This week, an interesting behind the scenes debate played out between the Associated Press, a deceased Marine’s parents, and the Secretary of Defense.
NEW YORK (AP) — The Associated Press is distributing a photo of a Marine fatally wounded in battle, choosing after a period of reflection to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, 21, of New Portland, Maine, was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.
The image shows fellow Marines helping Bernard after he suffered severe leg injuries. He was evacuated to a field hospital where he died on the operating table…
The AP waited until after Bernard’s burial in Madison, Maine, on Aug. 24 to distribute its story and the pictures. An AP reporter met with his parents, allowing them to see the images.
Bernard’s father after seeing the image of his mortally wounded son said he opposed its publication, saying it was disrespectful to his son’s memory. John Bernard reiterated his viewpoint in a telephone call to the AP on Wednesday.
“We understand Mr. Bernard’s anguish. We believe this image is part of the history of this war. The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice,” said AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski.
Thursday afternoon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called AP President Tom Curley asking that the news organization respect the wishes of Bernard’s father and not publish the photo. Curley and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said they understood this was a painful issue for Bernard’s family and that they were sure that factor was being considered by the editors deciding whether or not to publish the photo, just as it had been for the AP editors who decided to distribute it.
See the photo here. (Graphic, yes, but taken at enough of a distance so as not to be gruesome.) Read more about Bernard’s death here, and more on the AP’s decision to release the photo here and here.
53 married woman with a BA and MA from the University of Illinois, formerly of Wilmette IL, currently living in Norfolk--VA--among many active and retired military. I say to journalists, after lawyers only a dispicable and journailist would take and/or publish photos of stricken Marines--when at any time those photos would be used to build a political position or enhance the journalist's career with Ggramling award. Perhaps nothing short of a law suit on behalf of the Marine's parents suing AP and the journalism school which the photographer graduated from would improve policiy and performance in this area. To claim this photo was needed to make a point of the suffering of war is like Bill Ayers saying he needed to blow up the establishment (and would do it again) to protest the war.
#1 Posted by Margaret Mcintyre, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 12:52 PM
All present and future Marines and members of other military services should be made aware of AP's actions in this matter so they can provide the appropriate help and cooperation during future involvement with AP personnel.
#2 Posted by Greg Oveson, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 01:18 PM
What I see when I look at this photo is a brave solider who has been wounded and the friends who are helping him. To me, this is a story of life in war, not death (which didn't happen here on the field). I don't think it's disrespectful of Bernard's life - I think it's a testament to it. But I do think it's disrepectful of the AP to ASK his family about the photo and then ignore their wishes. Why ask if you are going to ignore their opinion?
#3 Posted by Lisa, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 01:42 PM
As a former member of the military I take a tremendous amount of pride in knowing that I have honorably served our great country so we could all continue to enjoy the rights and freedoms we hold so dear.
The journalist who took the picture had the right to do so, the AP has the right to publish it. That is not an accident, the man in the photo is a big part of the reason those things are possible. To distribute the photos against the will of the family under the guise of someones perception of the need to show the the "grimness of war" is atrocious and is clear abuse of of these freedoms that this young man made the ultimate sacrifice for.
As a Marine he was proud, honorable and devoted to to serve meritoriously, your exploitation of this incredible individual in a moment of anguish is a despicable mishandling of your freedoms.
#4 Posted by James Stewart, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 02:10 PM
And journalists wonder why NOBODY has any respect for them!!!! Of all the dispicable, low down, self serving things I have ever seen a photographer do, this has to be the worst. I sincerely hope that somewhere in her worthless life something happens that broadcasts her pain, provided she has any feelings beyond herself, to the entire world. She should have been FIRED, NOT TREATED LIKE A HERO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#5 Posted by Jane, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 02:29 PM
100 years from now I'd like for my grandchildren's children to be able to get an accurate idea of what happened during the war.
Margaret, be serious please. The photographer isn't trying "to make a point about the suffering of war," he's trying to RECORD WHAT HAPPENED. And recording what happened is much more important than offending a few people.
Mr Bernard, the war doesn't belong to you. It belongs to all of us. If your son wanted to fight in a secret, hidden war, then he was fighting for the wrong country.
