Tom,

Thanks for saying this. At least someone from the journalism side is really disgusted by this as well as the military. You are right, the USMC and entire military will not forget this. I totally err on the side of pubishing versus not as well, but it just doesn't make sense in this case.

My take as well is that there had to be another way for the AP to get their point across. Your idea of pubishing a few weeks/months later is a good one. Maybe just mentioning the photo and not publishing. The problem is family consent. When groups like AP trump family victims wishes for some higher purpose, it is a very slippery slope.

www.hooahnews.com

I'm going to sound crass here, but SOMEONE needs to play the 'devil's advocate'.

Pile on if you want... that's what happens... I have my flame-proof BVDs on and I have no interest in discussing this further, because, despite the fact that I write copy for news, I find imagery like this too saddening.

Even that *famous* Capra image of a Spanish Civil War fighter's last moment...

http://www.arts.rpi.edu/~ruiz/Lessons/Photojournalism/Frank%20Capra.jpg
(From RPI's *Art* department)

...bothers me, but I want to know:

Are you accusing AP of impeding our war effort?

You want AP on trial?

...or is it about 'grace'?

'Good Taste'?

I'm SURE AP regularly publish pictures of dying Afghanis and Iraqis, without hearing an uproar from you or most other Americans.

Would you feel that vehement about imagery of an Afghani civilian's last brutal moment being ventilated and turned to pink mush by a Vulcan gun as they were being offered fuel from a purloined gas tanker and that air strike rolled in on them?

Too many people think one US life is Soooo much more significant than 90 Afghan peasants.

That's what the Zionists (and I am descended from that European bloodline), especially the racists of that philosophical persuasion thought about Palestinians, except they were more bluntly honest

"Not worth a Jewish fingernail".

IT IS IS NOT the media's job to pander to that ethno-racist sociological undercurrent in humans.

If they do their job right.

Either NO pictures of the dead and dying should be allowed (MY choice, but I feel, not the best in the long run for a society raised on videogame and war movie violence), or ALL pictures are equally as admissible to the public discourse.

Distasteful, or not.

But if anyone--Afghan, American or other--asked me not to print a photograph of their dying child, I would think long and hard about whether there was a good reason to go against their wishes. In this case, I see none.

We saw WWII, with the Holocaust and Hiroshima and the dead Marines on the islands. We saw Korea, the frozen soldiers. We saw Vietnam, the napalm, My Lai. But since, war and its horrors have been put off limits by the government in power. It pains me that a journalist I admire pimps for self-censorship and criticizes one of the few (perhaps the only) pics of an American dying in Iraq.

Let's see it all. Let's see Bush's war and what it does to our kids. Let's jam war hard into the consciousness of every citizen, so we can engage and be informed on matters too easy to keep our mind off when our eyes are kept away.

Bob Goldich is a friend of mine too, and someone I think well of. You are both wrong. Over 4200 American service members dead in Iraq. Let's see them.

Jefferson:

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree."

"The most effectual means of preventing [the perversion of power into tyranny are] to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts which history exhibits, that possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes."

"The information of the people at large can alone make them the safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom."

"The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

"Though [the people] may acquiesce, they cannot approve what they do not understand."

It's really spooky lecturing a journalist of your stature on press freedom and its rationale. Perhaps the right comment is that sometimes its exercise stings.

The American people saw very little of that imagery in real time. Some major stories of loss of life (Slapton Sands in 1944 comes to mind) were not even publicized during the war. Most of those iconic images you mention came available after the war. Censorship was very strong and that has only changed in the aftermath of the first Gulf War.

Those of you arguing for the image's publication are missing the most important point - the family specifically asked that the photo not be published. The family. In a moment of grief that we cannot even imagine. And they did not ask that the story of the death of their son not be published, nor did DoD. They simply asked that one specific photo of a dying hero's most anguished and painful moment not be seen around the world. A terrible and private moment. I am certain the family did not want to see it. And don't say, 'they need to see it.' BS - they know the cost of war.

As for truth-telling and the need to publicize the so-called facts: If any citizens want to avail themselves of the brutal facts of war there is no shortage of newpaper stories, websites, blogs, etc. where they can learn. The thought that this one photo had some probative value that made it so necessary for publication, so indespensible to the body politic, is ludicrous. Has the media done a bad job of covering these conflicts as other stories (Lindsay Lohan, etc.) pushed them off the front page? Absolutely. Don't now try to make up for that failure with a single negative.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the AP's decision will have a serious negative impact on relations between journalists and the military. And not just at the command and cooperation level, but at the soldier level. Trust me, every marine and soldier on two battle fronts knows what just happened. Journalists rely on the amazing honesty of average soldiers to really understand a conflict. No green zone briefing can replace an honest discussion with a sergeant in the field. And those discussions just went mono-syllabic.

