah, blah.
We embed reporter because the American public has always had access to what is happening to their soldiers.
Pictures of American war dead have been with us since Matthew Brady during the Civil War Check his work from Gettysburg, Antietam and Shiloh. It was horrific then and still is today. There is a piece of D-Day film showing American Soldiers running up beach and one is hit and goes down in mid stride. I've seen it over and over and over (of course, I couldn't find it for this post). What about the photos taken by Joseph Galloway during the Ia Trang Valley battle?
The difference is that we did not have a name. Then it is sort of like the Tomb of the Unknown -- An unknown who gave his all as many did, many do. But, having the person's name makes it different.
She is a photographer. Taking pictures is her job. Pulling the trigger on a camera during a battle has to be as hard too. It is impossible to know her motivation, to ascribe ill is beneath us.
The Marine should not have been identified. That is not the last image the family should carry. This is an editor error not, the photographers.
Would haft to agree with above, The editor should have respected the families wishes and pulled the photo's. Very disrespectfull on their part, anyone got the editors name and number?????? I'll be up late tonight...
This is an editor error not, the photographers.
I disagree. First, it wasn't an error on the part of either the editor or the photographer; they were deliberate choices. Second, the photographer is not relieved of her ethical responsibilities merely due to her profession. Just because you can, doesn't always mean you should.
Ms. Jacobson offers a compelling invitation.
So, debate amongst yourselves or maybe just to yourself. Send me your thoughts if you like. Enlighten me if you disagree.Or does she? She does not provide a means of contacting her and the IT team at the Associated Press has apparently changed her email address so that it does not follow the established convention for its other team members. (The email addresses I've found are first initial last name at ap dot org. So John Doe would be jdoe at ap dot org.)
(And also, what is the purpose of debating a decision of this nature when the decision has already been made?)
By my reading of those entries her mindset is clear. Her offer reflects the repulsive mind set she demonstrates throughout her journal entries.
She was not just out there to do her job. She was not just out there to cover a story. She was out there to be part of the action, to be part of the story,to be a part of history, and to settle scores--especially with the Marines themselves. She repeatedly attempts to belittle and to humiliate the Marines in her entries.
IMO, there was never any doubt that she was going to do what she could to get that photo of Lance Cpl. Bernard, or some other mortally wounded Marine, published.
There may be instances where the "right thing to do" is to publish such pictures. Yet, those occasions also require the right motivation. In this case, based upon Ms. Jacobson's own words, she comes no where close. YMMV.
.....It is the only photo of her that I've found so far.
And that says as much as anything she has written about the subject.
Comprehensive discusssion, timeline, and comments.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Behind the Scenes: To Publish or Not?
David Dunlap, NYT, 4 Sep 2009
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/behind-13/
Tatonka316
09-07-2009, 06:57
First of all, my heart felt condolences to the Lance CPL's family. Literally just saw an interview with his Dad on FOX, and the Retired Senior Marine NCO had the grace and professionalism that ALL in the news media should follow.
When Chris crossed over, that fruit cake Sheehan was running around the country disrespecting her OWN son. I decided we would not talk to the media because I have had them turn my words around way too many times. Well, they got their shot across the bow. I HAD to take my youngest son to Hawai'i to move out of his apartment, leave his gear in a relative's garage and then get back for all the Memorials. The local Denver media said, "... I was on vacation..." and that is why I didn't talk to them.
Now, I am talking to Gold Star and Blue Star organizations - trying to help these families and telling the stories of our amazing young women and men in uniform and the F@*%ing news media STILL twists my words!!! I will continue to fight the fight against them because they have pissed off the wrong savage - and I will not let them beat me back in my mission. But ...
That was also one of the main reasons I wrote OUR book - so the story would be told CORRECTLY!!! That is why I started the More Than A Name Foundation - so WE can tell the story the right way!
Thank you for letting me vent - there is ABSOLUTELY no value to the news media today ... because they won't let us use them for live fire practice!!!:lifter
...there is ABSOLUTELY no value to the news media today...
