gb hill
Mentor
M4streetshooter said:
I respect your feelings. I am a vet myself. A friend of mine that I went to boot camp with died on the bombing of the USS Cole. He was asleep in his bunk when the bomb wen't off. Guess how I found out about it? TIME magazine. I thank GOD that it was reported, and I honor his death. But I will add that it was reported in good taste. And by that I mean it didn't show his bloody body all over the place. But then what in the hell did our DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT (BILL CLINTON) do about it?....NOT A DAMN THING! Sorry I had to add this for all the Bush haters. Even though I don't agree with Bush either. Mr Pierce is right though. War as ugly as it is, needs to be shown for what it is. Maybe if Time had shown grizzly photos of the USS Cole bombing, the American people might have become outraged and made our Gov. representives do something about it.
We now have a generation that only knows death through video games and movies. Great photojournalist need to show the world whats really going on, and not hold anything back. So what if families get their feelings hurt. Suppressing back photos is only supressing the truth to what war really is and therefore war will go on at the sacrifice to our men & women under the BULL S*#$ guise of FREEDOM! BTW the USofA aint fought a war for freedom since WWII Give me a break.
Last edited:
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
"BTW the USofA aint fought a war for freedom since WW!! Give me a break."
Maybe you should talk to the troops and their families....
if your a vet, you forgot about indoctrination.....remember, what they are told as truth and believe as truth maybe in fact at our age be not the truth..but that does not mean it ain't true to them....
Maybe you should talk to the troops and their families....
if your a vet, you forgot about indoctrination.....remember, what they are told as truth and believe as truth maybe in fact at our age be not the truth..but that does not mean it ain't true to them....
M4streetshooter
Tourist Thru Life
ya know, a comment has been repeated a few times in this thread...about photographs awaking the public to the realities of war and maybe making a change or stopping it...bullcrap....
before the advent of photography, there were cave paintings, painting's, drawings etc....then came along...Curtis, Sullivan, and the best...Brady....
nothing's changed yet...and to think it will now is pure crapola.....
and also just a way of justifying, making the images.....
even Eddie Adams Nam murder didn't do anything in the long run.....
so...........
before the advent of photography, there were cave paintings, painting's, drawings etc....then came along...Curtis, Sullivan, and the best...Brady....
nothing's changed yet...and to think it will now is pure crapola.....
and also just a way of justifying, making the images.....
even Eddie Adams Nam murder didn't do anything in the long run.....
so...........
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
nothing's changed yet? I dunno ... the (still) photos and reporting from Vietnam changed me (and I'm sure a lot of other people) drastically.
FrankS
Registered User
I agree that images of war HAVE changed a lot of people's views. What we need are more images of the reality, not fewer.
BigSteveG
Well-known
M4--
Bravo!!! You've stated the crux of this matter. The showing of this photo was disprespectful to the parents. In this particular (not all for sure) case, the parents' wishes should have been heeded out of sensitivity. My own parents lost thier 1st born son (my brother) and I know all too well what effect that has and how the pain never really goes away. Losing a child is very different than losing a parent.
Bravo!!! You've stated the crux of this matter. The showing of this photo was disprespectful to the parents. In this particular (not all for sure) case, the parents' wishes should have been heeded out of sensitivity. My own parents lost thier 1st born son (my brother) and I know all too well what effect that has and how the pain never really goes away. Losing a child is very different than losing a parent.
raid
Dad Photographer
I don't need any photos of the brutal destruction of a Nation.
My family is one of at least a million families that is feeling the pain.
Mix power with selfishness and ignorance, and you get such a war.
My family is one of at least a million families that is feeling the pain.
Mix power with selfishness and ignorance, and you get such a war.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
BigSteveG said:
My impression was that the parents wishes were not in agreement about the publishing of the image. ie. the mother and that side of the family were fine with it. The biological father (I'm assuming estranged, since the bothered to mention it in those terms) was against it, but only after the fact - he had no say in the preparations and agreements beforehand. The photographer and editor couldn't have known his views.
Maybe I'm inferring too much.
I still think that for those who have not had to face the tragedy of a war themselves, such images are the only way we have to really hope to understand and prevent such horrors. You can always choose to look away, but the images and stories should be available (not censored).
BigSteveG
Well-known
I stand corrected. If the press was invited, that does change things. The right to privacy was given away by some family member apparently.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
M4streetshooter said:
If truth is the first victim of the war, it looks like the english language is the second, unless he died doing some heroic act above and beyond the call of duty of any soldier, he is not a hero.
He did choose his career, accepted the risks involved, and lost; we mourn him like any other victim of war, but to call him an hero does do him any justice, it just devalues the word.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
M4streetshooter said:
I can't agree with this, you are supposed to look around you, use your brains, and make up your own mind, not just believing what you are told.