What an awful decision.

. . . Bad Law. But I'm with Tom on this one. The AP would not be "censoring" itself by choosing not to publish this picture. It chooses not to run hundreds of pictures everyday. For many different reasons.

IF the reason was to make the war that much more palatable and to keep the public uninformed, that would be worthy of condemnation.

But if the reason is that this image intrudes on an ultimate moment in a human being's life, and exposes that to the public world-wide, forcing the family to relive it over and over as they contemplate it being viewed by all and sundry, with all the un-nameable emotions that will carry with it for them, then yes, that decision IS admirable because it says in a harsh world we're going to draw some lines, dammit, and maybe we're not as consistent as we could be and maybe by drawing this line it will get people to think more sympathetically about the families of the people our forces kill, and maybe we WILL want to extend them the same courtesy, and maybe this will be a little part of a movement that, while not exactly rolling back the barbarism engulfing us all, at least might hold the line a little, and for that we'll make a little less money and sleep a little less fitfully.

WE DO NEED TO SEE WAR WITH UNBLINKERED EYES, AND ITS HORRORS MUST BE CONVEYED.

But we need to do that without compounding the horror this family is living in already.

No one said this would be easy.

I see. The First Amendment is absolute ... unless someone objects.

My response to that is horseshit. News is news and photojournalism sometimes conveys information in a way unattainable in print alone, especially in showing the face of war in a conflict so distant and forgotten, so sanitized by the Administration, and so lacking in aggressive photo coverage that we find one death shocking.

It's time we saw the human cost of George Bush's War. We owe it to the 4256 American service members who died before the lad in this instance.

Perhaps AP also sent a letter of condolence and will follow-up with a piece on the final internment of Lance Corporal (one who has broken many a lance) BERNARD USMC?

What do I personally think? What goes around comes around AP.

we show pictures of the dead in the third world all the time--but we excuse it based on our moral outrage at whichever dictator's cruelty has befallen them. it's not the right thing to do in either case--someone should show some outrage about all of these pictures, in addition to those of us marines.

As Bob Goldich noted in my post, it is an important one.

Well, I guess the first amendment has been upheld, but I'm with RPM on this one - the AP has just effectively shut down their access to real info. I hope they like dealing with the local PAOs, because the man or woman in the field ain't gonna take too kindly to potentially having their death splashed all over the news for a populace that doesn't give a damn to view. Why would they care about dead American soldiers when they have Michael and Ted to worry about? Good job, AP, I can't wait to read your future informative stories from the Green Zone. Maybe the contractor security firms might have an interest in you.

When we win... but other than that... I SAW the creeps on the 'right' vilify US soldiers for 'losing their war' for them.

But IF you don't die for them Vaingloriously then this happens: (MARCH 2009... Where IS tne MSM?)

Burning Toxic Waste is Making U.S. Soldiers and Iraqis Sick, But the Pentagon Refuses to Admit It

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Burning_Toxic_Waste_is_Making_U.S._Soldiers_and_Iraqis_Sick%2C_But_the_Pentagon_Refuses_to_Admit_It

Actually, the VA FINALLY admitted just a few days ago that the burning oil wells (along with other toxins) during our FIRST invasion of Iraq (based on lies that the Kuwaitis had done NO SUCH THING as 'slant drilled' into the Neutral Zone, and the dramatic FANTASY presentation of a 'Kuwaiti 'princess' to congress that babies had been ripped from their Kuwaiti hospital incubators and thrown on the floor to die) HAD caused Gulf War Syndrome.

The VA also canceled a multi-year multi-million dollar contract to investigate GWS with a research hospital in Texas saying the hospital's performance was lacking.

Betcha that's just another lie... The VA just wasn't getting the results they wanted... The result they wanted?

No culpability.

The results I WANT?

NO MORE LIES!

If the Pentagon, and your peers at CNAS want to continue these worthless wars Tom... Better stop the lying, the dissuasion from the belief that we're not vulnerable to the mayhem and non-culpable for it.. and hiding our deaths (incl the mundane, such as the returning caskets @ Dover AFB) in these wars IS a particularly creepy, Big-Brotherish, semantically corrupt, way to lie to the citizens of the country.

