Showing Death in Iraq -- Insensitive or Necessary?

I just finished listening to an interview with Zoriah Miller, a photojournalist who very recently was "dis-imbedded" for publishing photos of dead US Marines following a suicide bombing in Iraq.

Here is the link: (these photos are very graphic, and not work safe)

http://www.zoriah.net …de-bombing-in-anbar-.html

Zoriah Miller is a self-described humanitarian, who is apparently against the war. Some have attributed his motivations to political ends. Whatever the case, the question is:

Does this type of imagery violate the memory of those who have fallen? Is it unfair to the Marines and their families? Is it unfair to the Iraqis and their families?

Are they images that we NEED to see?

Note: To my knowledge, the Miller has not used these photos to actively support a political position. In his interview, he consistently maintains that his political views are entirely separate from his work as a photojournalist.

Taking pictures of dead bodies for no better reason than political propaganda is always unfair and immoral to any solders, in any war.
If you cannot make a viable political statement without showing dead bodies, you cannot make it at all, period.

A journalist is supposed to be objective.
If a PJ is a "self described" anything, he/she is no longer objective.
No longer objective = no longer a journalist.

QED...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6044001
A journalist is supposed to be objective.
If a PJ is a "self described" anything, he/she is no longer objective.
No longer objective = no longer a journalist.

QED...

I agree, but by your definition, there are no journalists left in America.....

mattograph wrote in post #6044026
I agree, but by your definition, there are no journalists left in America.....

Quite possibly true...

Doesn't every other country with a supposed free press, including our remaining allies, allow those types of news photographs, just as we did in the previous wars in Vietnam and Korea?

"Are they images that we NEED to see?"

Yes we do... these are images of what is happening.
I do find it odd that people can view images of bodies from the American civil war, the world wars, Vietnam, 1st Gulf war, etc, without these comments. War always kills in unpleasent ways and we cannot hide from this.
Now I do object to these types of pictures from being used to score cheap political points, but often the photog doesn't get a choice in the matter, for example the infamous picture of the Vietnamese officer shooting the Vietcong prisoner. It is important that the picture is taken and seen.
The general population often has very little idea of the effect of warfare... we so often see sanitized pictures and films that have been passed through censors or have been 'filtered' and approved. Sometimes we need to see the raw, messy, unpleasent nature of war...
It's not nice, but it is necessary.

Cheers

Matt

An article laying out both sides:
http://newsbusters.org …ted-american-soldiers-war

You raise an interesting point, I think that people who have no direct involvement with or have not seen it first hand (either by being there or in pictures) do not appreciate how horrific this type of violence is. Computer games and glamourous war films have changed peoples perception.

In the late 1970s a civilian photocopy engineer spotted the remains of a GPMG (machine gun) on a table in an office in Crossmaglen Northern Ireland, he asked what had happened to it and we told him that it was being carried by a young soldier as the bomb placed under the gate he was climbing exploded. He asked what had happened to the soldier and we told him truthfully that we had only managed to find about 4lbs of him. The man was shocked and horrified, he had lived in Northern Ireland all his life, he read the newspapers and watched the television but he had never appreciated that when the report said that a soldier, or a civilian for that matter had been killed he had just imagined them dead, he did not appreciate the devastation to the body that a violent explosion can cause.

I think if more people see the true effects of any war, rather than the sanitised BBC, CBS or even Nintendo versions that we have become used too, then people would not be so accepting of what is going on in their name.

I am torn on the issue. While I agree that some photos need to be seen, I think that a PJ, showing the identity of soldiers (faces, identifying tattoos, name tags etc) before the families are officially notified is tacky and lacking any compassion.

In addition, I think that if any PJ let's his/her personal political agenda drive the work they submit, then they are no longer PJs, they are propagandists.

I think showing dead soldiers is insensitive to their friends and relatives, but necessary for public health. I am actually quite surprised at the extent to which the media these days allows the government to feed it carefully premeasured cr#p.

neil_r wrote in post #6044086
I think if more people see the true effects of any war, rather than the sanitised BBC, CBS or even Nintendo versions that we have become used too, then people would not be so accepting of what is going on in their name.

Agreed ... and I rather fancy attempts to suppress such images are themselves cynically political in nature.

Vetteography wrote in post #6044098
before the families are officially notified is tacky and lacking any compassion.

I totally agree with this bit, but not so much about showing recognizable features. I do not want anything that dehumanises the victims, I believe it is important that they are seen as individuals and people not as anonymous human shaped objects.

M

hitmanh wrote in post #6044066
"Are they images that we NEED to see?"

Yes we do... these are images of what is happening.
I do find it odd that people can view images of bodies from the American civil war, the world wars, Vietnam, 1st Gulf war, etc, without these comments. War always kills in unpleasent ways and we cannot hide from this.
Now I do object to these types of pictures from being used to score cheap political points, but often the photog doesn't get a choice in the matter, for example the infamous picture of the Vietnamese officer shooting the Vietcong prisoner. It is important that the picture is taken and seen.
The general population often has very little idea of the effect of warfare... we so often see sanitized pictures and films that have been passed through censors or have been 'filtered' and approved. Sometimes we need to see the raw, messy, unpleasent nature of war...
It's not nice, but it is necessary.

Cheers

Matt

I would tend to agree with you Matt.

Knowing that she agreed to not take pictures of certain things when the military took responsibility for protecting her it doesn't bother me at all that they quit supporting her as an embedded reporter. Its a privilege to get to go out on military patrols as a civilian, and if she can't handle that then I don't see why the Marine Corps would work so hard to help her get her story.
As for the subject matter, I can see both sides. I respect the fact that people are against this war and are trying to educate the public on what is happening. Honestly I feel that most people have forgotten we still have a lot of troops in Iraq, and I think we could use some more accurate reporting on what is going on here. On the other hand I would be furious if pictures of one of my friends were printed in the paper or posted online.