Showing Death in Iraq -- Insensitive or Necessary?

Or fallen Al-Qaeda fighters? Or fallen Germans from WWII?

I just saw this thread and it reminded me of this photographer. James Nachtwey. Has anyone else heard of him or seen his work? I am unsure as to what to think. They are brilliant photos but, as the rest of you, i am confused as to whether i think this is right or not. Here is the link to his page: http://www.jamesnachtw​ey.com/

Godwin's Law in full effect for photography. It's either Natchwey or Ansel Adams.

If images of war, of dead soldiers, should serve to educate us to the horrors of war, then should we show the mangled bodies that result from a drunk driving accident to educate people to the dangers of driving while intoxicated?

Would it be okay to show a picture of a mangled six year old?

I don't see any difference.

...

mattograph wrote in post #6046801
If images of war, of dead soldiers, should serve to educate us to the horrors of war, then should we show the mangled bodies that result from a drunk driving accident to educate people to the dangers of driving while intoxicated?

Would it be okay to show a picture of a mangled six year old?

I don't see any difference.

So you'd rather have more people die in car crashes then have some pictures floating around?

Are you really that sensitive to graphic content?

Let's extend your analogy. Let's show only pretty, healthy people. No cirrhosis patients to stop alcoholism and no lung cancer patients undergoing chemo, right?

After all, being bald and having your lung cut out makes the person look ugly and he shouldn't be shown in the newspapers. right?

Google Nikki Catsouras. She took her dad's porche without permission and hit a wall with her head at 100 km/h, brains spilled out and pictures are floating around. Looking at her before and after photos has influenced my driving and I'm pretty sure saved me from a collision at least twice.

I think they should make people look at mangled bodies which result in car crashes. Hollywood action glorifies car crashes and being shot, and people believe they'll just walk away from any crash... or that the recovery will be easy. Looking at the possible consequences of driving WILL make people more careful.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6046897
So you'd rather have more people die in car crashes then have some pictures floating around?

Are you really that sensitive to graphic content?

Let's extend your analogy. Let's show only pretty, healthy people. No cirrhosis patients to stop alcoholism and no lung cancer patients undergoing chemo, right?

After all, being bald and having your lung cut out makes the person look ugly and he shouldn't be shown in the newspapers. right?

Google Nikki Catsouras. She took her dad's porche without permission and hit a wall with her head at 100 km/h, brains spilled out and pictures are floating around. Looking at her before and after photos has influenced my driving and I'm pretty sure saved me from a collision at least twice.

I think they should make people look at mangled bodies which result in car crashes. Hollywood action glorifies car crashes and being shot, and people believe they'll just walk away from any crash... or that the recovery will be easy. Looking at the possible consequences of driving WILL make people more careful.

I took his question to be a little more rhetorical. There are ethical and moral lines involved for both the viewer and the photographer as well as legal issues. These things will all depend in the individual, the culture, and the specific situation. Needless to say, it not exactly a black and white issue.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6046897
So you'd rather have more people die in car crashes then have some pictures floating around?

Are you really that sensitive to graphic content?

Let's extend your analogy. Let's show only pretty, healthy people. No cirrhosis patients to stop alcoholism and no lung cancer patients undergoing chemo, right?

After all, being bald and having your lung cut out makes the person look ugly and he shouldn't be shown in the newspapers. right?

Google Nikki Catsouras. She took her dad's porche without permission and hit a wall with her head at 100 km/h, brains spilled out and pictures are floating around. Looking at her before and after photos has influenced my driving and I'm pretty sure saved me from a collision at least twice.

I think they should make people look at mangled bodies which result in car crashes. Hollywood action glorifies car crashes and being shot, and people believe they'll just walk away from any crash... or that the recovery will be easy. Looking at the possible consequences of driving WILL make people more careful.

Damn. I'm bald. Tough Crowd. Ease up on the rhetoric, huh?

Never said where I stood, so lets not jump to conclusions. As a former EMT and firefighter, I've seen some stuff. Like the time I pulled a guy out of a burning car, only to realize that half his foot came off because it had melted to the floorboard. Or the time we had to dig through a trunk to find a 5 year olds fingers. All the result of a drunk driver.

Do I think those photos have a place? Sure do. Not sure its on the front page, but they do belong somewhere.

I have seen graphic images of war and holocaust horrors from the past and I think their existence is very important to maintain the public's understanding of these terrible events.

Without direct knowledge of the consequences of commiting to war it all seems like patriotic fun and brave heroics. Reality is grim.

I think something like the holocaust would be impossible in any free society if the images of what was happening to the people who 'went away' were public.

