Posted on 08/25/2008 6:09:08 AM PDT by astyanax
This is a post that I meant to do several weeks ago, when the Public Editor of the New York Times, Clark Hoyt, wrote a column titled "The Painful Images of War". The column addressed the issue of whether news outlets like the Times should publish pictures of dead or wounded American soldiers, even over the objections of the military and the soldiers' families. Hoyt quoted a Times photographer whose graphic images of a dead U.S. serviceman were controversial:
"Looking at photographs of the gravely wounded or dead is a profoundly affecting and emotional experience,” she said. “However, I do feel that it is my duty as a journalist to see that a truthful account of the consequences of war is given.”
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
"Painful as these issues are ... I think The Times has an obligation to pursue stories and photographs that report the entire experience of war, including death."
The paper's managing editor, Bill Keller, agreed:
Keller said, “Death and carnage are not the whole story of war — there is also heroism and frustration, success and setback, camaraderie and, on occasion, atrocity — but death and carnage are part of the story, and to launder them out of our account of the war would be a disservice.”
I meant to write about this at the time but ran out of time. I was reminded of the story today when Hoyt published a series of letters from readers responding to his column. Like the column itself, most of the letters were thoughtful and the opinions expressed were diverse. A minority offered an explicitly political rationale for publishing photos of dead soldiers:
"Logic would strongly indicate that family members of slain American soldiers should not be irate at the photographers who shot those pictures or at The Times for publishing those photos."
"Rather, one would think that their outrage should be directed at those in the United States government who placed their husbands and fathers and brothers and wives and daughters and sisters unnecessarily and unjustifiably at risk."
And again:
"In general, anything the government does not want the American public to see, the public should probably see. Specifically, anything the Bush administration does not want the American public to see, the public should certainly see."
The discussion of the issue by Hoyt, those quoted in his column and the Times readers was generally balanced and fair, and the question seems to me to be one on which reasonable people can differ. Still, it isn't hard to infer that at least part of the reason why some observers have urged that photos of dead and dying soldiers be published is that they think this will help mobilize public opinion against the Iraq war--a goal that, at this point, may be just about moot.
The Times photographer quoted by Hoyt says that graphic battle photos should be published "to see that a truthful account of the consequences of war is given." I am somewhat sympathetic to this view. But isn't that principle being very narrowly applied here? The fact is that newspapers and magazines hardly ever publish graphic images of violence in any context.
If journalists believe it their role to "see that a truthful account of the consequences" of a given policy or phenomenon is given, why don't we ever see photographs of the bloody and battered bodies of crime victims? Most horrific crimes are committed by people who already had long records of violent crime, and either have not been jailed, have been given short sentences, or are out on parole. Many Americans think that our criminal justice system is too lax in punishing violent criminals. Wouldn't showing graphic pictures of their victims, painful though that might be to their families, represent a "truthful account of the consequences" of our policies on criminal justice?
Here's another one: a large number of crimes are committed by illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are also responsible for a remarkable number of motor vehicle accidents. Here in Minnesota, an illegal immigrant was just convicted of criminal vehicular homicide after she crashed into the side of a school bus, killing four children and injuring 17. No newspaper published photos of the dead or injured children. Why not? Wouldn't such photos contribute to a "truthful account of the consequences" of our lax immigration policies?
One more: since shortly after September 11, 2001, the television networks have refused to show footage of the terrorist attacks or the collapse of the twin towers. They have done this on the ground that the footage would be too upsetting to Americans; therefore they are sparing our sensibilities. What they really mean, I think, is that if Americans could see that footage their anger against the Islamic terrorists would be rekindled and they may be more likely to support aggressive actions to defeat them. They might conclude, for example, that two or three minutes of waterboarding is a small price to pay to avoid such attacks in the future.
So, if we're going to have a debate about when it is necessary to show graphic images of violence so that Americans can be better informed about the consequences of government policies, by all means let's go at it. But let's not pretend that the only time the issue arises is when a newspaper wants to publish photos of dead and dying soldiers for the purpose of turning public opinion against a military conflict.
i’m libertarian. i want everything published.
with this said, i noticed several years ago that the nyt and lat were publishing photos of the american military dead and doing stories on their families,
NOT as we a patriotic and grieving nation would look at these,
but in a sense of reprisal “against the system”, and to propagate against the war.
how is it that the world’s moneyed elite is so angry at the united states?
and they pretend to be for the working people, some of whom continue to believe what they’re being told on the msm.
How about some footage showing the inner workings of an abortion clinic?
Great post. Welcome to freerepbulic.
mrs
If they were doing this out of respect for the troops and to try and show the sacrifices paid, I might support it, but their words and history have made it clear that these images are solely for political and anti-war purposes and are thus shameful.
