Handful of images for thousands of deaths

The case of a freelance photographer in Iraq who was barred from covering the Marines after he posted photos on the Internet of several of them dead has underscored what some journalists say is a growing effort ...

[Johannson]

Do these loons have no sense of decency left at all? To want to take and publish photographs of the dead? And what for? A political statement, first, last and only. If it were one of their loved ones, they would howl at the moon to stop it. Why not take photos of bodies in car accidents out on the Kennedy? Why not a photo of the child drowning victim in the lake? Get a good closeup, will you? The depth of human depravity is reflected in these so-called civil liberties and journalist people who seek to do these things. Journalists? No self-respecting news medium in this country will publish photographs of mangled bodies. One word about these persons: DISGUSTING.

[Ex-Marine]

This article misses the point that it is about respect both for our serviceman and our dead. In most of the Southern states formerly known as the Confederacy, automobile traffic comes to a complete stop in both directions during funeral processions. This is out of respect for their dead. I expect the comments from the comrades who reside in the People's Republic of Chicago will attack this article. That's all right because those of us who protect this country will continue to do so because of our nature and love for it.

[gpudlo]

This is bull. I can't see how anyone can justify not allowing journalists to visually document this war, and yes that includes graphic images of the fatal consequences of our actions. I do not see how taking photographs of the dead can desecrate their memories and sacrifices. If anything they will demonstrate the brutality of their ultimate sacrifices. Regardless if some people are uncomfortable with the images, no one is forcing them to view them. It's almost like pornography; true some people may be opposed to it but no one is forcing nude photographs upon them, it's a personal decision wether or not to look at it. Either way I feel like the censorship is a violation of rights. Maybe more Americans would be aware of the horrendous deaths that are going on over seas (while most of us carry on with our petty lives as if the war isn't even happening) if there was more visual documentation.

[AbbyC]

Censorship: bad. Openness: Good. But what if it's not a black and white issue? Security in this war is more important (and better adhered to) than ever before. The General has a point - releasing the images is dangerous, giving the bad guys a morale boost AND a hard and fast "after action report" of their attack. I'm a good liberal, a strong defender of the first amendment, but desperately don't want more of our guys killed as a result of these images. I say put a time delay on the release. It can be up to the unit commander with which the journalist is embedded. A week, a month, even a year, as long as it is presented as "perishable intel" - and it's past its expiration date to be useful to the adversary.

[Bush sucks]

This is the new America. I am not for the photographing of a dead U.S. soldier by any means. However, I am completly against the Bush administration and the civil liberties they seem to so easily take away. We have been under a regeme for the last eight years. I truly pray every night that McCain does not get elected. I just don't think the country can survive a third term Bush. Death is a part of war, and for a photographer to be banned from a war zone because he took pictures, uncensored honest pictures, of what war truly looks like is just absurd. But this whole administration has been absurd. Good bye George W. November can't get here fast enough. (I hope this blog does not get censored)

[Leroy Jenkins]

We don't want to see dead Americans, only dead terrorists...

[Power_1]

Bush sucks wrote:

This is the new America. I am not for the photographing of a dead U.S. soldier by any means. However, I am completly against the Bush administration and the civil liberties they seem to so easily take away. We have been under a regeme for the last eight years. I truly pray every night that McCain does not get elected. I just don't think the country can survive a third term Bush. Death is a part of war, and for a photographer to be banned from a war zone because he took pictures, uncensored honest pictures, of what war truly looks like is just absurd. But this whole administration has been absurd. Good bye George W. November can't get here fast enough.(I hope this blog does not get censored)

You don't allow the victims of murders and traffic accidents to be posted , what makes this any different? Oh yeah, it is good for your side politically. Which just goes to show you, there is no right or wrong actions, just right or wrong ideologies.

[Truth about war]

Check the NY Times website. There is a slideshow that accompanies this article that puts this article in a better and stronger context.