Unfortunately, I agree with Thomas Jefferson on this one...but can only offer the over-used 'necessary evil' argument to counter the personal thoughts and experiences of those who have suffered the crass incivility of so many of those who are associated with the news media...:(
...because they won't let us use them for live fire practice!!!
...and urge you to bide your time and make damn sure there are no reliable witnesses. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I haven't seen this mentioned and I hope I haven't missed it. I listened to an interview on a news channel with a reporter who was questioned on this issue. The reporter stated every reporter must sign a contract prior to being embedded which specifically states that if a picture is taken of a wounded soldier who later dies, that picture will not be published without the consent of the family of the deceased. This reporter maintained to publish the photo was not only despicable, it was in violation of the contract they signed. Has anyone else heard this?
...every reporter must sign a contract prior to being embedded which specifically states that if a picture is taken of a wounded soldier who later dies, that picture will not be published without the consent of the family of the deceased.
From the DOD guidelines for embeded reporters:
4.H.1. MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE REMINDED OF THE SENSITIVITY OF USING NAMES OF INDIVIDUAL CASUALTIES OR
PHOTOGRAPHS THEY MAY HAVE TAKEN WHICH CLEARLY IDENTIFY
CASUALTIES UNTIL AFTER NOTIFICATION OF THE NOK AND RELEASE BY
OASD(PA).
4.H.2. BATTLEFIELD CASUALTIES MAY BE COVERED BY EMBEDDED MEDIA
AS LONG AS THE SERVICE MEMBER'S IDENTITY IS PROTECTED FROM
DISCLOSURE FOR 72 HOURS OR UPON VERIFICATION OF NOK
NOTIFICATION, WHICHEVER IS FIRST.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/d20030228pag.pdf
From the posted discussion:
Mr. Lyon said, “We were very careful to respect the letter of the military embed rules.” In the case of the Second Marine Expeditionary Brigade in Afghanistan, they are: “Casualties may be covered by embedded media as long as the service member’s identity and unit identification is protected from disclosure until OASD-PA [Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs] has officially released the name. Photography from a respectful distance or from angles at which a casualty cannot be identified is permissible.”
Mr. Lyon said the somewhat blurry quality of Ms. Jacobson’s photo, its dimness and graininess, sufficiently masked the graphic nature of the injuries...
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/behind-13/
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
My initial reaction to this story was disgust. I refuse to read the piece, and then trying to be logical and objective ask myself is there any utility to this picture? I thought perhaps such stories if balanced and not defeatist might remind a sleeping nation obsessed with frivolous reality TV, that our young servicemen are dying overseas, but even then there is no need for the picture, especially once the family chimes in. This lady was protected by these same Marines, if she has a soul she knew the right thing to do here, if she has half a brain she won't embed again. I think freedom of the press is part of a healthy democracy, but this sensationalistic journalism is a slippery slope. I don't understand how the sanctity of a young Marines' last moments aren't protected, while the privacy of a death row inmate execution certainly is? What's next pictures of a young rape victim in the ER? This is disgusting and this reporter and the AP should be taken to task.
The Reaper
09-07-2009, 12:21
Perhaps her last moments could be preserved for posterity and the entertainment of her readers. Hopefully, she would have no problems with that.
I am relatively certain that her editors and publishers would be okay with priniting her demise. It is, after all, about the money.
TR
I can only wish that she someday is given all of the respect she is due as she fades from this life.
best wishes ma'am
From the Stars and Stripes...and so it goes...;)
A tough but correct call on photo of dying Marine
Mark Prendergast, Stars and Stripes, 6 Sep 2009
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates went to extraordinary lengths last week to try to persuade a major news organization not to make public a photo of a 21-year-old Marine rifleman dying in Afghanistan, saying that to do so over the express objections of the family was “unconscionable” and “appalling.”
The Secretary’s appeal, made in a phone call and letter to Tom Curley, president and CEO of the Associated Press, was rejected. The AP stood by its decision to distribute the picture to its clients and also made the photo available to all on its Web site.
It was a tough call, but the right one.
A number of news organizations did use the dark, somewhat fuzzy picture, according to the trade publication Editor & Publisher, but a number of others, including the Stars and Stripes newspaper, did not.
