The Imagery of War

[Rambuchan]

When we, as citizens, support or oppose our country going to war, we exercise a choice.

That choice is largely, if not solely, influenced by the media. It's the lens through which we assess the facts. In turn, these facts inform our choice.

That lens is primarily the news media; on the TV, in newspapers, on the net and over radio. Experts (and 'experts'), journalists, government officials, presenters, news editors, commentators all play their part here.

Such a choice is also influenced, in a more oblique manner, by films and games, as well as other media content that touches on the subject, directly or indirectly.

These presentations consist of imagery and well as language, yes and sound. But let's leave the audio and language aside for now. This thread focuses on the imagery of war.

When we watch the coverage of a war, we do so through photographic images like this:









Presented by pretty and / or courageous people like this:









Who also tell us about equipment like this:











We also get neat little maps and graphics, such as these:







---------

Have you noticed yet what is missing?

 

[holy king]

you're right.
hey, noone wants to see THAT while breakfasting...

 

[Rambuchan]

What stands out when taking in these influences is the dehumanising, distancing presentation of war that is offered to us.

It's the victims of war that do not play nearly as significant a part in our decision making process. The people who the war is brought to.

People like this :

Spoiler these images are disturbing, but, that's war :

IMG]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/9205/24wl7.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6496/napalmvictims700bgdj4.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/8146/63360578f0833cc38dzz1.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9323/victimofwhitephosyz8.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/324/iab2ek3.gif[/IMG]

IMG]http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7629/head2xe4.png[/IMG]

IMG]http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8526/keypic2sh3.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/9549/040424iraqsoldiershdhmeya8.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/4936/050615cbrownmphisacc191ev3.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7623/42297466rem7field300getss5.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/2396/phbombs1ji7.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5246/jareckegq8.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4778/18aet2.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/6299/clusterbombsq9.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6015/ceh1541011f03kn5.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/4315/ceh1335046f01lx1.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1782/sp10rq1.jpg[/IMG]

IMG]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8909/mnwounded017dfej8.jpg[/IMG]

Moderator Action: I've disabled the images pending moderators' review. A single somewhat blurry pic is one thing, a dozen graphic photos is quite another.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Questions:

~ Why, aside from the obvious, are we not presented with this in our news coverage, even in the late night coverage?

~ If we were presented with this when making our assessment of whether to go to war or not, would we who do so be as ready to advocate it?

~ Would the advocates of war, any war, be able to rest easy at night that it was for "a just cause"?

~ Would it be so easy to think that "we are liberating" a country if we saw this too?

~ Would we be so ready to send our own countrymen to face such conditions?

~ Can we really say that we "respect human life" and "treasure human dignity" if we, in our armchairs and at out keyboards, advocate actions which bring about the above?

~ With just the images in the first post are we really well informed about the consequences of the actions that we may come to support?

 

[El_Machinae]

My grandfathers' (plural) injuries were obvious. And they got them from a war.

 

[holy king]

that's sad, but what's that got to do with media coverage?

 

[Rambuchan]

There's also this to consider for the discussion:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=s_9eUXjg4AI

 

[puglover]

Violence is central to war. Does that mean we are compelled to show it on TV news? No. Everyone knows war is gruesome, that doesn't mean we have to cram that in our skulls.

 

[scy12]

Violence is central to war. Does that mean we are compelled to show it on TV news? No. Everyone knows war is gruesome, that doesn't mean we have to cram that in our skulls.

We are compelled to cram it as deep as we can when our sculls will never experience War differently. And so War is like a game of Civilization to those who like wars away from home.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I watched FOX news for a week when I went skiing in Aspen last year. I nearly puked. Luckily the Swedish media is a tad less biased.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Violence is central to war. Does that mean we are compelled to show it on TV news? No. Everyone knows war is gruesome, that doesn't mean we have to cram that in our skulls.

And here was have to realize a difference in terms.

Everyone may know that war is gruesome, but very few understand that war is gruesome. To gain this, they either have to have experienced some sort of trauma relating to war, which can include having been there, or to be of the sixth moral bracket according to the Milgram Experiment.

Keep in mind that there are many different kinds of trauma, one can experience it by going to war, one can experience it through a loved one who has been to war, but one can also experience it through revelation, as their romantic notions of war are challenged. Part of the recovery from that trauma involves coming face to face with the reality of war, and accepting it. Only then do you "understand" war.

Because comparatively few people have done this, the romantic notions of war still circulate, though as the media covers more and more of war (a trend that really showed itself in Vietnam), those constructs will slowly be chipped away.

 

[Rambuchan]

Violence is central to war. Does that mean we are compelled to show it on TV news? No. Everyone knows war is gruesome, that doesn't mean we have to cram that in our skulls.

Actually, the news media is compelled to show it all to us, by the professional code of the journalistic trade.

The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists states that they should "Seek Truth and Report It". That's the headline of their own Code of Ethics. The images in the second post are truths of war.

Here's a big, but quite easy, question that I'll take my hat off to the person who answers it:

Why are these images not sought out and reported?

Like I said in the OP, it's these journalists' coverage which informs our democratic choices. If we are not informed in making our choices, then we cannot really say that "we are free". Our minds are constrained from choosing freely.

 

[scy12]

Actually, the news media is compelled to show it all to us, by the professional code of the journalistic trade.