This is America, we're a democracy, and as citizens we all need to have a very clear, detailed idea of what is going on in these wars we fight, which is why we have (and need) a constitutionally protected FREE PRESS documenting these things.
In China, reporters aren't allowed to file detailed reports about the Chinese military. Perhaps Mr Bernard would feel more comfortable raising his family there.
#6 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 02:52 PM
I HOPE AP's President Thomas Curley and his rotten greedy, egotistical, politically driven crew ALL ROT IN HELL!!!!!! Publishing that photo of that (Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard)dying in combat is just WRONG,WRONG,WRONG!!!!!!. I would tell him too if I had his email address handy.
I pray for his family and for every soldier that's fighting and dying for us anywhere in the world. EVERYBODY AT THE AP COMPANY SHOULD HANG THERE HEADS IN SHAME. But, NO, they are convicted that they are doing the right thing. BOLONEY. I am so upset and saddened.
#7 Posted by Ed Schumacher, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 02:52 PM
Shame on you, all who went against the wishes of the soldiers family, and printed the photo of their mortally wounded son. This young man was not his mothers soldier but her SON. As the mother of a child in the military, a veteran of the Iraq war, I prayed every day for his and others safe return and I give thanks to God every day for his and others safe return, I also mourn for those who haven't returned safely and their families. If this was my son, shown mortally wounded, I would be horrified to see how he suffered in his final hours. I knew my son was in danger when he was there. I would not have needed or wanted a reminder of how horrible his death had to be in order to fight for his country.
I've said for a long time now, papparazzi, a dirty name to most journalists, go after Hollywood, now the poitical press corps are no better than their dirty cousins. They're just after politicians instead of movie stars. This article just adds fuel to my own personal belief and distrust of American media. Again, from the mother of a soldier living his life every day for your personal freedom.....SHAME ON YOU!
#8 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:01 PM
This war is being waged with our money, our authority, and most especially with our children, brothers, and fathers. Thus, despite wanting to be treated like children and not see "the icky stuff", we should NOT be protected from the realities of it. On the contrary, we should be seeing it in all of its unsanitized brutality and sadness.
Further, news photographers are there to *document the war*. It is their job. What should she have been taking pictures of during this firefight? Just artsy pictures of the trees and houses?
Wake up, America. It's not a video game.
Again, his death is a tragedy - but if the image helps us understand how terrible war really is, he will not have died in vain.
#9 Posted by A Fellow Photographer, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:07 PM
"If this was my son, shown mortally wounded, I would be horrified to see how he suffered in his final hours."
Well if that were to happen, then don't look at the photos.
Like Carly Simon said, this song isn't about you.
#10 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:10 PM
Tell me what americans dont know the horrors of war. Who needs to have photos like that to educate them about war. To disregard a family's request - to trample on their feelings - publicize the death of their child for ratings or awards in simple competition with other uncaring money hungry government sanctioned photographers. You and the CEO of AP are beyond disgusting and horribly dispicable. I have 2 children who are veterans -who have served their country and a son in law still serving in the military - my son served 2 tours over in the "Sand Box" and I so very proud of them all, and grateful they remain safe. I cannot imagine what that poor Marines family is having to endure and if there is any legal recourse against AP I hope they go for it.
#11 Posted by Marcie, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:13 PM
Of course somebody thinks of a law suit. Put it away, law suits have neutered the US over the last century. It's a selfish emotional reaction really. Why not ban cameras if you are so afraid. Look, these things happen, so look yourself in the mirror and accept that you live in a country that isn't always loving and nice. A law suit to hide truths, how about we crawl under a rock and hide, and then judge at a distance after turning off our middle america couch potato TV shows and opinions. Yes it's "not right" and "not necessary" to publish these photos, but who are you to know your opinion is law? And for people who think the photographer should be fired...it seems you live a protected life. Easy to stay away from the front lines and point fingers, especiialy when protected by your emotions and opinions. You want Marines to stay alive, let the terror war come to the US and leave the world alone. Appauling is the fact that the US perpetuates war to keep a good global credit rating, now that's sick. Fix that with your emotional law suits, not the symptom of dead Marine photos taken after the US enguages another country on their soil. We should expect no less.