I feel for this soldier and his family, but "War Is Hell", whether one wins OR loses, as a nation, and as an individual human.

Condolences from AP is in order... Maybe they should MAKE SURE that the soldier's family gets every single benefit due them, because the Pentagon sure won't.

But they DO NOT owe an apology.

The last so many presidential administrations INCLUDING the current regime owe his family that.

I hope those advocating and applauding the AP's decision have put themselves in the position of the good Marine's family.

If they can truly look inside themselves and say that they would want that photo published if they were in the same position, then that makes it a bit better.

Still, would you not want your wishes as a grieving family in this instance to be respected?

You are lecturing about true costs of war, etc., when everyone else just wants the family to get what they want. If they want it published, so be it. If they do not, so be it. If they don't, and YOU want it pubished, convince them and not us. Explain to THEM, why your rationale for publishing it trumps their request not to. That is the appropriate standard.

www.hooahnews.com

How do you think the family can experience more pain than they already are? The photo, as grisly and disturbing as it is, is a window into the war that few Americans know on any level. I'm no dove, not by any means, but war is a hellish, brutal, ugly thing, and it should be understood as such by the country's citizens and government before they send their soldiers into harms way. As others have said, one photo can be more enlightening than a thousand column inches of text.

See the works of-
Larry Burrows, Viet Nam (see Yankee Papa 13)
Margaret Bourke-White, Buchenwald
Don McCullin, Viet Nam, Cyprus and Biafra
Catherine Leroy, Viet Nam, Lebanon
Frank Capa, Spain, WW2, et al
Dave Duncan, Korea
Bert Hardy, Korea
Abbas, Bangladesh

One thing I know for sure.

According to Rand Joshua Bernard DID NOT DIE to staunch the flow of 'terrorists' or quash al Qaeda in that region or anywhere else in the world.

"A recent RAND research effort [investigates] how terrorist groups have ended in the past. By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments.

Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended, and few groups within this time frame achieved victory.

These findings suggest that the U.S. approach to countering al Qa'ida has focused far too much on the use of military force.

Instead, policing and intelligence should be the backbone of U.S. efforts. . . .Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today.

Calling the efforts a war on terrorism raises public expectations — both in the United States and elsewhere — that there is a battlefield solution.

It also tends to legitimize the terrorists' view that they are conducting a jihad (holy war) against the United States and elevates them to the status of holy warriors."

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

So, what DID he die for?

Five thousand Americans have died, and tens of thousands of Americans have been physically injured in these wars, and hundreds of thousands of American mentally and psychologically damaged by their experiences in war. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dead and injured CIVILIANS in the Middle East due to our invasions.

One picture of one dead/dying American?

Puh-fucking-lease!! These pictures should be plastered on every street corner so the idiots who took us there, and keep us there have to look at what they are doing on a daily basis.

As someone who fought in Iraq, I feel this photo is very newsworthy. War involves dying, and people should be painfully aware of that. As it stands, the armed forces are at war; hardly anyone else in America is sacrificing a damn thing. I'm in favor of anything that makes the sacrifice of soldiers and Marines more real to a public that seems to have either forgotten, or never cared in the first place.

My stance isn't political. I support our campaign in Afghanistan, and realize that pictures like this can only hurt political support for the war. But the public that supports putting men and women in harms way must know the consequences of that action. Maybe we'll all come away with a little more appreciation for their sacrifice.

Now, that doesn't mean the AP shouldn't have tried harder to gain consent. Offer to wait a while longer. Or not to identify the Marines. Neither would affect newsworthiness. Personally, I would have put the photojournalist on the next possible flight home so she could present the pictures to the family in person, give them a first-hand account of exactly what happened, and later ask for permission to publish--explaining why this would be a tribute to their son's sacrifice.

Print each and every picture. They have been paid for a million times over by the blood of U.S. soldiers and the bloody deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraqi and Afghani civilians as well as with billions of tax dollars of unwilling U.S. citizens. They have been paid for with the loss of constitutional rights and freedoms here as well as the loss of the human rights of those tortured, killed and disappeared at Guantanamo and other secret U.S. hell holes and gulags. Former CIA director Gates is a propagandist and is trying to bully and threaten those few with any courage left in the "free press" into falling back into the silence the rest of the country has largely accepted. Mr. Gates represents the warmongers and I will pay him no respect. Julie Jacobsen and Santiago Lyons are to be commended. My condolence to Mr. Bernard's family. U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan NOW. Military recruiters off campus and out of our schools.