The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists states that they should "Seek Truth and Report It". The images in the second post are truths of war.

Here's a big, but quite easy, question that I'll take my hat off to the person who answers it:

Why are these images not sought out and reported?

Like I said in the OP, it's these journalists' coverage which informs our democratic choices. If we are not informed in making our choices, then we cannot really say that "we are free". Our minds are constrained from choosing freely.

Who cares about your Freedom ?

Your are just Free to be manipulated into whatever route newschanells -organizations need you to.

In response if you do not protest against bigoted news then indeed youi are unfree .

If you support organizations than do not care about right journalism , the truth and so on then freedom is a sacrifice.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I don't think that media as a whole in the world could be described as having a "pro-war" agenda. Granted, they tend to not show the really gruesome stuff... but that's because they're dealing with an unrestricted audience. 99% of people will change the channel if confronted by a series of disgusting images on their favorite news network, whatever they think of the war being fought. Unless you advocate forcing people to see the bad parts of every war around the world, I don't see what can (or should) be done about this.

 

[Bugfatty300]

During the US civil war the media didn't hesitate to publish photos of disfigured soldiers, dismembered bodies, rotting corpses. The photos were treated with 'morbid fascination' similar to how Rotten.com and Ogrish is approached today but on a whole the attitude towards the war did not change because of them despite their widespread publication.

I imagine thats still true today.

 

[Catharsis]

Pictures like the ones in the spoiler are quite common on BBC news war footage. Or maybe those are just the ones I can remember.

Assuming you're right about this detail, though: it would be preferable if the TV news (and other sources, but TV's the one that can cause the most emotion) stuck to reporting the news and not trying to have an agenda (pro- or anti-war).

The singular of 'media' is 'medium'. That's what they are, 'mediums' - a way for people who aren't where the news is to know about what the news is. If that means showing disturbing images, then so be it, but these images, if they are broadcasted, should not be used to further an 'agenda'. People can make up their own minds.

Pipe dream, eh? Probably.

 

[MobBoss]

Whats your point here Ram? That people die in horrible ways during war? Of course they do.

But I dont see any real purpose or benefit of showing my Auntie Martha such gruesome images. Its pretty much the same reason when the news reports on a fatal traffic accident, they dont show decapitations or how the person driving was turned into a lump of hamburger. There isnt really anything to be gained by doing so.

 

[nivi]

IDK, in the last Lebanon they made sure to show some pretty gruesome stuff.

 

[holy king]

The singular of 'media' is 'medium'. That's what they are, 'mediums' - a way for people who aren't where the news is to know about what the news is. If that means showing disturbing images, then so be it, but these images, if they are broadcasted, should not be used to further an 'agenda'. People can make up their own minds.

thats partly an idealistic approach to the term "medium", partly a simply wrong one. first the medium itself can and will become a message on its own, and second showing pictures of atrocities indeed is already a message transported.
(not that i oppose it, and i can only guess that its just the us-american media who dont show them, since you actually see such pictures in europe)

 

[Rambuchan]

Catharsis: Can it not be said that the omission of such images supports a pro-war agenda? That such an omission causes an imbalance in the reporting? Also, you're right that some sources do show these images. They are few and far between however and do so rarely. It's revealing which ones don't and why those that do only do it rarely, despite the ongoing realities conveyed by such images.

MobBoss: My points are in the questions asked in my second post, which not many are tackling.

In response to your point, there is plenty to be gained by showing such gruesome images. They bring home the truth. And they bring home the true consequences of the decisions we make. They inform our choices, as I said in the OP.

It's interesting you bring up car accidents. Over in the UK, pretty much every Christmas time, the government launches 'Drink Driving' ad campaigns on TV. These are adverts that are specifically designed to shock and appall us through the use of gruesome imagery of what happens in a car accident caused by drunken driving. They keep running these because they work. There's something to be gained from doing so.

So much so, in fact, that they are now proposing to introduce shocking images of disease ridden lungs and gums on cigarette packets. For the same reason, to bring home the true consequences of a smoker's actions. You've probably noticed that charities do this with their advertising too. Those campaigning against famine, against animal cruelty, against child abuse and so on. All these parties hit us with these gruesome, unsettling images because they have an impact and bring home the message.

 

[El Justo]

interesting topic Ram and no matter how one feels about war, this kind of stuff in inescapbale imo.

i actually took a class while at uni about this very topic. vietnam comes to mind as the forebearer of modern warfare being beamed into tv sets everywhere.

Spoiler :

here is one that i know struck a chord with many:
IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f9/Nguyen.jpg[/IMG]

and this one, too:
IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Burningmonk.jpg[/IMG]

My Lai:
IMG]http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/40/300px-My_Lai_massacre.jpg[/IMG]

and one of the first 'shock and awe' images - Gettysburg, 1863
IMG]http://712educators.about.com/library/graphics/cas2.jpg[/IMG]
many of the gettysburg photos are thought to have been staged. nonetheless, the point and intent of the photos remains the same - at least for me they do.

Moderator Action: I've spoiler-tagged these images; they're not as gruesome as the OP's, but still warrant a second click before seeing them.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Moderator Action: Update - per the policy on gruesome pictures, I've turned these into URLs.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

the fact of the matter is that these images -- irregardless of whether one is in support of a war or wars or if they're diametrically opposed to it -- introduce an element of humanity into equation(s).