The AP and Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard

emzie

wicked witch of the North
Moderator
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
21,364
Location
Ottawa, Canada
The AP had a photo collection documenting a unit patrolling in Afghanistan when the photographer caught a truly horrific shot of a Marine moments after being hit with an RPG, blowing off one leg and mangling the other. The photograph shows two other Marines desperately trying to save the injured man's life. He died from the injuries.

When is it appropriate to show a dying (not dead) person in media? Should the AP have released the picture in the first place?

It is a deeply disturbing image which depicts the grim reality of war - a fatally wounded U.S. soldier lies slumped in the mud as fellow marines desperately try to save him as his young life ebbs away.

But the release of the picture by a news agency in the U.S., which went against the wishes of the victim's family, has sparked a furious debate which has divided a nation.

The grim photograph shows Lance Corporal Joshua 'Bernie' Bernard, 21, shortly after he was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade during a Taliban ambush of his squad last month in Dahaneh, Afghanistan.

...

However, AP has defended the decision, which editors said they made only after careful review and sharing the pictures with the family.

The news agency said it decided 'to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it'.

Warning, link does contain the photo and it's not pretty. And apologies for the Daily Mail link.
 
The AP had a photo collection documenting a unit patrolling in Afghanistan when the photographer caught a truly horrific shot of a Marine moments after being hit with an RPG, blowing off one leg and mangling the other. The photograph shows two other Marines desperately trying to save the injured man's life. He died from the injuries.

When is it appropriate to show a dying (not dead) person in media? Should the AP have released the picture in the first place?



Warning, link does contain the photo and it's not pretty. And apologies for the Daily Mail link.

Nope it is not appropriate at all, the damn photo should never have been taken and if I was that photographer I would stay well clear of that Marine's mates.
The only reporters who should be embedded are ex military and yes only those who have gone through what the Marines are going through at this time.
 
Sometimes the realities of war needs to be brought home in horrific, terrifying details.

But pictures like this should only be released with the family's consent, which apparently was not given in this case.
 
What rubbish. How is it worse to show a dying marine than a dead marine?
 
Nope it is not appropriate at all, the damn photo should never have been taken and if I was that photographer I would stay well clear of that Marine's mates.
The only reporters who should be embedded are ex military and yes only those who have gone through what the Marines are going through at this time.
Embedding is a Very Bad Idea from the stand point of journalistic impartiality. I have to say though, I'm uncomfortable with this photo. It's a bit Kevin Carter-ish though Carter had the defence that he didn't know what had become of his subject. My discomfort doesn't necessarily make it wrong though. What makes it wrong IMO is not okaying it with the marine's family.
 
I don't think it's a good idea to show dead/dying people, firstly due to sensitivity, and secondly, due to the damage it could do to people who see it. You never know if someone is going to be seriously affected by inadvertently seeing the image. In Sydney in the last couple of days this issue has been a bit of an issue, as a prominent businessman was murdered, and the newspapers carried pictures of his partially covered body lying at the crime scene.
 
Press exercising freedom of speech: terribly indecent
Government murdering its own people by sending them off to war: no problem
 
I don't think it's a good idea to show dead/dying people, firstly due to sensitivity, and secondly, due to the damage it could do to people who see it. You never know if someone is going to be seriously affected by inadvertently seeing the image. In Sydney in the last couple of days this issue has been a bit of an issue, as a prominent businessman was murdered, and the newspapers carried pictures of his partially covered body lying at the crime scene.
Hmmm, I don't think I'd subscribe to that as a general rule TBH; think about the impact of phots/newsreels from the liberated concentration camps in WWII. Or indeed that image from the London Independent during the first Gulf War of an Iraqi soldier burnt down to the bones by the carpet bombing of a fleeing column. Given the degree to which military strikes were almost reduced to video-game levels by TV coverage of smart bombs and the like, that was a salutary reminder that people were dying horrible deaths. All that said though, this person had an identifiable family, they should have been consulted before this was published.
 
