Showing Death in Iraq -- Insensitive or Necessary?

mattograph wrote in post #6043894
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?

The shots are insensitive for the families, of course they are. And it seems the photog's motives were not completely altruistic. However, we do need to see these images. All day, everyday. Then maybe anger and disgust will take over from this apathy that seems to affect the majority of people regarding this and other wars. We might see change when a lot of people are that appalled by what's going on and we all might start to ask the serious and complicated questions to do with the validity of war and why we sit back and allow it to happen.

Edit: And know this as fact, governments play the propaganda game with there own people as well as the "enemy". To not withhold the details of the absolute brutality of war, it's motives or whatever else, means people become educated. Even if that education hurts and saddens.

mattograph wrote in post #6043894
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.

Well as you can see from the number of responses, this is a very sensitive and complex issue. Where exactly does one draw the line between photojournalism and "sensationalism"?

Being an American citizen and having a strong belief in the US Constitution (even when our so-called leaders don't), I do firmly believe that "people have a right to know". Further more, in the light of concepts such as propaganda, I think that honest journalism/photojourna​lism is quite necessary. I do think that photojournalists who are in situations such as this have a moral duty to report and document "the facts". While I certainly believe that some photojournalists may get carried away sometimes, I think that more often times than not, it's very important to document these things so that people (at least some people) will truly understand the horror of all of this. In this day and age, it's easy for a lot of people to simply "look the other way". Unless you know someone who's over in Iraq right now, it's easy for a lot people to think to themselves "this doesn't really effect -me-"...you see things on the news and such, but otherwise you just go on with your daily lives. As shocking as these images may be, they do put a little of what's happening over there into perspective. People -ARE- dying over there...Americans and Iraqi's alike and regardless of any political implications or motivations, this is a -FACT-. To answer the question of "Does this type of imagery violate the memory of those who have fallen?", no, I don't believe that it does. If anything I think these images document how these people have fallen and if anything, they should evoke the question of "why"?

Here in the US we have a special day called Memorial Day where (amongst other things) we remember those who have fallen. The problem is that so often we don't remember the "how's" or the "why's". We fool ourselves into believing it's about concepts such as "freedom" and "peace", but these images clearly tell a different story. This is just a personal opinion on my part, but I believe if we remembered these things that just maybe we would be a little less inclined to allow such things to happen again. "War" is perhaps the single greatest horror that we humans have ever invented. As many, many people have said, the -only- good thing about a war is it's end (and anyone who feels differently should be deeply ashamed of themselves). Although these images are graphic and disturbing, they should also serve to remind people of this. Be it American, Iraqi, Chinese, Russian, etc., etc....we should ask ourselves do we really want ourselves or our children to end up like the people in these images?

I would also like to add that censoring these images will NOT make the problem go away. The problem is NOT these images...it's the situation in which these images were taken. By removing these images from the public eye, all one would be doing is making it easier for people to ignore this horrible situation (as well as the people who caused it). Very simply the first step in solving a problem is not ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist and if people don't see images such as this, they're not really going to understand just how bad the problem actually is.

I think one of the best ways that we can honor our fallen soldiers is to do our best to not allow this sort of thing to happen again...and these images are a good step towards doing that. Many people tend to disconnect with things that they can not experience...or at least see for themselves, so to answer the other question here, "Are they images that we NEED to see?", I would have to say, yes...absolutely. Images such as these should serve as a reminder as to why this sort of thing should be avoided. These images show people that war isn't some sort of "game"...it's not about "the good guys vs. the bad guys" and it's certainly not about politics or religious beliefs. It's about people dying. If that's too much for people's stomachs, then maybe it's past time that we as a civilization do something about it.

These images should remind people of the true and factual horrors of war and I commend the photojournalist who took them for having the courage to do so. If more people really understood these things in the way these images depict, then just maybe we wouldn't be so eager to send our sons and daughters off to fight regardless of nationality, politics or religion.

James T. Walczak

Walczak Photo wrote in post #6051007
Well as you can see from the number of responses, this is a very sensitive and complex issue. Where exactly does one draw the line between photojournalism and "sensationalism"?