#12 Posted by Tony Zignago, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:14 PM
Hardrada--
How dare you question Mr. Bernard and suggest that he move from this country! His son sacrificed his life and he sacrificed his son, heir to his family name. Who do you think you are! What have you sacrificed for this country? I would die a million times over for my children, don't you think Mr. Bernard is feeling that too. Obviously you are as selfish as the media who wanted to sell newspapers and magazines at the cost of the Bernard family's grief. There were millions of years of wars that were never photographed, if you want your grandchildrens grandchildren to know the horrors of war then speak with them just as my ancestors did before the Europeans landed on these shores. Pictures don't tell stories people do.
As far as the photographer recording history, the controversy is not that the photographer took a picture, the controversy is in how it is being used to sell said newspapers and magazines. This picture does alot more than "offend a few people". It touches on the very core of decency and respect for the dead. From the words in your blog it seems you have respect for your opinion only and a need to exploit the sanctity of death and grief.
Until you've sacrificed a child to the military, in war or peace, you have no right to judge anyone on their opinion....unless you believe your opinion...and what you wrote is YOUR opinion, is the only one! To you and how you handled your blog I say a personal shame on you!
#13 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:22 PM
I have not seen the photo, but I can imagine the anguish it caused Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard's family. I don't understand why AP
did not honor the families wishes WHEN they asked them NOT to publish the photos. I know the media has a job to do and responsiblity to the American public, BUT NOT at the expense of exploiting a dying soldier. My heart is heavy for the Bernard family.
#14 Posted by Nona Hamilton, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:24 PM
No you're right Hardrada, it's not about me or you or anyone else commenting on this article--it's about Lance Corporal Bernard and his family's grief, the fact that their opinion was requested and then ignored, adding to their anguish over losing their son to an enemy combatant, in a foreign land. In your selfish, I'm an American and I have a right to know stance, you just aren't going to get it are you. I'm sorry for you. I hope you never have to share in how the Bernards are feeling now, giving their son for their country and their privacy as well.
Read the bill of rights darlin', maybe it will help you to distinguish between your rights and your priviledges.
#15 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:48 PM
to fellow photographer - I would wager that the millions of american who have over the years -that have had family members in the military or have themselves served - there would be no need for photos - I dont know any one who considers the war and the reasons for it as icky stuff - the point is the family of the fallen marine made a plea not to have their childs death publicized - that was one photo - that wasnt directing anyone to take pictures of the hills and trees - it was a plea from a family for some privacy - and hardrada - what you are saying to this poor family is its a shame that your son died for your freedoms but my rights say tough chit to you I want what I want and you dont have the right to privacy - one of the simple rights that you son died for. It was a simple plea from a devastated family for privacy and compassion in their time of need and money prevailed and their feelings were trampled -- Im sure that journalist could come up with thousands of photos to tell the real story -- I have some sitting in my house.
#16 Posted by marcie, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:51 PM
" There were millions of years of wars that were never photographed, if you want your grandchildrens grandchildren to know the horrors of war then speak with them just as my ancestors did before the Europeans landed on these shores. Pictures don't tell stories people do."
First of all, humans have only been fighting each other for about 30,000 years.
Secondly, can't you see the trouble with all those wars that weren't photographed???? For thousands of years, all we knew about warfare was what the victors CHOSE to tell us in many cases.
Historians still haven't been able to determine the real causes or results of many Iron Age wars thanks to all the dishonest, one-sided accounts that are still extant. For example, there's a school of thought out there that contrary to popular belief, Alexander the Great actually lost at the Battle of the Hydaspes River.
In Herodotus' Histories, he tells of a Greek woman who was gang-raped to death by Persian soldiers during Xerxes' invasion.
I'm sure the father of that poor Greek woman would have thought "Please don't write about my daughter after what she went through."
But if Herodotus catered to the wishes of that one offended man, the rest of us would remain in the dark about Persian atrocities in Greece during Xerxes' campaign.
One man's suffering is tragic, yes, but it's temporary. History on the other hand is permanent, so let's make sure we get an accurate, thorough and detailed account the first time, every time.
#17 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 03:58 PM
"In your selfish, I'm an American and I have a right to know stance, you just aren't going to get it are you."