Those that chose to run it should not be faulted, nor should those that chose not to. This was a difficult editorial decision that each news outlet had to make for itself, based on its own standards and sense of its audience.
As hard as it may be to view that picture, especially for the Marine’s family, it belongs in the public domain as a legitimate piece of visual history in a conflict that as of this writing has taken 562 American lives in combat, with no end in sight.
It honors his death, and those of all others, by showing what it means to give one’s life for one’s country. It is also a testament to courage and comradeship. Two fellow Marines can be seen risking their own lives to tend to their fallen buddy under fire.
Suppressing or withholding the photo would have ill served the open society that the dead Marine, Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Me., gave his life to serve so well so far from home.
Secretary Gates’ arguments should have been part of every responsible editor’s deliberation, but it was never Gates’ decision to make nor, and I say this with great disquietude, the Bernard family’s. A free press is messy, even painful as here, but as Jefferson counseled, it is essential to our form of government.
The American military and visual journalists have a long and sometimes stormy relationship dating to the Civil War, when Mathew Brady and his associates used a camera – “the eye of history,” he called it – to document war and warriors, including the fallen. Viewers far removed from the fields of battle were shocked by the graphic carnage, and editorialists worried that relatives would recognize loved ones among the photographed corpses.
By World War I, governments had come to respect and even fear the power of visual imagery, and photos of that conflict were censored along with news accounts.
The proscription on images of American war dead lasted until 1943, when President Roosevelt was finally convinced that showing the ultimate sacrifice that combat troops were making overseas would stiffen, not weaken, spines on the World War II Home Front.
Many people blame unfettered press coverage for the loss of Vietnam, especially the nightly TV footage of dead and wounded GI’s being lugged to helicopters in jungle clearings.
That sentiment led to renewed efforts at strict news management, if not outright censorship, during the 1983 Grenada invasion, which I could cover only Stateside, the 1989 Panama invasion and the 1991 Gulf War, which I covered (or rather tried to) from Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
A decade after the Gulf War, Walter Cronkite, who had been a front-line correspondent in World War II and later reported from Vietnam, observed in The Christian Science Monitor that “as a result of the censorship in the Persian Gulf, we have lost our history” – especially the military, who had been deprived of “independent news people out taking pictures or writing...with the troops in action.”
By the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pentagon realized it had little hope of controlling the press, for no other reason than it had lost control of the means of transmission. Journalists who can talk and upload text and images directly to their newsrooms are not easily tamed.
Thus the concept of embedding journalists with units to share the rigors and dangers of war was reborn. Empathy would be asked to replace censorship.
Much has been written critical of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the “victim or villain” stereotype of Americans who wear or wore the uniform endures in some quarters. But it is heartening that news coverage has for the most part evolved back to where at the individual level, military service is generally appreciated and portrayed for what it is.
AP photographer Julie Jacobson did nothing unkind or untoward by photographing Bernard’s final moments from a short distance off and passing that image on to her editors. One need only read the compelling, sensitive account she co-wrote to appreciate the depth of what she both witnessed and experienced.
If the camera is the eye of history, shutting it to a moment as stark and full of meaning as what transpired on that Afghan roadside Aug. 14 would constitute a warping of history. Bernard was a Marine at war. Jacobson was a war correspondent chronicling his patrol and all that entailed, including his being struck down by enemy fire. Everyone was doing their duty.
The photo is disturbing but not prurient. She did not alter or intrude herself on events by taking it. There is no issue of publication before notification of kin. Bernard was buried more than a week before the AP distributed the photo with the proviso to editors not to make it public until the next day, to give them time to weigh using it.
The AP took the additional step of advising the family of its intention to run the picture. That relatives asked after viewing it that it be withheld is powerful and persuasive but not dispositive.
Families have – and should have – the power to forbid coverage of the return of their fallen loved ones to Dover Air Force Base. Those are demonstrably private moments, and I detest the exploitation of war dead by people who would use images of flag-draped caskets to assail the very causes that the people in those caskets died for.