If you take your line of reasoning to the extreme, even the 9/11 terrorists believed that what they were doing was for the grater good, and laid down their lives for it, still I can't help thinking they were a bunch of gullible idiots for believing all that crap, and a bunch of evil criminals for disregarding as worthless the lives of thousands of people.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to compare a soldier dead in battle with some terrorists, I am just trying to show where excusing people because they believed in what they were told could lead to.
The most hideous crimes in history have been perpetrated by people believing that what they were doing was for the greater good.
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
I find the discussion very interesting. Like Gregg, I think that there's no disrespect in this photo report, but rather a tribute to war victims, all of them.
Besides, it's ironic that we are very sensitive when pictures show American bodies but much less zealous in denouncing pictures that show bodies of different people, Iraqi in this case. I'm not American, so I can't comment American politics; but as a French, I'm also concerned by the same, say, "hypocrisy": some weeks ago, several French soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan: no pictures, no comment, as if nothing happened. Same thing when soldiers died in a Ivory Government air attack. But when there are Afghan/Ivory war victims (even kids!), no problem with their dignity ... we can show them for lunch time.
Moreover, I don't think we should censor war pictures ... the problem is not that we should show American bodies because we show Iraqi bodies. As Bill and Frank said, if war pictures offend you, that's good. If they have a pedagogical effect, it's better. These are strange times we're living in: we accept that fighters/bombers bomb civilians, we accept to see the bombing on our TV like a video game, but we don't want to face the reality, that is dead people, soldiers but also men, women and kids that have nothing to do with this business. Again I agree with Bill and Frank:
Finally, I don't really understand the whole thing about the family's consent. When a soldier dies and is mourned as a soldier (all the more so if he is burried as a national hero), he belongs not only to his family, but also to the country and to its history. Let me ask this: did the US Gov. ask the family before sending their son to Iraq? The issue is not about the consent of the family, but about the relevance of pictures that show a sad reality people don't want to see. In this respect, I think this report is worthwhile.
Best,
Marc-A.
gregg said:
Besides, it's ironic that we are very sensitive when pictures show American bodies but much less zealous in denouncing pictures that show bodies of different people, Iraqi in this case. I'm not American, so I can't comment American politics; but as a French, I'm also concerned by the same, say, "hypocrisy": some weeks ago, several French soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan: no pictures, no comment, as if nothing happened. Same thing when soldiers died in a Ivory Government air attack. But when there are Afghan/Ivory war victims (even kids!), no problem with their dignity ... we can show them for lunch time.
Finder said:
Moreover, I don't think we should censor war pictures ... the problem is not that we should show American bodies because we show Iraqi bodies. As Bill and Frank said, if war pictures offend you, that's good. If they have a pedagogical effect, it's better. These are strange times we're living in: we accept that fighters/bombers bomb civilians, we accept to see the bombing on our TV like a video game, but we don't want to face the reality, that is dead people, soldiers but also men, women and kids that have nothing to do with this business. Again I agree with Bill and Frank:
FrankS said:
Bill Pierce said:
Finally, I don't really understand the whole thing about the family's consent. When a soldier dies and is mourned as a soldier (all the more so if he is burried as a national hero), he belongs not only to his family, but also to the country and to its history. Let me ask this: did the US Gov. ask the family before sending their son to Iraq? The issue is not about the consent of the family, but about the relevance of pictures that show a sad reality people don't want to see. In this respect, I think this report is worthwhile.
sooner said:
Best,
Marc-A.
Kim Coxon
Moderator
I have been following this thread with interest. Initially, I wasn't going to post to it because in many ways it raises more questions for me than I can answer. I can understand nearly all of the arguments here and in very many ways agree with most of them.
I am not a "vet" because I am still in. So far I have served 32 years in the RAF and I am still serving with another 3 years to do. In that time, I have been involved either directly or indirectly with all the conflicts the Brits have been involved in. I have lost a good number of friends within those and even more in training. Whilst in Scotland, in one accident, 1/5 of the Squadron lost their lives and I attended 8 funerals of good friends in less than a week. I couldn't attend the others.
About 6 months ago, I was talking with a friend who had a conversation with a 15 year old. That lad said he thought war was great, he played it on his computer all the time! I see some of the reports in the media and the way in which they distort some facts. How they support the "troops" in their actions but show outrage when a civilian is hurt. At times, they too seem to potray conflict as a clinical computer game. I cannot express what I feel about it because it is too complex but it is a nasty terrible business and should be avoided if at all posssible. I think most service people would say the same. At the same time, it is our job to carrry it out if required.
Many cite the Holocaust as a reason pictures should be published. I don't disagree but it didn't stop the ethnic cleansing that happened in the Balkans. there are some horrific pictures and to a large extent, I don't think it is necessay to publish those in open media. Why? Well if you haven't seen it, it makes little sense. It is too far removed from most peoples experience. There is the danger that it is done for sensationalism. At the same time it is very important that what happens is not hidden for political ends. My Grandfather was decorated as a dispatch rider in WWI and his lungs were permanently damaged by a gas attack. At the time, the horror of what happened in the trenches was not reported on "at home". I wonder if it would have been different if there had been war reporters then in the same way there are now.
So back to the subject of this thread. Such a photograph does show the some of the "cost" of war in a way that most can relate to and as such I see nothing wrong in publishing it providing it is no done for "sensation" and providing it does not invade the family's privacy. Some may agree with such things, some may not. In this case, the family may have been pressured into holding a public event and inviting the press. In that case the fault lies not with the press but with those who advised them. Therefore I think the court judgement was correct.
At the same time, I can fully understand those who say that although it was legal, perhaps it shouldn't have been done.I would certainly agree with that if it had purely been for financial gain. Ultimately, it comes down to the photographer. It will always be easier for them to publish if they do not know the person involved. Photos are important in these cases. They are probably the best way to let people understand the realities of armed conflict. How this is done is probably best left to the photographer and that will always cause dissent depending on who the person looking at the picture is and on what the subject is.
Kim
I am not a "vet" because I am still in. So far I have served 32 years in the RAF and I am still serving with another 3 years to do. In that time, I have been involved either directly or indirectly with all the conflicts the Brits have been involved in. I have lost a good number of friends within those and even more in training. Whilst in Scotland, in one accident, 1/5 of the Squadron lost their lives and I attended 8 funerals of good friends in less than a week. I couldn't attend the others.
About 6 months ago, I was talking with a friend who had a conversation with a 15 year old. That lad said he thought war was great, he played it on his computer all the time! I see some of the reports in the media and the way in which they distort some facts. How they support the "troops" in their actions but show outrage when a civilian is hurt. At times, they too seem to potray conflict as a clinical computer game. I cannot express what I feel about it because it is too complex but it is a nasty terrible business and should be avoided if at all posssible. I think most service people would say the same. At the same time, it is our job to carrry it out if required.
Many cite the Holocaust as a reason pictures should be published. I don't disagree but it didn't stop the ethnic cleansing that happened in the Balkans. there are some horrific pictures and to a large extent, I don't think it is necessay to publish those in open media. Why? Well if you haven't seen it, it makes little sense. It is too far removed from most peoples experience. There is the danger that it is done for sensationalism. At the same time it is very important that what happens is not hidden for political ends. My Grandfather was decorated as a dispatch rider in WWI and his lungs were permanently damaged by a gas attack. At the time, the horror of what happened in the trenches was not reported on "at home". I wonder if it would have been different if there had been war reporters then in the same way there are now.
So back to the subject of this thread. Such a photograph does show the some of the "cost" of war in a way that most can relate to and as such I see nothing wrong in publishing it providing it is no done for "sensation" and providing it does not invade the family's privacy. Some may agree with such things, some may not. In this case, the family may have been pressured into holding a public event and inviting the press. In that case the fault lies not with the press but with those who advised them. Therefore I think the court judgement was correct.
At the same time, I can fully understand those who say that although it was legal, perhaps it shouldn't have been done.I would certainly agree with that if it had purely been for financial gain. Ultimately, it comes down to the photographer. It will always be easier for them to publish if they do not know the person involved. Photos are important in these cases. They are probably the best way to let people understand the realities of armed conflict. How this is done is probably best left to the photographer and that will always cause dissent depending on who the person looking at the picture is and on what the subject is.
Kim
FrankS
Registered User
I love this place!
Bill Pierce
Well-known
FrankS said:
Folks on opposite sides of an important, emotion charged issue not only not attacking each other, but supporting each other. Pretty impressive.
aoresteen
Well-known
I'm in Iraq right now and I read this thread with great interest. It's very hard to explain to someone who is not here exaclty what is going on.
I agree the the Court's decision but I would not have published the picture. I would have gotten a different angle showing the back of coffin and the people gathered. Perhaps Harpers had such an image - why did they choose the one that they did? It would be interesting to see the images that they had to choose from.
Bill, I respectfully dissagree with you. There are TOO many horrible images out there. Go to any of the AQI websites and you will see terrible beheadings and such. Not for the faint of heart.
