I ran across a story on AP's website today about a photographer of theirs who had photographed the death of a Marine. This gave rise to an internal debate as whether or not they should release the photographs to the public. It got me thinking, so I wrote about it. I figured I'd see what FM thought on the matter.

http://www.thephotodictionary.com/blog/2009/09/09/ap-photographer-photographs-the-death-of-a-soldier/

Discuss...

The fact that the AP refused to respect the wishes of Lance Cpl Bernard's father says it all. As a Vietnam vet myself and the father of a son and daughter that are in Afghanistan right now I KNOW the realities of war. I don't need some embedded drama seeker looking to make a name for herself or some media type telling me about my "right to know". Can we honestly trust anything the media tells us anymore? Especially when they say it's for our own good. Sorry, I've got to stop now. I have strong feelings on the subject and WILL say something I shouldn't if I don't stop.

I am a 26 year Marine Corps vet. I agree with Mickey. As soon as Cpl Bernard's father objected that should have been the end of it. But the media is only interested in selling their story and not the individual. I too will have to stop before I say something I shouldn't.

I agree with both Mickey and DJESTER48.
If the next of kin did not want it, it should not have happened.

Respect.... something that is unfortunately leaving this earth quickly...

Running a distant second but still egregiously poor taste - yet apparently a "required shot" is "Here Mom, hold the picture on your lap while we broadcast you crying over your dead child."

For the purpose of balance...should the photos of the enemies be published? Or for that matter, those of victims of terrorists attacks? They have families too.

I'm a Vet also and I disagree with the majority here. The loss of even one Marine is a tragic in itself. And, I also understand the grief and sorrow of the family of those lost to war. However, the images of the dead and dying need to be available for all to see as a painfull reminder of the consequences and sacrifice made by those fallen in battle. Only in the image, does this reality come to light. To truely comprehend this war or any other is to see it; then you'll own the truth.

Balance? We don't need no stinkin' balance. I wouldn't have expected Edward R. Murrow to turn the mike over to Lord Ha-Ha or Tokyo Rose or even to a "real" journalist from Nazi Germany for "balanced counterpoint."

However, it would be just as inappropriate to show a dying enemy fighter or a dying innocent bystander, etc. Just as many (if not all) broadcasters in the L.A. area cut away or back from certain "live" reporting of incidents where there may be an imminent death, such as the end of a chase where an erratic person seems to be working towards "suicide by cop." Editorial choices on content are made all the time, one would hope for solid, appropriate reasons, not just to spice up the controversy, entertainment or numbers for advertising income.

Vertigo2020 wrote:
I'm a Vet also and I disagree with the majority here. The loss of even one Marine is a tragic in itself. And, I also understand the grief and sorrow of the family of those lost to war. However, the images of the dead and dying need to be available for all to see as a painfull reminder of the consequences and sacrifice made by those fallen in battle. Only in the image, does this reality come to light. To truely comprehend this war or any other is to see it; then you'll own the truth.



I'm glad this angle was posted...I think there is some validity to it.

To truley comprehend this war or any other, is NOT to see it; but to EXPERIENCE it. Then you will know the truth.

I agree with the concept of Vertigo 2020 that the war must be shown, but there are plenty of other similar images available.

The question had to deal with publishing photographs against the wishes of the family.
That lack of respect for the family will leave a bad image permanently in the mind of the family members, the trauma of which will brand it in their brains. They have to live with those thoughts. They do not deserve this.

My sister was killed in a car accident over 25 years ago. There were no pictures of the crash site. I do not have to deal with recollecting any pictures 25 years later. my fond memories are not tainted by other images.

Publishers can find plenty of other photographs to publish.

jcw1982 wrote:
To truley comprehend this war or any other, is NOT to see it; but to EXPERIENCE it. Then you will know the truth.



For the sake of argument...

Does the photographers right to share her experience differ from the families right to privacy?

My point is directed to a comment by Vertigo2020. Seeing something, especially as presented by others , pales in comparison to experiencing the event yourself.