I don't think it's a good idea to show dead/dying people, firstly due to sensitivity, and secondly, due to the damage it could do to people who see it. You never know if someone is going to be seriously affected by inadvertently seeing the image. In Sydney in the last couple of days this issue has been a bit of an issue, as a prominent businessman was murdered, and the newspapers carried pictures of his partially covered body lying at the crime scene.

Press exercising freedom of speech: terribly indecent
Government murdering its own people by sending them off to war: no problem
Even for your identikit Pinko Liberal Yurpeen, there could be a welter of issues with this shot. For a start, as I've said; embedding is a large part of why journalistic coverage of recent Western wars has been as assinine and vapid as your average Boys' Own novel. Secondly, this man had a family. This is the last moments of their cherished loved-one's life. I would've thought it ordinary deceny to consult with them first. Where is the line between press freedom and tasteless intrusion?
 
Hmmm, I don't think I'd subscribe to that as a general rule TBH; think about the impact of phots/newsreels from the liberated concentration camps in WWII. Or indeed that image from the London Independent during the first Gulf War of an Iraqi soldier burnt down to the bones by the carpet bombing of a fleeing column. Given the degree to which military strikes were almost reduced to video-game levels by TV coverage of smart bombs and the like, that was a salutary reminder that people were dying horrible deaths. All that said though, this person had an identifiable family, they should have been consulted before this was published.
You have a point, but I do think that as a general rule what I said applies. The situations you suggest are the exceptions to that rule. Perhaps there needs to be a degree of shock value in stories, but this could probably be achieved in other ways, without the possibility of psychological damage. Describe it, or something. But having it as a visual is quite confronting, which is generally not a good thing, unless you actually want to educate people on something they didn't already know.

In Modern History class, we frequently watch videos on different subjects, and we know about all the atrocities that go with them. But it is still rather uncomfortable to see footage of a soldier being blown apart by machine gun fire, or a group of Ukrainian resistance hanging from the gallows. Seeing the actual is unnecessary to prove the point. If anything, it only desensitises me more.

Edit: I forgot the most disturbing thing I've seen- a WWI encyclopedia entry on racism in America during the war with a full page picture of an African-American being lynched and burnt on a bonfire alive. Really, it's not necessary to give that detail. A description would've been more than satisfactory.
 
You have a point, but I do think that as a general rule what I said applies. The situations you suggest are the exceptions to that rule. Perhaps there needs to be a degree of shock value in stories, but this could probably be achieved in other ways, without the possibility of psychological damage. Describe it, or something. But having it as a visual is quite confronting, which is generally not a good thing, unless you actually want to educate people on something they didn't already know.

In Modern History class, we frequently watch videos on different subjects, and we know about all the atrocities that go with them. But it is still rather uncomfortable to see footage of a soldier being blown apart by machine gun fire, or a group of Ukrainian resistance hanging from the gallows. Seeing the actual is unnecessary to prove the point. If anything, it only desensitises me more.
Of course it's uncomfortable. If it wasn't, I'd be recommending that you see a shrink! The problem is of course that photos of the dead (and to a lesser extent) and dying are widespread. I have a book of WWII photography at home. One of the photos in it is (I expect) the same photo of hanging Ukrainians that you mention. IMO it has a strong value, I remember being struck by how bloody young they were; early 20s tops. War was eating up their peers and spitting them out and they knew this; but for them, there was no choice to be made but resistance. That, to me, is powerful (even if the authors of said photo were looking to convey a wholly different message!).

I guess what I'm saying is that; no, I don't agree with a general prohibition of photos of the dead/dying but we must take great care that such images serve a very clearly defined higher purpose that warrants the not-inconsiderable intrusion. Especially where this involves the feelings of the still-living relatives. Otherwise what we have is death pr0n.
 
It all depends on whether the U.S. government that is allowing them to be embedded approves. So far they have not condemned, and it was allowed to be released so I assume they don't care. However,
But the release of the picture by a news agency in the U.S., which went against the wishes of the victim's family, has sparked a furious debate which has divided a nation.
That makes it seem like a complete jerk move.
 