No, I 'get it,' I'm just not convinced. I understand the argument you're making; it just doesn't carry a lot of weight with me.
For the record, it's not an "I'm an American and I have a right to know" stance. It's a "I'm a citizen in a democracy, therefore I am REQUIRED to know because I'm responsible for determining public policy" stance.
"Read the bill of rights darlin', maybe it will help you to distinguish between your rights and your priviledges."
I have read the Bill of Rights, more often than you I can assure. And I don't recall anything about "priviledges," or privileges for that matter.
#18 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 04:07 PM
I don't have to see somebody blown up or see someone being burned to understand how that person must of suffered, just by putting my hand over fire will more then give me the message. Not only this brings more pain to this family but also adds additional anguish to the serviceman and their family that are serving in the war zone. The only reason I can conclude is the persue of money and lack of respect and decency.
#19 Posted by Raymond Pastrana, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 04:39 PM
The point to all of this is that:
The AP published a photo that the family had asked them not to
They took liberties that they were entitled to despite the requests that they would not do so. The argument about recording history is a valid one but any journalist that is worthy of their credentials could have described the scene and kept the victim nameless and save that photo for the archives but they chose to depict it in this way causing unnecessary grief for the family.
As Americans we pride ourselves on our compassion for our fellow human beings but have spoiled that perception with this selfish act. There are no shortage of wartime photos, this one did not need to be published.
#20 Posted by James Stewart, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 04:49 PM
"The argument about recording history is a valid one but any journalist that is worthy of their credentials could have described the scene and kept the victim nameless and save that photo for the archives."
When you say "save that photo for the archives," you mean to seal it from public view?
This isn't the Soviet Union, you know. Either you have an open government, or you don't.
#21 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 05:08 PM
You've proven my point with your last statement. The Bill of Rights outlines your rights. Looking at photographs of war is not a right it's a "privilege", thank you for pointing out my spelling error. I'm sure it further elevates your ego.
Yes you are a a citizen in a democracy, let me put a camera in your house, against your will, and we'll see how you feel about my right to know how you live.
The men and women of the military don't sign up to be public figures. They don't need to further their careers by having paparazzi following them around keeping them in the public eye. Unfortunately, there's plenty of work for our men and women in uniform.
The center of this argument is, the family was asked their opinion, then the AP ignored their answer and did what they thought would make them money. No one is upset that the photo was taken, the upset comes from the way this soldier was exploited by the media. I hope this helps you understand "the argument" most of us are making.
#22 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 05:09 PM
I am very well aware this isn't the Soviet Union and
If I meant to say seal it from public view I would have said so.
Below you will see several definitions of archive, pick one to read while you grind your ax.
ar⋅chive
–noun
1. Usually, archives. documents or records relating to the activities, business dealings, etc., of a person, family, corporation, association, community, or nation.
2. archives, a place where public records or other historical documents are kept.
3. any extensive record or collection of data: The encyclopedia is an archive of world history. The experience was sealed in the archive of her memory.
–verb (used with object)
4. to place or store in an archive: to vote on archiving the city's historic documents.
#23 Posted by James Stewart, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 05:22 PM
"Yes you are a a citizen in a democracy, let me put a camera in your house, against your will, and we'll see how you feel about my right to know how you live."
Again, you're COMPLETELY missing the point.
Is a war being fought on your behalf in my house? If so, then certainly, come on in.
You continue to insist that the only reason the photographer snapped the picture was to pester and irritate the Bernard family, because you're thinking with emotion instead of logic. Be reasonable here.
When you insist that "making money" is the only reason that the AP could possibly have for publishing the photo, you look like a stubborn, petulant child.
At least some of the people here, like James Stewart, are trying to fairly argue that the grief of the Bernard family is more important than posterity. I disagree with him, but at least he isn't being ridiculous.
Your stance is basically just "Soldiers are heroes, journalists are crooks," and that's why it's hard to take your opinions seriously.
#24 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 05:29 PM
James, should the photo be immediately available to the public or not?
Yes or no.
#25 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 05:32 PM
The short answer is yes, it should be available if the owner wishes it to be. Discretion on the part of a conscientious owner would keep it private.