"the man or woman in the field ain't gonna take too kindly to potentially having their death splashed all over the news for a populace that doesn't give a damn to view."

An opinion like this, that presumes to speak for all soldiers, is incredibly arrogant.

No one *knows* what the many different people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. think about this question.

Based on what he was known to have said, and what his family has said, it seems reasonable to think that Pat Tillman, for instance, *would* have wanted his death photo splashed all other the news—to show the world what war is like.

The distinction between the dying and the dead is, to me, one of degree, not of kind. The coverup of the cost of war is an abomination far worse than what may happen to one family by having that picture published. If the picture was kept out of the news for a week or a month, would their child be alive?

No, but the awareness, the reality of death, the cost of war, needs to be in people's faces so that this country stops acting like it owns the world and its people.

The United States has made the world cannon fodder for its own profit, while it ostensibly can't afford decent health care or reasonable education for its citizens.

I think, Mr. Ricks, you are horribly, *horribly* wrong-headed on this.

In early 2005 I caught an early on-line edition of the Rochester NY Democrat and Chronicle. On the front page was a photo of a young Marine who had his face blown off, left only with two nostrils and a mouth. The story was a focus on the care that his poor, compassionate mother was obliged to give him. Within no time at all, the story and photo were scrubbed with no residue, i.e. a search at the newspaper's website returned not so much as a trace. Clearly there are interests hard at work to keep the US public conscious squeaky-clean.

As is well known, during the Viet Nam war the US military and as well as the various Administrations fumed and raged over the stark (i.e. showing US KIA) coverage of the war by reporters. The DoD must have taken the "never again" pledge and determined to roll out "concern for the families" as the perfect rationale to trump stark coverage. However, when there is a heartbreaking family story such as the one related above, we're not permitted to view that either.

The AP should have found some other way to get the point across. As you wrote initially, there's a big difference between a picture of a dead man, and a dying man. Were I in their position, I would not want my last memory of my son, bleeding out, and splashed all over the Internet.

Former combat Marine and war reporter Fred Reed penned another view, which I think most Americans agree.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Gates.shtml

If they showed these photos everyday, we'd soon be out of these imperial games. As for the family, his father was an ex-Marine and knew what it was all about. Lesson for American parents, if you don't want your children killed or maimed, don't let them join up. If they want to defend America, join the Border Patrol.

I'm sorry, but I find this post non-sensical. In our tradition and system, parents and other family members have never been given a veto over what content involving their children should be deemed fit to print or show.

Either the image is newsworthy or it is not. If it is newsworthy, it should be shown, without regard to the parents wishes. If it is not newsworthy, there is no point in showing it anyway.

I can understand debates about whether or not the photo is newsworthy; but I can't understand the sentiment that emotionally engaged relatives of news subjects now get to vote on what should be presented in the media as news, for the benefit of the rest of us non-relatives.

When young black men were lynched in the South, should the decision about whether or not to show their dangling and contorted bodies have been left to their next of kin? Or should it have been based on what it is necessary for a few hundred million other Americans to see?

I am deeply dismayed that these strangely fastidious sentiments are being defended defended by Mr. Ricks, a professed journalist. Is he going to tell us that every account he has written of Americans in extreme circumstances and at death's door, he has run his copy by the next of kin first?

I think a lot of you are missing the point. It is not that it is a photograph about war, but that it is a photograph about a real person in his dying moments. Regardless of which "side" he is on... where he is from... what he has done in his life... what god he prays to or not. The main objection is to the fact that the photograph published is during his moments of death. Being a child of a veteran of a wll published precious war, I do know what an impact viewing war has on people. Yes, we do need to know what is going on and not just from the government's viewpoint and what they want us to know. We need to know it from the ground point... from the action. Having said all of this, there is a great deal to say about respecting a family's privacy to grieve and most importantly to a person's right to die without being used asn a pawn in which ever way you wish to perceive this situation. I can almost guarantee you that the photographer, being one myself, would also have had photographs of the Lance Corporal at the time right after his death as there are moments which are so compelling that you can not disengage your finger from the shutter button. It is not that you want to photograph what you are seeing, but that you can not stop due to the shock your mind is actually in. My question would be if the photographs do exist why did the AP not use a photo right after his death and save his family the pain and anguish? There are many ways to hit people between the eyes with a message, but grace and dignity was definitely not used here.