It's absolutely important to show us the consequences of war, and how bloody, violent, and real it is. Saying "a young man died" has far less impact than actually showing the gruesome violent imagery of his death. At worst, releasing it without the consent of the family was insensitive: a necessary evil.

That being said, I agree with Gwyddelig that we must be careful that it is released with the intent of educating those at home, who have had no experience in war, on what this war is really like. War reporting should not be gratuitously gruesome.
 
My take is that sanitizing a war through media is an awful thing. If someone supports war, he or she should have to confront what that means; I think the picture in question does that.

After 9/11 we watched people jumping to their deaths, people running from the dust, for weeks. Why should we wish to then ignore the ugly things our response to 9/11 created?
 
Of course, they should report it. That is their jobs. To not report it is both censorship and propagandizing. Did anybody who thinks this was wrong also feel the same way about the video posted here of that Iraqi woman dying from a gunshot during the protests?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts271.html

US Hypocrisy Astonishes the World

by Paul Craig Roberts

Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.

US War Secretary Robert Gates has condemned the Associated Press and a reporter, Julie Jacobson, embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, for taking and releasing a photo of a US Marine who was wounded in action and died from his injury.

The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as "insensitive." Gates says her employer, the Associated Press, lacks "judgment and common decency."

The American Legion jumped in and denounced the Associated Press for a "stunning lack of compassion and common decency."

To stem opposition to its wars, the War Department hides signs of American casualties from the public. Angry that evidence escaped the censor, the War Secretary and the American Legion attacked with politically correct jargon: "insensitive," "offended," and the "anguish," "pain and suffering" inflicted upon the Marine’s family. The War Department sounds like it is preparing a harassment tort.

Isn’t this passing the buck? The Marine lost his life not because of the Associated Press and a photographer, but because of the war criminals – Gates, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and the US Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keeps campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies.

Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard is dead because the US government and a significant percentage of the US population believe that the US has the right to invade, bomb, and occupy other peoples who have raised no hand against us but are demonized with lies and propaganda.

For the American War Secretary it is a photo that is insensitive, not America’s assertion of the right to determine the fate of Afghanistan with bombs and soldiers.

The exceptional "virtuous nation" does not think it is insensitive for America’s bombs to blow innocent villagers to pieces. On September 4, the day before Gates’ outburst over the "insensitive" photo, Agence France Presse reported from Afghanistan that a US/Nato air strike had killed large numbers of villagers who had come to get fuel from two tankers that had been hijacked from negligent and inattentive occupation forces:

"‘Nobody was in one piece. Hands, legs and body parts were scattered everywhere. Those who were away from the fuel tanker were badly burnt,’ said 32-year-old Mohammad Daud, depicting a scene from hell. The burned-out shells of the tankers, still smoking in marooned wrecks on the riverbank, were surrounded by the charred-meat remains of villagers from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz province, near the Tajik border. Dr. Farid Rahid, a spokesperson in Kabul for the ministry of health, said up to 250 villagers had been near the tankers when the air strike was called in."

What does the world think of the United States? The American War Secretary and a US military veterans association think a photo of an injured and dying American soldier is insensitive, but not the wipeout of an Afghan village that came to get needed fuel.

The US government is like a criminal who accuses the police of his crime when he is arrested or a sociopathic abuser who blames the victim. It is a known fact that the CIA has violated US law and international law with its assassinations, kidnappings and torture. But it is not this criminal agency that will be held accountable. Instead, those who will be punished will be those moral beings who, appalled at the illegality and inhumanity of the CIA, leaked the evidence of the agency’s crimes. The CIA has asked the US Justice (sic) Department to investigate what the CIA alleges is the "criminal disclosure" of its secret program to murder suspected foreign terrorist leaders abroad. As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent.

The CIA program is so indefensible that when CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it six months after being in office, he cancelled the program (assuming those running the program obeyed) and informed Congress.

Yet, the CIA wants the person who revealed its crime to be punished for revealing secret information. A secret agency this unmoored from moral and legal standards is a greater threat to our country than are terrorists. Who knows what false flag operation it will pull off in order to provide justification and support for its agenda. An agency that is more liability than benefit should be abolished.