Photography is a powerful medium, and I think we need to be quicker to examine the goal of the censors than of the journalist.

mattograph wrote in post #6046801
If images of war, of dead soldiers, should serve to educate us to the horrors of war, then should we show the mangled bodies that result from a drunk driving accident to educate people to the dangers of driving while intoxicated?

Would it be okay to show a picture of a mangled six year old?

I don't see any difference.

Hell yes. It might get them from doing it instead of killing friends of mine, my family, me or my wife.

If your little girl could be saved by some jackass seeing some graphic shots and changing his mind about driving home after a couple beers....

War is NOT XBOX. Young people should know that.

I have no problem with the images. They need to be shown. It is the timing that I have a problem with. Posting a detailed account (with images) of everything that happened after the bomb went off gets people killed. Period. His post is dated 4 days after the event happened.

Release this stuff a month or two after it happens, fine. Release a few photos after a week or two, knowing that all family members of the soldiers have been notified, OK. Detailed account of what happened along with the photos, not even remotely OK.

Everyone keeps saying how the government is trying to control information and how this didn't happen in WWII and such. Well, in WWII there was not a near instantaneous flow of information. It took weeks if not months for images to filter back to the news agencies and be published. The most gruesome images weren't published in newspapers or magazines until well after the war had ended. If Miller had done something like this (if it had been possible) in WWII, he would have been charged with espionage and tossed in federal prison by FDR's administration.

zacker wrote in post #6045755
well? I guess it depends... were the pics used to sell papers or mags? or were they used like this... on the net, to tell a story? its wrong if they were used to sell time or news papers or magazines..

But it is OK to use them to solicit personal donations? (As Miller actively does on his web-site.)

DDCSD wrote in post #6047056
But it is OK to use them to solicit personal donations? (As Miller actively does on his web-site.)

Let's not make a line between "personal" and something else, unless that something is government.

If the pictures are used in a newspaper or a magazine, then that publication is owned by somebody, probably a person or persons.

And media profits from war stories... so you're saying it's fine if the media profits, but not an individual.

At least, that's my spin on it.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #6047203
Let's not make a line between "personal" and something else, unless that something is government.

If the pictures are used in a newspaper or a magazine, then that publication is owned by somebody, probably a person or persons.

And media profits from war stories... so you're saying it's fine if the media profits, but not an individual.

At least, that's my spin on it.

Just thought it sounded funny and a bit hypocritical to think that it is bad for a media outlet to get money for publishing something and providing a service and not notice/mention that the person self publishing the images is asking for donations (money) on the website. I am saying that if it is OK for MIller to do so, then it is all right for media outlets to do it. In the end both are doing the same thing, getting the story out.

I personally think it is fine for anyone to profit or "make a living" for providing a valuable or in demand service or product. And I actually tend to dislike a majority of media outlets due to the fact that they do little "reporting" these days and too much "preaching", in every direction. Political correctness has gotten the best of us I am afraid. If they would simply report, the profits would come in. They insist on molding the news to what they think people want, so many news outlets are failing.

ipschoser1 wrote in post #6046490
I would have had no problem with any of the Marines on site kicking Miller's ass for taking photos of fallen Marine's. Miller is a piece of #@%#, IMHO.

I was thinking that the photographer was either very brave or stupid to try that even if she did get the shots.

Yes, images of the war dead should be accessible regardless of the war. The handling of this, however, raises numerous complications, since such images are inherently sensitive and are vulnerable to propaganda and politicalization from all sides of the conflict.

As a means of misinformation or disinformation, images are particularly effective given their ability to visually manipulate emotional appeal, often dismissing proper context in the process. As such, this makes them susceptible to demagogic abuse, and while emotion is an important consideration, it should not preclude rational discourse.

Of course, the suppression of images can be equally deceptive, if not more so, and there in lies the problem, or at least one of them.

That is, how does the respectful display of graphic images take place? Is it possible, and to what extent? Does the fallen soldier's family have a say in the matter, or does the pursuit of truth or journalistic freedoms transcend this concern?

Even if a photographer or publisher has the most objective of intentions, within reason, the audience will add its own subjective interpretations, further complicating such pursuit of truth.

You can show images of war to protest an unpopular conflict, revealing the horrible reality, but similar images, for example, could have also been used in an attempt to discourage the allies' military response to the Third Reich; and resultant capitulation would not have been an acceptable alternative.

For me, I advocate the publishing of such images, to some degree (to which degree I admittedly don't know), as simply a matter of respect; respect for the realities of war and the suffering it entails, as well as respect for service personnel, whose magnitude of sacrifice is seldom grasped by the public.