[Jake]

Newspapers don't publish bloody photos of car accident victims for the same reason. Those photos serve no purpose other than causing more grief for family members. Politics aside, how many people would want pictures of their death loved ones splashing on newspapers?(around the world in some cases). It comes down to one thing: paying respect to the deceases.

[Bush sucks]

Power_1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't allow the victims of murders and traffic accidents to be posted , what makes this any different? Oh yeah, it is good for your side politically. Which just goes to show you, there is no right or wrong actions, just right or wrong ideologies.

I am going to try and tread very lightly here. A single murder or traffic accident, although tragic, does not affect the entire country. This war effects every single American from Seattle to the Florida keys, and from Baja to Buffalo. The Bush administration has done every thing they can, including censorship, to sanitize this war. These kids, and they are kids, have been sent to the slaughter over lies and personal agendas. 4,000 plus dead and counting. Not to mention the 6,000 plus and counting that made it back from the war and either attempted or succeded in commiting suicide. The american people deserve to know what is really going on in Iraq and Afganistan. During Viet Nam, you could not pick up a paper or watch the news, without seeing exactly what was happening. Thats why the war was stopped, because the people had enough.President Johnson bowed out and Nixon knew he would not be elected unless he promised that he would start pulling troops out of south-east Asia. Pick up your paper today and try and find more than 20 or 25 lines on the war. We are in a war and you will find more press on gas prices and the housing market. It is a very sad day in this country, and the sheeple seem to let it continue. Again, I will never try and take away from the tragedy of a murder or a fatal car accident. But this war is a much grander scale. And with contiued censureship, I don't think the American people will ever be able to make an honest opinion pro or con.

[Jake]

Bush sucks wrote:

This is the new America. I am not for the photographing of a dead U.S. soldier by any means. However, I am completly against the Bush administration and the civil liberties they seem to so easily take away. We have been under a regeme for the last eight years. I truly pray every night that McCain does not get elected. I just don't think the country can survive a third term Bush. Death is a part of war, and for a photographer to be banned from a war zone because he took pictures, uncensored honest pictures, of what war truly looks like is just absurd. But this whole administration has been absurd. Good bye George W. November can't get here fast enough.(I hope this blog does not get censored)

Let me ask you this: If it's YOUR brother whose mangle body is in the paper, to be seen around the world, would you approve it?
I didn't think so.

[Bush sucks]

Jake wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me ask you this: If it's YOUR brother whose mangle body is in the paper, to be seen around the world, would you approve it?
I didn't think so.

If it stops the lunacy that is the Iraq war...you better belive I would.

[Jake]

Bush sucks wrote:

<quoted text>If it stops the lunacy that is the Iraq war...you better belive I would.

You only say that because you don't have a brother in Iraq. I do.

[Jitters]

gpudlo wrote:

This is bull. I can't see how anyone can justify not allowing journalists to visually document this war, and yes that includes graphic images of the fatal consequences of our actions. I do not see how taking photographs of the dead can desecrate their memories and sacrifices. If anything they will demonstrate the brutality of their ultimate sacrifices. Regardless if some people are uncomfortable with the images, no one is forcing them to view them. It's almost like pornography; true some people may be opposed to it but no one is forcing nude photographs upon them, it's a personal decision wether or not to look at it. Either way I feel like the censorship is a violation of rights. Maybe more Americans would be aware of the horrendous deaths that are going on over seas (while most of us carry on with our petty lives as if the war isn't even happening) if there was more visual documentation.

Unfortunately, vivid photos of the carnage of war have not been a deterrent to the corrupt and greedy self serving slime who wage it. Were it only so!

[Oak Park]

Check out the photos that were published with this same article on the NY Times website. For some reason, the Tribune omitted all 12 photographs.
Is the Trib looking out for the interests of its readers, or its own?