The agency’s program of assassinating terrorist leaders is itself fraught with contradictions and dangers. The hatred created by the US and Israel is independent of any leader. If one is killed, others take his place. The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another. In order to establish credibility with groups that they are attempting to penetrate, CIA agents will be drawn into participating in violent acts against the US and its allies.

Accusing the truth-teller instead of the evil-doer is the position that the neoconservatives took against the New York Times when after one year’s delay, which gave George W. Bush time to get reelected, the Times published the NSA leak that revealed that the Bush administration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason.

This is the way many Americans think. America über alles! No one counts but us (and Israel). The deaths we inflict and the pain and suffering we bring to others are merely collateral damage on the bloody path to American hegemony.

The attitude of the "freedom and democracy" US government is that anyone who complains of illegality or immorality or inhumanity is a traitor. The Republican Senator Christopher S. Bond is a recent example. Bond got on his high horse about "irreparable damage" to the CIA from the disclosures of its criminal activities. Bond wants those "back stabbers" who revealed the CIA’s wrongdoings to be held accountable. Bond is unable to grasp that it is the criminal activities, not their disclosure, that is the source of the problem. Obviously, the whistleblower protection act has no support from Senator Bond, who sees it as just another law to plough under.

This is where the US government stands today: Ignoring and covering up government crimes is the patriotic thing to do. To reveal the government’s crimes is an act of treason. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle agree.

Yet, they still think that they are The Virtuous Nation, the exceptional nation, the salt of the earth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7913890.stm

_45517087_006944507-1.jpg


Earlier administrations said the ban was in the interests of bereaved families.
 
This is sensitive material, so I believe the best option would be to blur out faces and keep the photos in media anonymous but not cherry-picked for correctness.
 
They should have gotten the families consent.
As was done with the victims of the recent Afghan bombing of the tankers? Or the Iraqi woman who died in the street during the protest? Or all the youtube videos of people who have been beheaded by fanatics? Did their parents sign off on all that?

Do you think everything reported by the press in Afghanistan should get their moms' permissions before it is released? Or just photos of them after they have been wounded? And does that mean the military must release the names of all family members of soldiers who are wounded?

We are supposed to be better than our enemy right Form?
Freedom of the press is your enemy? The Taliban have been releasing photos of wounded US soldiers?

But I do think you get the award for 'most biased links'. Heh.

I can see why you wouldn't personally care for some of his rhetoric since it hits so close to home, but calling someone else 'most biased' is a real hoot. I bet you think you are "fair and balanced".
 
They did consult the family, who said NO. So they published it anyway. Total jerks.

The media doesn't belong in combat zones anyway. Could you imagine if we had this same degree of media coverage in WWII? Get these journalists the hell out of there. It's all for TV ratings and photo sales anyway.
 
As was done with the victims of the recent Afghan bombing of the tankers? Or the Iraqi woman who died in the street during the protest? Or all the youtube videos of people who have been beheaded by fanatics? Did their parents sign off on all that?

So now youtube = AP? :rolleyes:

Come on Form. Your're losing it.

Do you think everything reported by the press in Afghanistan should get their moms' permissions before it is released? Or just photos of them after they have been wounded? And does that mean the military must release the names of all family members of soldiers who are wounded?

We are talking about a situation where a kid died, Form. Do you hate the military so much as to be that insensitive to the parents/family of that soldier?

And the military does release all the names of soldiers that are wounded. And of those killed in action as well. What they dont show is film or pictures of their last living moment in pain. Again, thats hugely insenstive to the parents and family of those serving.

Freedom of the press is your enemy? The Taliban have been releasing photos of wounded US soldiers?

Again, simply because one can do a thing doesnt mean its the right thing to do.

I can see why you wouldn't personally care for some of his rhetoric since it hits so close to home, but calling someone else 'most biased' is a real hoot. I bet you think you are "fair and balanced".

Oh, I am indeed biased on the conservative side, but I have at least been honest and even critical of my side as well as the left. I think I am more fair and balanced than you are by far. But thats not saying much as its not all that hard to be more fair and balanced than you. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom