Photography & Vietnam: Opinions please

sjones wrote in post #4898363
I'm at work now, albeit in my own apartment, so quickly, you might want to look at the influence of still photography in relation with the general media.

TV news anchor Walter Cronkite, who was one of the most trusted figures in the States at that time, had considerable impact on public opinion.

http://www.richmond.ed​u/~ebolt/history398/Cr​onkite_1968.html
(as an example)

braduardo wrote in post #4898516
I think this is probably a HUGE factor in public perception. In previous wars, with intense bombing runs of cities and such, and massive death tolls, it made the war seem almost surreal and impersonal. These days, with less than 10 deaths per day on average, there are enough to make for a decent news story, but few enough to make the story personal, and put a face on the deceased.

Maybe you can factor in something having to do with the difference in the impact of a photo compared to a number (ie. 500 KIA), or something along that line.

Cheers for the ideas.

As one who followed that "conflict" nightly on the news, I don't believe that it was the guys with the still cameras that had the influence as much as the videographers did.

They brought the body bags into the living room and had every mother and father glued to that screen, hoping for a glimpse of their live son.

That said, there were images taken that will live for an eternity. It still pains me to look at them.

chauncey wrote in post #4898940
As one who followed that "conflict" nightly on the news, I don't believe that it was the guys with the still cameras that had the influence as much as the videographers did.

They brought the body bags into the living room and had every mother and father glued to that screen, hoping for a glimpse of their live son.

That said, there were images taken that will live for an eternity. It still pains me to look at them.

Yeah I thought so, problem is whether to write about it or not as it may broaden my subject.

This interview with AP photographer Edward Adams will be helpful to you. http://www.newseum.org …em=SPOT-ADAMS1969&style=d He discusses a shot 'Saigon Execution' that one a Pulitzer.

There is another shot that had an important impact: Kim Phuc, a 9 year old girl running down the road nude and crying in pain from jellied gasoline that was burning her body. The photographer who took the picture took the child to the hospital. A useful link is http://www.peace.ca/ki​mstory.htm

I hope this helps. Those were the two pictures that stuck in my mind from that era.

Edit: it looks like the two shots referenced were already mentioned. The Adams interview might be interesting to you though.

Now all we get is Brittany, Paris, and Paul McCartneys divorce, with a little bit of Dianna thrown in. Who could ask for anything more?

adam* wrote in post #4899019
Yeah I thought so, problem is whether to write about it or not as it may broaden my subject.

The photos, particularly those suggested on this thread, still had impact, so personally, I think it would be an interesting pursuit. Despite the advent of CNN/24-hour video coverage, the photograph (excuse my ambiguity) of a starving child near a seemingly waiting vulture (which I think was actually from Sudan) played a role in the 1993 US intervention in Somalia, at least in terms of driving public awareness. Video images of burning C-130s with Cronkite essentially claiming the war a lost cause was undoubtedly influential, but it still might be interesting to look at the value of the still photograph. I believe there is movie film coverage of the flag raising at Iowa Jima during WWII, but its emotional weight could never surpass that of Rosenthal's famous still image.

This is a very hard question, as the dirty little war went on for like 14 years. At one time, nobody protested, or not enough that anybody took notice. It was only when we start screwing it up and getting our guys killed in large numbers, that people took notice and began to ask questions. And all of that was directly related to photography coming from the field, and let's not forget the spin, put on the photos coming out of Viet Nam.

Like the one of the guy getting shot in the head. You do know, that famous still shot was just one frame in a home movie of the act? And anyone who did their homework knows that the little bastard that died had just killed the wife and children of the guy doing the shooting, just up the street not ten minutes before. Did that come out in the news when the film was shown here? No, it wasn't. There's still a lot of questions about that time that need answers.

Anyway, that one shot was the turning point. It gave the sob sisters just the ammo they needed to turn the tide of public opinion, which we all know is the best way to fight and win a war.

canonloader wrote in post #4899275
...You do know, that famous still shot was just one frame in a home movie of the act? And anyone who did their homework knows that the little bastard that died had just killed the wife and children of the guy doing the shooting, just up the street not ten minutes before. Did that come out in the news when the film was shown here? No, it wasn't. There's still a lot of questions about that time that need answers...

I had heard the same thing, but I never knew if it was confirmed. Similarly, during the Mai Lai massacre, US helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson landed his craft between fleeing civilians and pursuing US soldiers, threatening to fire on the soldiers if they continued their pursuit. Thompson and his crew then airlifted some of the injured Vietnamese for medical treatment. This story did not surface until noted on a BBC documentary in the 1980s or 1990s, long after the incident occurred.

In any case, this opens up the whole issue of context, which is even a bigger mess now, as local TV stations rush to point their cameras at the latest event to provide live coverage without any background or understanding of what is actually transpiring before them.

As such, exploring the face value of images from the Vietnam conflict and their propagandistic potential would also be another interesting angle to explore.

Flashstan wrote in post #4895518
Another Angle? Is the Vietnam war the fist war where troops carried their cameras with them? My father carried his.

Not really,,,,troops carried their cameras into combat as far back as WW1..There are also some striking images taken during the American Civil War but most of these were taken my pro photographers..

Vietnam was the first conflict to be beamed into our homes via television..

Jurgen

Pete wrote in post #4894668
Good subject for the disseration there. The Viet-Nam was one of the first wars where photo-journalists actively got to the front line and spend time with the troops.

Tim Page http://blog.awm.gov.au​/focus/?p=23 is my favourite photographer from the Vietnam era along with
Nick Ut http://digitaljournali​st.org/issue0008/ng2.h​tm

There are many wonderful books written on the subject..Here are some of my favourites "One Crowded Hour" by Tim Page Neil Davis' autobiography, "A Bright Shining Lie" by Neil Sheenan, "The Girl in the Picture" by Denise Chong.

Check out this image taken by Nick Ut,,,probably the most famous image to come out of Vietnam..Its the image of Kim Phuc ( "The Girl in the Picture") after being napalmed by the South Vietnam Airforce..This image still chills me to the bone!!

Jurgen
Laos

canonloader wrote in post #4899275
Like the one of the guy getting shot in the head. You do know, that famous still shot was just one frame in a home movie of the act? And anyone who did their homework knows that the little bastard that died had just killed the wife and children of the guy doing the shooting, just up the street not ten minutes before. Did that come out in the news when the film was shown here? No, it wasn't. There's still a lot of questions about that time that need answers.

This image canonloader..General Nguyen Ngoc Loan then the Chief of Police executing Nguyen Van Lem..This image was actually taken by an AP photographer,,,the movie footage by NBC film crew..This image along with the image by Nick Ut of Kim Phuc were responsible for antiwar sentiments around the world..

Another facinating tale..In 2004 I was in Da Nang in a cafe waiting for a train to take me to Ho Chi Minh City.. I got talking to a Vietnam Vet,,a Vietnamese National..At the age of 16 the ARVN marched into his village put a gun to his head and "conscripted" him..He fought with the ARVN for 3 months until he was captured by the Viet Cong..They put a gun to his head and told him "Now you fight for us"..Amazingly he lasted 18 months until the end of the war when the average lifespan of a VC was about 6 months..Usually the VC executed ARVN soldiers on the spot but at that time they were quickly running out of combatants..

Another thing this guy told me was after a thousand years of war in Vietnam with China, Siam, the Khmer, Japan and France those 11 years fighting against the Americans hardly gets a mention in current Vietnamese history..Interesting!!

Jurgen
Laos

Though some critics claim that Nguyễn Ngọc Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war, the rights of POW status were accorded to Việt Cộng members only if they were seized during military operations (Nguyễn Văn Lém had not been wearing a uniform nor fighting enemy soldiers in the alleged commission of war crimes).

The photo won Adams the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, though he was later said to have regretted the impact it had. The image became an anti-war icon. Concerning General Nguyễn and his famous photograph, Eddie Adams later wrote in Time:

“ The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths...What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers? ”

Eddie Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyễn and his family for the damage it did to his reputation. When General Nguyễn died, Adams praised him as a hero of a just cause:

The thing is, it started out as a Just Cause.

canonloader wrote in post #4900104
Though some critics claim that Nguyễn Ngọc Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war, the rights of POW status were accorded to Việt Cộng members only if they were seized during military operations (Nguyễn Văn Lém had not been wearing a uniform nor fighting enemy soldiers in the alleged commission of war crimes).

The photo won Adams the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, though he was later said to have regretted the impact it had. The image became an anti-war icon. Concerning General Nguyễn and his famous photograph, Eddie Adams later wrote in Time:

“ The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths...What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers? ”

Eddie Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyễn and his family for the damage it did to his reputation. When General Nguyễn died, Adams praised him as a hero of a just cause:

The thing is, it started out as a Just Cause.

Agreed canonloader..What was not mentioned was that Nguyen Ngoc Loan's family were executed by the Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive and that Nguyen Van Lem was an officer in the VC and probably ordered the executions..

Another interesting thing to come out of this situation was that after Nguyen Ngoc Loan executed Nguyen Van Lem he pointed his gun at Neil Davis an Australian cameraman working for either Visnews or the ABC (I can't remember which one at the time) and told him one day he will kill Davis..Nguyen Ngoc Loan was beside himself..The ARVN and American Military didn't like Davis for his unbiased capture of the Vietnam War..

Jurgen

canonloader wrote in post #4900104
Though some critics claim that Nguyễn Ngọc Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war, the rights of POW status were accorded to Việt Cộng members only if they were seized during military operations (Nguyễn Văn Lém had not been wearing a uniform nor fighting enemy soldiers in the alleged commission of war crimes).

The photo won Adams the 1969 Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, though he was later said to have regretted the impact it had. The image became an anti-war icon. Concerning General Nguyễn and his famous photograph, Eddie Adams later wrote in Time:

“ The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths...What the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers? ”

Eddie Adams later apologized in person to General Nguyễn and his family for the damage it did to his reputation. When General Nguyễn died, Adams praised him as a hero of a just cause:

The thing is, it started out as a Just Cause.

You make a very important point about the impact of photojounalism. The photo was used to serve the editorial purposes of those opposed to the war. Listen to the interview of the photographer for this Pulitzer winning photo. You'll get a sense of the context in which it was taken. It was editorially used for shock value.

Binning wrote in post #4900321
You make a very important point about the impact of photojounalism. The photo was used to serve the editorial purposes of those opposed to the war. Listen to the interview of the photographer for this Pulitzer winning photo. You'll get a sense of the context in which it was taken. It was editorially used for shock value.

The best way to get a sense of the context, was to have been there. I don't think anyone who spent time there was fooled by any of this foolery, or what's going on now in yet another place we have no business. Then, as now, nothing was proved or disproved. War is just the game of old, stupid, men. It has no other meaning.