#26 Posted by James Stewart, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 05:46 PM
"stubborn, petulant child"? Well, obviously it takes one to know one. Yes, I am outraged the media is exploiting this young soldier, and sustaining his parents anguish, against their wishes. The "majority" (remember how that word relates to democracy) of those commenting on the media publishing this photo goes beyond "pestering and irritating the Bernard family".
Obviously, in your rush to be right, you didn't read my last comment thoroughly. Let me repeat myself. The family was asked their opinion, then the AP ignored their answer and did what they wanted with the photo. When you grow up and if you live in the real world, maybe you will see that it isn't journalistic realism that stirs the media but the ability to push merchandise.
Having a photo immediately available to the public is much different than publishing it in newspapers and magazines throughout the country.
You, my dear, are missing everyone's point. The Bernard's "right" to privacy in their grief. If the AP wants to publish what they want to publish then don't ask the subjects permission to publish it.
As to your previous comment of, if you don't want to see it don't look. I intend to honor the Bernard's wishes. I'm proud of him in his life, I don't need to see what killed him.
#27 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 05:53 PM
Journalists are like lawyers, only after the money at anyone else expense. Ane for you Hardrada, I hope that if you or one of your family members is ever in a tragic accident that there is someone there to take pictures of you suffering while you die.
#28 Posted by Paul Julian, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 06:04 PM
Hardrada--The point I was trying to make was, the battlefield was this soldiers house, the reporter should have recognized this, I'm sorry you didn't see the bigger picture. He had a right to be buried and remembered with dignity. His parents had a right to remember him as he was and not as the war ravaged him in death.
#29 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 06:23 PM
"Having a photo immediately available to the public is much different than publishing it in newspapers and magazines throughout the country."
Not really. If Getty Images, for example, makes a photo public, that means that publications that take their photos from Getty can publish it immediately.
" If the AP wants to publish what they want to publish then don't ask the subjects permission to publish it."
Here, you have your facts wrong. Read the AP's statement again. They showed Mr Bernard the photo before publishing it.
They did not "ask his permission" to publish it. They asked him his opinion, and said they were going ahead and publishing it anyway.
"When you grow up and if you live in the real world, maybe you will see that it isn't journalistic realism that stirs the media but the ability to push merchandise."
Yep, journalists are a bunch of crooks whose ONLY interest is making money. And all auto mechanics are SOLELY interested in cheating car owners, and all hardware stores SOLELY interested in cheating carpenters, and all insurance providers are SOLELY interested in cheating patients.
Give me a friggin' break. Don't you realize how absurd this type of rhetoric sounds?
Yes, journalists make money. But I can cite plenty of examples where newspapers refused to publish 'scandalous' photos of car accidents etc. that would have moved paper because they didn't think they were relevant.
"You, my dear, are missing everyone's point. "
Well, I'm sorry "everyone." I must have missed the confirmation hearing where you were sworn in as spokesperson for "everyone."
#30 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 06:23 PM
Who's being the petulant child now. I guess you did miss that confimation hearing. Stay on your toes maybe you'll get to the next one.
#31 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 06:26 PM
"Hardrada--The point I was trying to make was, the battlefield was this soldiers house, the reporter should have recognized this."
Well, it wasn't. How is Afghanistan "his house"? Afghanistan is much more than simply "Joshua Bernard's house."
I said that taking a camera into my house out of spite, as in your example, would be pointless because US foreign policy is not being conducted in my house.
"He had a right to be buried and remembered with dignity."
He IS being buried and remembered with dignity. The photo doesn't change that.
In fact, more people will remember Joshua Bernard with dignity because of this photo.
"His parents had a right to remember him as he was and not as the war ravaged him in death."
Nobody is infringing on that. Again, nobody is forcing them to look at the photos.
#32 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 06:31 PM
and how is this one photo, in millions of photos taken, relevant and not scandalous? What's the difference between this photo and a photo of a 'scandalous' car accident.
Get YOUR facts straight, AP asked Mr. Bernards opinion/permission. Agreed to meet again with editors to further discuss it's use, then, it was decided to use the photo knowing the families wishes.