I see mostly classified reports and I can't discuss them. What I can say is that you have to dig deep to find out what the soldiers, sailors, airmen, & marines here face on a daily basis. It's out there but it is not being reported.
Every time I see an IED/EFP report that has casulties I know the pain that the families are going through back home. Please consider them when choosing a photograph to publish. You can tell the story and respect them at the same time.
I'm not a Democrat or Republican - I'm an independant and am registered as such. I'm 54 years old and was on active duty in 1971 so I have seen a lot. Too much and sometimes you should just put your camera away.
I agree the the Court's decision but I would not have published the picture. I would have gotten a different angle showing the back of coffin and the people gathered. Perhaps Harpers had such an image - why did they choose the one that they did? It would be interesting to see the images that they had to choose from.
Bill, I respectfully dissagree with you. There are TOO many horrible images out there. Go to any of the AQI websites and you will see terrible beheadings and such. Not for the faint of heart.
I see mostly classified reports and I can't discuss them. What I can say is that you have to dig deep to find out what the soldiers, sailors, airmen, & marines here face on a daily basis. It's out there but it is not being reported.
Every time I see an IED/EFP report that has casulties I know the pain that the families are going through back home. Please consider them when choosing a photograph to publish. You can tell the story and respect them at the same time.
I'm not a Democrat or Republican - I'm an independant and am registered as such. I'm 54 years old and was on active duty in 1971 so I have seen a lot. Too much and sometimes you should just put your camera away.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Respectfully Tony - your perspective is very well appreciated, but also very very different from the majority of the American public. You've seen more than almost all of them, it makes sense that you feel it's too much.
Most people (myself included) are blissfully unaware of what "the horrors of war" really means.
Most people (myself included) are blissfully unaware of what "the horrors of war" really means.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
aoresteen said:
Last edited:
BillBingham2
Registered User
Tony,
Thank you for your service and I pray it continues for years, until you’re ready to retire.
I agree that perhaps another angle could have shown the same thing without the body. I do not know as I was not there. As the casket was open, I do not disagree with the publishing of the shot. It obviously was a very well attended event and I think that’s important for people to see. This war has dredged up a very sad side of America in many ways. People protesting at funerals is IMHO a new low. I have yet to meet a solder, marine, airman or sailor that likes war. It is their job and thank God we have some of the best to help protect us. Desert Storm was prosecuted in manner that we had few casualties, we are not so lucky this time. When I look at what my kids see of this war, compared to what I saw of Vietnam (I was about the same age) there is such a different in the level of completeness. This one is sanitized by the team in charge and I think essays like this one help show one part of the truth that might help shake us awake.
I never was called to Armed service so I helped the country in other ways. The American Red Cross, a volunteer fire department and several volunteer ambulance corps. I still do in a way by giving time to the Boy Scouts, but that’s partially for my kids and myself too.
I know I do not have a good understanding of the toll America is paying both in lives lost and lives that will never be the same. IMHO we are not giving our sons and daughters the time to decompress and return to their “Normal” lives that we did for my dad and uncles after WWII. It seems that some are hiding a lot of corners being cut from the Americans, hiding the toll this war and the one in Afghanistan is taking on our best and brightest.
Tony, be smart, be safe and thank you.
I hope that other picture essays will continue to share the truth of this war.
B2 (;->
Thank you for your service and I pray it continues for years, until you’re ready to retire.
I agree that perhaps another angle could have shown the same thing without the body. I do not know as I was not there. As the casket was open, I do not disagree with the publishing of the shot. It obviously was a very well attended event and I think that’s important for people to see. This war has dredged up a very sad side of America in many ways. People protesting at funerals is IMHO a new low. I have yet to meet a solder, marine, airman or sailor that likes war. It is their job and thank God we have some of the best to help protect us. Desert Storm was prosecuted in manner that we had few casualties, we are not so lucky this time. When I look at what my kids see of this war, compared to what I saw of Vietnam (I was about the same age) there is such a different in the level of completeness. This one is sanitized by the team in charge and I think essays like this one help show one part of the truth that might help shake us awake.
I never was called to Armed service so I helped the country in other ways. The American Red Cross, a volunteer fire department and several volunteer ambulance corps. I still do in a way by giving time to the Boy Scouts, but that’s partially for my kids and myself too.
I know I do not have a good understanding of the toll America is paying both in lives lost and lives that will never be the same. IMHO we are not giving our sons and daughters the time to decompress and return to their “Normal” lives that we did for my dad and uncles after WWII. It seems that some are hiding a lot of corners being cut from the Americans, hiding the toll this war and the one in Afghanistan is taking on our best and brightest.
Tony, be smart, be safe and thank you.
I hope that other picture essays will continue to share the truth of this war.
B2 (;->