But war is a public undertaking and death on a battlefield is a public event, especially when journalists have been invited along to chronicle the waging of war.
I say this not only as a journalist but also as a former soldier who long ago held a young comrade on a battlefield as the life slipped out of him, and as one who later stood before that man’s relatives recounting his last moments and watching their anguished eyes peer back into the last ones their loved one ever saw.
Americans today wear their uniforms voluntarily and proudly, and rightly so, but we also need pictures like Jacobson’s to remind us of Robert E. Lee’s admonition, that it is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.
http://blogs.stripes.com/blogs/right-know/tough-correct-call-photo-dying-marine
A tough but correct call on photo of dying Marine
Mark Prendergast, Stars and Stripes, 6 Sep 2009
Mr. Prendergast is certainly allowed his opinion. I would point out, however, that the opinion of this career journalist on this subject truly comes of no surprise when one reflects on the headlines of many of his recent articles as S&S ombudsman:
"Reporting the News With A Life in the Balance"
"Mosul Unit Wrong to Bar Stripes Reporter"
"In the News Business, Its Nothing Personal"
"Battle Brews Over 1st Amendment on the Battlefield"
"To See or Not to See"
Or perhaps we could have predicted his stance on this matter by reading his 2007 account of a possible active shooter incident at St. John's University, where he teaches journalism:
"I decided to use our predicament as a "teaching moment."
Here we were in the middle of a major news event. Where do we turn for information? One student said the university Web site, but there was only a short pop-up notice repeating the broadcast alert message.
The campus newspaper? Nope, last week's issue still up. We decided blogs and citizen journalism sites were too unreliable.
So we began trolling the major news sites on the Web, just as my students last year did during the Virginia Tech tragedy.
All the major New York media sites had reports brimming with information. Some even had pictures." *
Surely, we commoners need to let the "professionals" in the reporting world decide what is and isn't news, as they make better guardians of what's true and right. Just ask Jayson Blair, Dan Rather, Peter Arnett and Richard Kaplan.
In the FWIW department, I'm betting the good citizens of New Portland have their own opinions of Mr. Prendergast's view on this issue.
* http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/09/27/2007-09-27_st_johns_professor_turns_lockdown_into_t.html
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.
- Oscar Wilde
Richard's $.02 :munchin
There is much to be said in favor of modern journalism. By giving us the opinions of the uneducated, it keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community.
- Oscar Wilde
Very good! :D
Dozer523
09-12-2009, 22:30
Great post Razor. I will contine the article you cite:
Cont.
"Of course, reality kept intruding. Every time someone in the milling crowd out in the lobby bumped the door or it was cracked open, we jumped. Despite the distractions, which soon included sirens and the whup-whup-whup of a police helicopter overhead, we kept talking about the need for reliable information.
We talked about the divergent interests of newsmakers and news reporters. The university was quick to put out the initial information, but not much else.
That's because the university's interest was in controlling a potentially dangerous situation, protecting its community from harm and perhaps protecting its image.
On the other hand, the interest of journalists - and us as players in a life-and-death drama - was to find out as much as possible.
We learned from the news media that a second suspect might have been involved - apparently not true - and that the building in which the incident took place was next door.
We also gleaned background on the suspect, the type of weapon he had and that a Halloween mask somehow came into play.
Suddenly it was over. The lockdown ended and I went back to my office across from the building where the events unfolded - safe, sound and hopeful that we learned something from it all.
The coloring is mine, of course. But two things were apparent to me 1 the reason behind the actions. Newsmakers desire control the effect of the information on the situation (best case they want to do no greater harm) news gathers want all the available information (best case they want a clearer picture,now; data, impressions, even distractions to be sifted later for as true a picture as possible to be developed. The S-2 says "Information can be wrong, Intelligence is never wrong, Intelligence may need to be re-evaluated based on improved information.
BTW. You are correct, the editors did not make an error (as I called it). You called it correctly -- they made a decision. One I wish they had made differently.
FWIW, the New York Times on line edition has published a blog entry that discusses the controversy in a broader context. That entry is available here (http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/archive-5/).