#33 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 06:32 PM
Petulant child--I did not say Afghanistan is Bernard's house. I said the battlefield was his house.
#34 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 06:37 PM
"Get YOUR facts straight, AP asked Mr. Bernards opinion/permission."
Brenda, if you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to go through the trouble of ACTUALLY READING the articles you're complaining about.
John Daniszewski, AP senior managing editor said in the article linked above that: Although the family was shown the pictures ahead of time as a courtesy, "we did not ask permission" to use them.
"What's the difference between this photo and a photo of a 'scandalous' car accident."
The war in Afghanistan affects our international standing, our security, our tax dollars etc.
A car accident is merely a car accident.
Honestly, I'm surprised I have to explain this to you.
"Who's being the petulant child now."
That would be you. Not only are you flatly refusing to consider any counterpoints, you're flatly refusing to read the articles you're complaining about.
I, on the other hand, am giving your opinions due consideration, then correcting their logic and sending them back to you.
#35 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 06:42 PM
I have read the article that lead me to this site.
Because you are a historian, I'm sure you'll recall, as in the case of Vietnam, the media had a huge affect on the outcome of that war. Vietnam also affected our international standing, our security, our tax dollars, etc. There are those of us who learned our lesson about the power of the media and it's affect on public opinion. If WWII had the same media coverage allowed in recent history, the US would have lost that war, too.
I'm convinced that you are not giving anyone's opinions any consideration except for your own opinion.
I hope you do well in your next high school debate, I'm giving you alot of practice here. Leave your emotions out of your argument. Your last few comments have been riddled with emotion.
No thanks necessary You're welcome.
#36 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 07:01 PM
"If WWII had the same media coverage allowed in recent history, the US would have lost that war, too."
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Unprovable, of course, but you're entitled to believe that unprovable propositions are true.
"Petulant child--I did not say Afghanistan is Bernard's house. I said the battlefield was his house."
And how, specifically, does that change your argument?
Again, the battlefield is much more than simply "Joshua Bernard's house." Nobody should step onto a battlefield expecting privacy, or anywhere else where international relations are conducted, for that matter.
#37 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 07:15 PM
If WWII had the same media coverage allowed in recent history, the US would have lost that war, too." I wish I could remember where I heard this premise, I haven't written down the origin of everything I've learned in all the decades I've lived.
Opinions, even yours, are unprovable propositions. You're arguing away from the original premise. Should this photo have been used as it was by the media.
You lose.
#38 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 07:24 PM
"I wish I could remember where I heard this premise, I haven't written down the origin of everything I've learned in all the decades I've lived."
Yeah, I wish you could substantiate your arguments too. "The Big Bad Media Would Have Ruined WWII Too" is quite a statement. You're going out on a limb, and the burden of proof is on you.
If you think Vietnam was imminently winnable and the press blew it, you're entitled to that opinion, but don't expect me to take it seriously unless you can substantiate it.
"You're arguing away from the original premise. Should this photo have been used as it was by the media."
What's "the original premise"?
"You lose."
Well if that's the case, then I guess I lose, as Brenda hath deemed it so!
That's some trump card you have there. It's the second-best thing to a logical argument.
I happen to think that your credibility suffered a crippling blow when I demonstrated, empirically, that you blatantly ignored the facts about whether the AP asked permission to print the photo, choosing instead to make an argument based on imaginary "facts" that exist only in your head, but I digress.