<Snip a well thought out and reasoned post...>

I just have three questions regarding this issue:

1) Did the photographer in question shoot these images while embedded?
2) Was the photographer "dis-embedded" after relasing them?
3) Did the photographer continue to shoot in country while no longer embedded? In other words did the photographer consider this to be of strong enough importance to be worth remaining in country, still shooting while no longer being protected by the US Marine Corps?

Interesting thread, very interesting point of views.

But no one seems to want to ( well a few ) look at the big picture. We see everyday very graphic content on the news ( atleast where i live ) from Iraq and other wars but a lot of it seems to be about dead civilians, very little actual footage on dead soldiers. And no one seems to be thinking the rights of the civilians, the people whose country U.S have occupied and where the U.S reporters are now working under U.S guards. The civilians and the people who actually live there don't seem to have any rights, news channel keep bombing us with images of "U.S smart bombs" tearing houses apart, and then of course we see the civilians who have died in the terrorist attacks. No one is complaining if their families have been notified etc.
Can you step in the shoes of an Iraq family ? What if China occupied U.S and would have their media on site "documenting" how your families are being bombed and killed?

Now that someone shows what is happening to the ( so called ) good guys, everybody freaks out.

Now that is just interesting..

Sorry if this was a bit provocative, that wasn't really the purpose. I just think that these things should be in some proportion.

johnz wrote in post #6052127
Sorry if this was a bit provocative, that wasn't really the purpose. I just think that these things should be in some proportion.

Actually it's very progressive commentary. It's the Chinese who attacked the US and not the Russians, Osama or the N@zis.

Kudos.

Well, i don't want to get into political detail. ( i thinks not even allowed here ). But the thing is that i think that both sides should be shown, as realistically as possible, even though it's easier for people to just see the other side it's important that the real truth is shown as well as it can be by the photogarphers witnessing the events.
The truth is that both sides have paid a heavy price and it should not be swiped under the mat under any circumstances. The reporters there, even though they work with the troops, should not be expected to deliver only one side of the story. Atleast not when the U.S goverment made very clear in the beginning of the war that they are there to tell the truth, and that the U.S has nothing to hide.

IF it's legal in the U.S to show dead people in the news, than it should not be limited to only Iraq solders and Iraq civilians, suggesting that kind of approach is very disturbing.

johnz wrote in post #6052289
IF it's legal in the U.S to show dead people in the news, than it should not be limited to only Iraq solders and Iraq civilians, suggesting that kind of approach is very disturbing.

So it's ok to show American war dead that fought for our country and paid the ultimate price for our freedom, in complete indifference to their mourning families and friends? I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

Exactly. So it should be wrong to show Iraq Soldiers then. You can't have it both ways...you either tell the truth, unbiased, or don't sell it as such.

ipschoser1 wrote in post #6053051
So it's ok to show American war dead that fought for our country and paid the ultimate price for our freedom, in complete indifference to their mourning families and friends? I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6051961
I just have three questions regarding this issue:

1) Did the photographer in question shoot these images while embedded?
2) Was the photographer "dis-embedded" after relasing them?
3) Did the photographer continue to shoot in country while no longer embedded? In other words did the photographer consider this to be of strong enough importance to be worth remaining in country, still shooting while no longer being protected by the US Marine Corps?

1: Yes
2: Yes
3: ? He seems to be showing photos from June in his most recent posts though.


The rest is not directed at you Flying.

The reason he was "dis-embedded" was not necessarily because he posted photos of dead US soldiers. He was "dis-embedded" because he put people's lives in danger by posting the photos along with the detailed account of the response to the suicide bombing.

I know it seems trivial to those who have never been in the military or know much about the military other than what they see on TV, but what he did could very well directly cause people to die. Operational security (OPSEC) is a completely foreign idea to most people. I am sure to many it sounds like complete paranoia, but it is a fact that the more your enemy knows about how you are going to react to a particular situation, the more likely they are to kill you.

Ask Lord Malone.
http://www.myspace.com​/chocolate_thai

I hope the "Humanitarian Photojournalist" feels good about himself. I doubt he cares about the deaths he may cause, as long as his purpose has been served.

ipschoser1 wrote in post #6053051
So it's ok to show American war dead that fought for our country and paid the ultimate price for our freedom, in complete indifference to their mourning families and friends? I'm sorry but that's just wrong.