I doubt even Thomas Jefferson, who claimed there wasn’t a truth he didn’t want known, would support American soldiers being used in such a manner.
wow. freerepbulic.
f-r-e-e-r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c
sorry won’t post without more coffee anymore
mrs
That would explain why the NYT has been so aggressive in covering our victories in Iraq.
Thank you.
It’s great to be here!
Exactly. All the news “we” think is fit to print.
And “we’ll” decide what’s news...
Exactly. It’s the selective “logic” of the NY Slimes that destroys their own arguments.
If the NY Times wants to publich graphic pictures of abortions each time they happen every day, then by all means publish the photos of our war dead when they happen (which isn’t every day, by the way, as we see fewer than 7 Americans killed in any given combat week).
Let’s also keep in mind that the NY Times refused to published photos of our war dead during WW2, when our combat losses were 100 times higher than today.
It took more than a half century to pass before the photo of slain photographer Ernie Pyle was published, for instance, and that brings up another point...many journalists are killed covering combat zones.
So publish their post-mortem photos first.
Why not some pictures of dead journalists and their families?
“... I do feel that it is my duty as a journalist to see that a truthful account of...”
And where is the investigative reporting on the Annenburg project records showing what Obama and Bill Ayers were doing on the south side of Chicago, particularly where all the money went. Just exactly how much went to helping the poor?
Great post, but you might consider trying a search next time: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2067428/posts
DOH! My bad...
I did search for the phrase “Images of War.”
Not sure why it came back empty...
Just tried searching again, quick and archive,
using “images of war” in and out of quotes,
again with no success.
Any pointers?
Make sure that you are searching titles and not keywords or whatever.
I have yet to find criteria that returns either of our posts.
Are you able to find your (or my) post by searching?
Your right, old boy! Normally a search on titles turns it up.
I’m not jealuous, you posted the whole thing and drew more attention (though most posters to threads seem to be missing the key point). I like to give Power Line the traffic and besides, neither of use posted the embedded links.
PowerLine traffic, concur.
As for the link to the NYT op-ed,
the less traffic the better.
I’d say “we done good”!
This freeper's letter to the Public Editor, I'm humble yet proud to say, made the cut. Here it is.
Images of Dead Soldiers
Re “The Painful Images of War” (Aug. 3):
The Times’s desire to publish photographs of American military deaths puts the paper squarely in the enemies’ camp. I know, or at least I think I know, that’s not The Times’s intention. Its intention is an antiwar strategy to demoralize the American people into not wanting to fight wars. So when you wonder why so many Americans think The Times is the enemy, you will understand why that’s the case.
We do not want to see our brave and honorable men and women used for a political stunt, the way America’s enemies use images for political stunts.
ANDY B
Virginia Beach, Va., Aug. 4 , 2008
Wow!
Admirable: The fact that they printed it.
Priceless: How well you stated a concise summary of the reason the entire industry is on deathwatch status.
Great job!
Well, we know $1/mo. is going to his brother...
I meant they certainly wouldn’t want to ‘offend’ anyone by showing photos of MOH recipients.
i’m libertarian. i want everything published. With this said, i noticed several years ago that the nyt and lat were publishing photos of the american military dead and doing stories on their families. NOT as we a patriotic and grieving nation would look at these, but in a sense of reprisal “against the system”, and to propagandize against the war.
How is it that the world’s moneyed elite is so angry at the United States?
And they pretend to be for the working people, some of whom continue to believe what they’re being told on the msm!
I've been studying this issue for many years, and I think I have a fairly good handle on it by now.Journalism (modern journalism only traces back to the founding of the Associated Press in 1848) must be analyzed not in terms of what it claims is its mission, but in terms of what its actual incentives are, and in terms of what it actually does. Journalism claims to be objective, and that is essentially a claim that journalism defines the public interest.
But its actual incentive is to promote itself (and certainly its claim to objectivity is readily understandable in the context of that incentive), and to attract attention. And the rules of journalism, which journalists use to defend their story selection, have nothing to do with the public interest and everything to do with interesting the public - which is altogether a different matter. The public interest is in existence of an electorate which has a grasp on the big picture as it reveals itself over time. But what interests the public is defined by sensationalism (If it bleeds, it leads), unrepresentativeness (Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man), and superficiality (There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper).
Theodore Roosevelt famously stated,
There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.In short, there is no natural reason why journalism would tend to promote the public interest, and every reason to expect it to promote the sort of politician who, like the journalist, majors in self-serving complaint about whoever tries to do necessary things and works to a bottom line, thereby exposing himself to second guessing. Socialism is nothing more than the conceit that second guessing and criticism qualifies you to be in control of the oil companies even though (nay, because) you know nothing about geology, organic chemistry, engineering, or finance.It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .
that’s a good quote!
thanks for the links.
ken
Nam Vet
Public opinion isn’t on their side.
If it fit their agenda, watch out...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.