#39 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 07:37 PM
What's so dignant about dying in a foreign land in a nameless, faceless war? The faces we usually see are of "This weeks Dead" on a TV show. Usually marines in their official photo standing in front of the flag. It's easy to jerk a tear out for these people, but the final feeling is that it's for the good of the whole operation. Then we get a photo like this and the world stops in fear. This war has been going on for years now, at some point we must get bothered to the point of being offended by these seemingly needless deaths. Materials like this provoke those needed feelings. Feelings that allow you to objectively tell yourself," we must stop this." The moment you join the military, today especially, you join the death lottery. This soldier and family knew this, they can handle the outcome. To say they couldn't is probably untrue. "No son get another type of job" might not have come up. Remember the beheading video, nothing to do with the AP and even more grusome...same "war" same "enemy". No one got to get upset at a figurehead, no one got to sue. Do you see how this argument is about the" bandage" and not the" sore." If we got 3 weeks of pictures soldiers getting killed live then america would cry out for immediate change in disgust. But no, we want to see our figureheads get blamed and all is well on the way to McDonalds. Let's sue? ok. That's it. Who wants money now? Who wants peace? I say, it's been a while since 3 airline planes were hijacked and flown into our buildings, it's time to let these terrorists attempt another logistical attack on the US soil. I bet it would be harder to do nowadays. As far as this foreign policy is concerned, we're asking to get killed over there. This is a faceless global issue and we've spent too much money on it. Sadly, right now, the faces we do put on this war is of 21 year old Marines that have really no say in any of it. When we do put these faces on, Americans criy "No!" What does that tell you? Who is Bin Laden? Almost doesn't seem real does he, but these photos are real. My,all the sudden it's scary. As is everything in life, once the cat's out of th bag...you can't put him back. Photo or no photo, family pain or not, this reality is not to be subjegated by emotional opinions of morality. Let it be known...no fear,no pain or total fear,total pain. It doesn't matter, it's when we stop it that matters. We seem to, as a people, have trouble getting that done, or even talking about it, all the while th world economy stumbles. At that who really cares? and other than needlessly dying in another land, what have we done about it. What's the difference between life and death when you've died for your country? Photo or no photo, do you see how some of you seem emotionally brainwashed, unable to feel what you know is right, rather what you've been programmed to feel is right.
#40 Posted by Tony Z, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 07:43 PM
The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.
The AP reported in a story that it decided to make the image public anyway
“Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. Robert Gates
“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
Curley was “very polite and willing to listen,” and send he would reconvene his editorial team and reconsider, Morrell said. Within the hour, Curley called Morrell and said the editors had reconvened but had ultimately come to the same conclusion.
An AP reporter met with his parents, allowing them to see the images,” the article says. “Bernard's father after seeing the image of his mortally wounded son said he opposed its publication, saying it was disrespectful to his son's memory. John Bernard reiterated his viewpoint in a telephone call to the AP on Wednesday.
“Thursday afternoon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called AP President Tom Curley asking that the news organization respect the wishes of Bernard's father and not publish the photo. Curley and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said they understood this was a painful issue for Bernard's family and that they were sure that factor was being considered by the editors deciding whether or not to publish the photo, just as it had been for the AP editors who decided to distribute it.”
excerpts from Gates: AP Decision Appalling POLITICO
"The Big Bad Media Would Have Ruined WWII Too" you used quotation marks here. Please substantiate this quote.
What's "the original premise"?
I won't repeat myself to a petulant child any more. Again you're letting your emotions get the best of you.
#41 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 08:01 PM
You two are cat fighting. When you are a 21 year old man and you die in a war, you are not a civilian and you are not property of your mom and dad. They might receive your body when you come home, but think about it, especilally in another country like Afghanastan, do you really belong to your family or their privacy preferences?
I'm sure a few soldiers have no families to come home to. who's offended then?
You've been programmed, over time, to feel a families love matters. Can you see how it might not? This sounds awful, but I'm trying to help you understand that you are deeply programmed to belive that a families wishes matter, they don't. This may be a shocking concept. consider this ancient arab (belive it or not) saying: The nature of the rain is the same however it produces thorns in the marshes and flowers in the garden.
meaning: nothing in nature is good or bad, it just is. Something you like, that's you, something you don't like, that's also you, not it, itself.
Point is: If you have a preference about something you change it in the now. The symptom (photo) should be used to guide your preference. We all know we don't want this to happen anymore, so rather than shoot the messenger,(AP) why not provoke real change in the world?
This she,said,she said stuff is self serving crap? You each want to have the last word and be right. About what? I bet it's origin is self interested and based on debate rather than the (not so) obvious outcome.
#42 Posted by Tony Z, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 08:30 PM
how about we start the change with the AP?
#43 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 08:50 PM
"The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published."
(yawn)
And your point is?
You said, and I quote: "If the AP wants to publish what they want to publish then don't ask the subjects permission to publish it."
Where, pray tell, did you get that idea that the AP asked for permission to publish the photo?
Let me guess... you made it up?
