Posted on 10/15/2009 4:29:26 PM PDT by jazusamo
U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan are retreating somewhat from an effort to ban embedded journalists from publishing photos or video of American soldiers killed in action there, according to ground rules issued Thursday.
But the new limitations on embeds – put in place after a flap between the Pentagon and the Associated Press over a photo of a wounded soldier - have elicited deep concerns from military journalists and press advocates.
"It's punishment for war photographers. They're saying if you want access, you have to play by our rules. And our rules are this — the public will NOT see dead U.S. soldiers," the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, said in an email. "For thorough reporting on Afghanistan, I guess we're just going to have to rely on unembedded reporters running around on their own — posing a danger to themselves as well as the troops they're trying to cover. It's a trade-off. It's very unfortunate."
Ground rules issued Sept. 15 by the U.S. military's regional command for Eastern Afghanistan imposed a strict ban on any imagery of American personnel killed in the fight.
"Media will not be allowed to photograph or record video of U.S. personnel killed in action," the earlier rules said.
However, after inquiries and protests from news organizations and journalism groups, the command based at Bagram Air Base near Kabul modified the policy on Thursday.
"Media will not be prohibited from viewing or filming casualties; however, casualty photographs showing recognizable face, nametag or other identifying feature or item will not be published," the new rules declare.
"This change better synchronizes [our] ground rules with those of our higher headquarters," a statement issued by the military public affairs office at Bagram said.
Military officials told POLITICO earlier Thursday that the no-KIA-photos policy was under review at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla.
The rules issued Thursday are at least the third revision to the embed policy since mid-September. The photo ban appears to have been put in place just days after Defense Secretary Robert Gates chastised the AP for what he called an "appalling" decision to publish a photo of a wounded 21-year-old soldier who later died, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard.
"Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me," Gates wrote in a letter to the AP. "The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right—but judgment and common decency," said Gat
Photographers who have embedded with U.S. forces in Afghanistan since the beginning of the war there in 2001 said they did not face any explicit restrictions on photographing soldiers killed in action.
The concession in the latest ground rules allowing photographs of unidentifiable war dead didn't do much to assuage critics of the military's restrictions on reporting.
"The question has to be asked: are you trying to censor this war?" asked Carl Prine, a military reporter for the Pittsburgh-Tribune Review. "We’ve been doing this for eight years now—eight years, and now you're trying to change it?"
Prine said he was baffled by the demands for privacy in war. "If an American soldier dies in a car accident in the U.S., you can photograph him, but in Afghanistan you can't?….If there's one place no expects privacy, it’s on the battlefield."
Asked about the latest revision, Prine said: "Still unacceptable. Don't honor it."
A military spokesman at Bagram noted that the rules apply only to those on official embeds with U.S. forces. "Media have multiple ways to cover the war in Afghanistan and embedding is only one of the choices available," Master Sgt. Thomas Clementson wrote. "Embedding is a reporter's choice and....embedded access does come with some limitations."
Send them back to the enemy, foreign and domestic.
Kick them all out of the war zone. They only interfere and undermine the effort.
(Soldier on the ground.”
“That’s right. You might take a picture of one of our casualties. And my finger might slip on this trigger. Oops. Dangerous place, a combat zone. Sorry about that head wound.”
I believe that’s on some of their minds but this won’t be a problem with decent reporters. This Prine turkey at the Pitt-Trib Review named in this article doesn’t sound like he falls in that category.
Combat reporters like Michael Yon are great guys, and would never do this.
“It’s punishment for war photographers. They’re saying if you want access, you have to play by our rules. And our rules are this — the public will NOT see dead U.S. soldiers,” the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, said in an email.
Grab a rifle then, Lucy. Until then, stay the hell out of the way of our troops and stop using them to further your agenda.
You’re absolutely right, he’s one of the best.
Apparently the ASSociated Press doesn’t care if families learn about their loved one’s death by seeing in in the paper first.
As someone that makes my living as a photographer, i have to agree to disagree with these rules.
In the begining of WWII there was censorship that prohibited the public from seeing dead GI’s. It was months after the start of the war that photos actually came out of soldiers dead on the beaches. Instead of hurting the war effort, it helped spur it.
I completely understand that no one wants to see dead soldiers. And certainly, I respect the soldiers and their families.
However, we are at war and based on what you see on TV and in the papers you would hardly know it.
Either we have a free press, or we don’t. Anyone I know that has been in the theatre has come away with the deepest respect for the soliders and marines. Isn’t the freedom of communication one of the things they are fighting for?
The rule was better when there was a complete ban on the depiction of both friendly and enemy dead. There is a military reason for doing so—the lack of context invariably reflects poorly on the US military and their mission.
For example, say a terrorist has just thrown several hand grenades in a room full of school children, killing and maiming several. Then while trying to get away, and holding a woman hostage as a human shield, he is shot and killed. And *then* the photographer takes a picture of his body.
What the public sees is a 17 year old “boy”, shot dead in such a way as is typical with gunshot wounds, showing blood and bone. His weapons have been taken from him, so they are not shown. The lack of context to the photo implies he was just gunned down on the street. He looks pitiable, like he is a victim.
The public cannot influence such vicious killers directly. All they can do is appeal to their political leaders to “make the military stop such things from happening.” But from the military point of view, they *wanted* this to happen. They wish he could have been killed sooner, and his murderous comrades as well.
This makes the military look heartless and cruel, even though what they did, if not saved lives, at least stopped such a monster from killing children again. But the public isn’t told about this. All they know is what they see in a photograph.
Case in point: The photo captioned “General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon”. A very famous photo indeed.
That Viet Cong prisoner had been in charge of a murder squad, targeting South Vietnamese police and their families for death. He had killed several people before being captured. At least one of the General’s family had been butchered shortly before.
But the photo became a rallying point for the anti-war movement, and the general was hounded by the ignorant and vicious left for decades until his death in the United States.
Even the photographer (much later) said: “The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths.”
The photographer later apologized in person to General Loan and his family for the damage it did to his reputation. When General Loan died, Adams praised him: “The guy was a hero. America should be crying. I just hate to see him go this way, without people knowing anything about him.”
And *that* is why depicting friendly or enemy dead should be prohibited in areas controlled by the US military.
Excellent point!
*snip*
"Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me," Gates wrote in a letter to the AP. "The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right—but judgment and common decency," said Gates.
Excerpt
"14. Media will not be prohibited from viewing or filming casualties; however, casualty photographs showing recognizable face, nametag or other identifying feature or item will not be published.
In respect to our family members, names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent.
If the service member dies of his wounds, next-of-kin reporting rules then apply. Media should contact the PAO for release advice."
~~~~~~~
Sickening, the amoral and bloodthirsty who think their ticket to fame is the heartbreaking, bloody shot of one of our heroes.
Prayers for our troops.
Prayers for our troops.
Amen to that!
We still have freedom of the press, without restrictions. These rules are for embedded journalists, they do not apply to journalists who are not embedded.
BTTT
But the problem is, that the left is playing by their own rules. They want the right to take and publish pictures that advance their cause, and the heck with honoring anyone else’s freedom.
And moving from there, is the basic parental concept, that any freedom that is abused, may be altered as a lesson for the abuser. It seems to me, that that is what the military has done, in order to protect its own.
FReeregards
Tatt
The reporter in the Politico article is a veteran of OIF. He quit journalism and served as an infantryman near Ramadi. He was blown up by an IED.
I looked it up.
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.