[Yeahs]

Johannson wrote:

Do these loons have no sense of decency left at all? To want to take and publish photographs of the dead? And what for? A political statement, first, last and only. If it were one of their loved ones, they would howl at the moon to stop it. Why not take photos of bodies in car accidents out on the Kennedy? Why not a photo of the child drowning victim in the lake? Get a good closeup, will you? The depth of human depravity is reflected in these so-called civil liberties and journalist people who seek to do these things. Journalists? No self-respecting news medium in this country will publish photographs of mangled bodies. One word about these persons: DISGUSTING.

I think you're kind of missing the point. Photos of accidents are inappropriate, but documenting deaths that could have been prevented may actually save future lives. I think Americans are pretty numb to the reality of the human cost of the Iraq war exactly because there is no real human face to it. We are given numbers, statistics, and vague accounts; if we were hit with the awful reality I feel that there would be more outrage and a louder call for an end. Look at the anti-Vietnam war movements - people wonder why the public outcry now isn't equal, I believe it has a lot to do with the media downplay of the situation - softening the harsh realities of the reports coming out of there. People were inundated with images of the horrors of the violence of Vietnam and were stirred to action; we are a visual culture who is often acted upon more by what we see than what we read. Seeing the reality makes it more personal and pressing.

On another note, pictures of Iraqi dead are flashed all the time on the news yet you don't seem to be bothered by that - do you find them less human and less deserving of sensitivity? I've seen many pictures of dead children, killed in bombing raids and the like, yet it's taboo to do the same with American bodies? Those Iraqi bodies are allowed to be shown to you to reinforce the image of Iraqis being savages who are killing each other in the street (notice you'll only see these pics in relation to suicide bombings). There is no propriety in media - just a careful filtering of images so that the public maintains the views that are in line with what is best for 'American' interests. Not trying to get 'big brother' about it, but we do live in an age of censorship and careful doctoring of news media - agenda pushing, etc..

As for showing photos of those maimed in accidents, they used to do so in drivers' ed courses, and reckless driving used to be more rare. People don't think of the consequences of drunk driving now that they can't be made aware of the horrible consequences often brought about by it; teens drive like maniacs because they haven't seen what might happen to them. Not saying you should slap people in the face with images of gore, but showing representations of death aren't off the mark in what needs to be done.

[uncle_aina]

Tread lightly my ass. Jake, if you support Iraq so much...why don't you enlist and get your butt over there?

BUSH SUCKS has it right, and he was trying to be diplomatic and you still gave him grief. Give me all the grief you want because I wont have time to come back and check your comments.
Bottom line - anyone who supports this farce we can a "justified" war is a fool. We went in under falsehoods and now the US Government is censoring our own media. I WANT to see the dead guys. No, I don't want them dead - never -but if they are killed, I want to see how it happened. Otherwise who know how they died? Were they in an exposed position? Did their commander make a bad choice?
I can sit and watch hundreds of guys die during WW2 because we didn't censor as much then as now. What, are you saying that they are less heroic than the guys now? That they deserve different treatment? I saw slow motion film from Saipan of US troops getting ripped up by gunfire...far more graphic than anything I've ever seen for Iraq. What THOSE GUYS deserve to be shown dying, but not our guys now?

And in classic Bush manner, they come up with a "reason"...can't show the enemy what happened. Should we have all been barred from seeing 9/11 for this reason? Should people have been able to see film from Pearl Harbor?

Bury your head...hide the reality..all in the name of somehow preserving "respect" for the dead. Seems like our country has gone from a land of thinkers/leaders to a land of listeners/followers.
I am ashamed that the US has turned into a police state led by a fool.

[uncle_aina]

And one more point before you rip me a new one...if I'm wrong..name ONE enemy leader in Irag who we are fighting against.
And of course Bin Laden is no where near Iraq so can't use him..and he's still on the loose after 7 years...

[Oak Park]

Heres a link to the full article. Look for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middl...

[matt]

War is never pretty.Take off your shades people.
Showing respect is one thing,pretending only
we Americans bleed is another.