Once again, for record, from the article linked above: Although the family was shown the pictures ahead of time as a courtesy, "we did not ask permission" to use them, [AP senior managing editor John] Daniszewski said.
#44 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 08:57 PM
What kind of a country do we live in when a families feelings of love don't matter. No soldier has no one to come home to. My son has dozens of soldiers who are brothers in arms. If he had no blood relatives left in the world, he'd matter to them. Reference all the Vietnam vets who have flocked to the Vietnam memorial to mourn their "brothers". I fought hard to keep my son out of the military his future was bright, he could have gone to any college he chose. Instead, in the aftermath of 911 he chose the Air Force expanding his family by thousands. I recieved several letters of thanks from my sons commanding officer in Iraq thanking me for my sons service. This lets me know, family does matter, even to the military. I think the family was as prepared for the outcome as any parent who sends their child to war can be. The AP shouldn't exploit the horrors of war at this families expense. I really am not a self-serving person. I found the afternoon's debate to be interesting and informative until it turned personal. Other's points of view are always welcome but I don't have to agree with them. I'm still not convnced this photo being published, against the families wishes is the right thing to do. There are many other photographs, just as graphic, that could have been used. The AP went to the family with the picture before publishing it, the family's request should have been honored. That is what seperates humans and animals just as the thorns in the marshes and the flowers in the garden.
#45 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 09:19 PM
Hardrada--Tony's right it's become a cat fight, I'm bored with it, I'm done. But thanks for entertaining me this afternoon. I look forward to sparring with you on another subject another day! :)
#46 Posted by Brenda, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 09:23 PM
Fair enough Brenda. Just acknowledge that journalists are people too. Try to put yourself in a journalist's shoes sometime. Their intentions are no worse than anyone else's.
When people say "the media this" and "the media that," speaking in absolutes like all journalists are scum, I get offended. Seems like sometimes we take for granted the fact that journalists provide us with information that we need to be informed citizens; like a lot of our problems would be solved if only the reporters would shut up and go away.
A Pew Research study conducted in 2008 measured the public's knowledge of current events. At that time, 70% of respondents could correctly identify the Secretary of State (Condi Rice), 50% could correctly identify the President of Venezuela (Hugo Chavez), but only 28% knew roughly how many US soldiers were KIA in Iraq (at that time, 4,000). That's appalling.
Publishing gory photos from the front lines is not something that anyone enjoys doing, but if only 28% of the public has a clue what's going on, then that's not merely a problem for a democracy, but also an indictment of the state of contemporary journalism.
#47 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 4 Sep 2009 at 09:47 PM
Thank you Joshua Bernard and family for giving the ultimate sacrifice for us. We owe you unlimited blessings and prayers. The respect he should have gotten was shown in a movie called "Taking Chance" I am an old lady who has seen losses since World War II and know how agonizing they are. I did not want to see photos of the twin towers disaster showing the victims. I did not look at the photo that is causing his family more undeserved grief. He is beyond any hurt now, but his family is not. We should probably try to get a little more compassion for our fellow man. Somewhere "self" has become our first priority and kindness to others has been relegated to the bottom rung of the ladder.
#48 Posted by margaret godden, CJR on Sat 5 Sep 2009 at 12:17 AM
July 12, 1937, Life magazine, photo caption “Robert Capa’s camera catches a Spanish soldier the instant he is dropped by a bullet through the head in front of Córdoba.”
&
http://www.life.com/image/50659710/in-gallery/26812/in-combat-great-life-war-photos
"This photo, in which three American soldiers lie dead in the sand on Buna Beach in New Guinea, was taken in February 1943, but was not published until September. It was the first time an image of dead American troops appeared in LIFE during World War II without the bodies being draped, in coffins, or otherwise covered up. George Strock's Buna Beach photo -- now acknowledged as a war classic -- and other equally gruesome and graphic pictures were finally OK'd by the Office of War Information's censors, in part because President Roosevelt feared that the American public might be growing complacent about the war and its horrific toll." (from life.com)
that's all i want add to this...
have a good fight. there's too much tension around this subject for me to get involved
#49 Posted by elsosecond, CJR on Sat 5 Sep 2009 at 08:54 AM