,,,but then its ok to show pictures of fallen Iraqis??

DDCSD wrote in post #6053876
I hope the "Humanitarian Photojournalist" feels good about himself. I doubt he cares about the deaths he may cause, as long as his purpose has been served.

Maybe the photographer doesn't understand operational security. You just explained it to all of us because you figured we don't understand it and then you suggest the photographer is probably a sociopath.

Or maybe the photographer is under the impression that providing images and this story to us is their job. I bet the Mahdi army could describe US army response to a suicide bombing more accurately than this journalist in any case.

What can I say, this photog seems to be politically motivated. On the other hand, they are covering a war that has been underway for several years. I think the story of how that war is progressing, what that war is costing in blood on both sides....these are critical pieces of information for the society that is waging this war.

How good a job would you say the US mainstream media did in covering the actual situation before this war began? Maybe this guy is a better journalist than CNN, NBC and Fox.

JeffreyG wrote in post #6053922
Maybe the photographer doesn't understand operational security. You just explained it to all of us because you figured we don't understand it and then you suggest the photographer is probably a sociopath.

If he doesn't then he is in the wrong line of work. He was embedded with the United States Marine Corps in an active war zone. Trust me, they mentioned the importance of Operational Security to him. He knows what it is and what it means. He chose to disregard it.

I'm saying he is a hypocrite. He claims to want to save lives while recklessly causing the death of others. I guess the end justifies the means.

Again, I do think the images need to be shown. However, posting the images 4 days after the event along with a detailed account of the event gets people killed. That is why the US Military told him to take down the post and revoked his status when he refused. He either doesn't get the enormity of what he has done or does not care. It doesn't matter which one it is.

I'll remind everyone here that POTN has a truly global base. Arguments as to whether something is acceptable based on one's country of birth/adoption are inherently political. Political discussions are not acceptable here. If you can't discuss whether something should/should not be photographed in time of conflict without bringing in national interests, please refrain from attempting to discuss it at all. If you are concerned about the impact of photographs on the families of the dead/injured, please consider all the families of all the fallen. Regardless of what they may have believed in, they are mourned somewhere.

If you can't discuss this without bringing in national interests, this thread will be closed.

JeffreyG wrote in post #6053922
How good a job would you say the US mainstream media did in covering the actual situation before this war began? Maybe this guy is a better journalist than CNN, NBC and Fox.

A very bad job, in fact.

I have a friend (civilian firefighter) that just got back from 19 months in Iraq, have two friend that have done two tours (National Guard) and one (special forces) that has been there three times. It's not as bad over there right now as you may think it is. It ain't all roses and sunshine, but its a heck of a lot better than is being let on in the media. Oh wait, they don't even mention Iraq in most national nightly new broadcasts these days.......

And Miller is very good at what he does and has captured some amazingly powerful images. I commend him for his courage and his desire to record history. I wish that it was me that made many of the images I see on his website. He is not a journalist though.

DDCSD wrote in post #6054035
If he doesn't then he is in the wrong line of work. He was embedded with the United States Marine Corps in an active war zone. Trust me, they mentioned the importance of Operational Security to him. He knows what it is and what it means. He chose to disregard it.

I'm saying he is a hypocrite. He claims to want to save lives while recklessly causing the death of others. I guess the end justifies the means.

Again, I do think the images need to be shown. However, posting the images 4 days after the event along with a detailed account of the event gets people killed. That is why the US Military told him to take down the post and revoked his status when he refused. He either doesn't get the enormity of what he has done or does not care. It doesn't matter which one it is.

And to be clear, I don't blame the army for refusing to work with him. Typically they only publish their own propaganda. This war is the first time you see such widespread embedded journalists.

I think embedding is a difficult (bad?) situation for most journalists. Because any form of safe access to Iraq essentially had to go through the army during the invasion I think most journalists felt they had little choice. But once embedded one is following army rules, seeing what the army permits and reporting what they permit. It is a fundamentally ethically compromised situation for any journalist.

Plus one tends to start rooting for the guys who are protecting your butt.

Objective and either dead or without access or compromised and in the field. These are the choices for modern war reporting.