Draw your on conclusion on whether the picture should have been published..........

jcw1982 wrote:
To truley comprehend this war or any other, is NOT to see it; but to EXPERIENCE it. Then you will know the truth.



The only way for those removed from the conflict to live the horror is though the images captured as it's memory. Relagating this Marine's death to the back page of the local paper minimizes his sacrifice.

I do respect the family's wishes and I see why they seek privacy in their mourning. But, when we sent this soldier to war he became everyone's child.

My father told me as a young man, "you won't know sorrow til its written in stone" Well, Cpl Benard's sacrifice has been etched in stone and if showing his death drives that reality home, then so be it. I'm truely sorry for the family's loss, but they gave him to us, and he rightfully takes his place alone side the countless others. The image of his death is a tribute to his heroism, not a violation of their respect.

If this had been a journalist, or a personal aquaintance of the news organization would they have ran the picture? I hardly think so.

"Relagating his death to the back page of the local paper minimizes his sacrifice"......
I really don't his family and friends would feel this way, nor do many others, I'm sure. Where a newspaper editorial board decides to place your obituary means nothing to the type of human being you were. Look at the "news" today and tell me I'm wrong.

If his his parents didn't want the photo released, their wishes should have been honored. He was their child.

It is sad to see the news media stoop so low, but unfortunately they are in business to make money. If they wanted to pay tribute to him, maybe a nice story of his life and what he was all about would have been more appropriate; rather than what you consider a tribute to his heroism(the photo).

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it. But, I do disagree.

I would also take exception with the generalization that the "media" is only out to sell the news. Kevin Carter is an example of the costs of viewing human suffering. He comitted suicide 2 months after winning the Pulitzer Prize for his photo of a starving child in the Sudan.

There is a larger issue in this case that transcends the emotional grief of Cpl Bernard's family.

Perhaps the images of naked Jewish bodies stacked for cremation at Auschwitz shouldn't have shown, nor, lynched black men hangin from the cyprus trees of Mississippi. These images leave an indelible mark on the psyche of those who would otherwise choose to live in the complanency of ignorance and denial.

Journalists have an unwarranted arrogance. They aren't the only ones with the truth and they have no special insight into the issues of war or anything else. If they weren't going to listen to the answer, they shouldn't have gone to the family and asked.

"These images leave an indelible mark on the psyche of those who would otherwise choose to live in the complacency of ignorance and denial." (spelling corrected) It's hard to be more self-righteous and insulting. This concept that the public "needs" some journalist or organization to tell them what's right, wrong, good or bad or proper is crap.

Here we go with the mud slinging...first it's the sophomoric attack on the spelling error made in haste, then the move to insults because someone doesn't agree.

My comment wasn't meant to be self rightous or insulting. The photos of the dead and dying play a role in the awareness of lives we lead. Like it or not they have a place in our society.

BTW, I don't think anyone said the public needs some journalist to tell them what to think. These images speak for themselves, they need no interpretation.

Your comment wasn't meant to be self-righteous or insulting - but it is. You think that others live in chosen states of ignorance, complacency and denial and you don't think that if you said that to someone, they wouldn't find it insulting?

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/09/ap_marine_photo.html

Assuming this is correct, it appears that the AP chose, for its own reasons (agreements, family wishes or whatever may or may not be in place), to publish. Other outlets chose to not publish. There is a decision making and filtering process going on. There is no "all of the facts, all of the pictures, all of the information" from any of the sources. The media filters and chooses what they present, when they present it, how they present it. They always have, they always will. If for no other reason than there is too much information. The problem is in the assumption that the media has any sort of obligation to select or shape the information to drive to a desired or concurring understanding of the information. You apparently see nothing wrong with choosing the "news" (or pictures) to get a desired result. If "they" see these pictures, their response will be the same as mine. That may well be the case, but, the matter should be one that is the news consumers choice, from a surfeit of accurate and representative information, not selected, pruned and manipulated information.

The AP didn't tell us anything we didn't already know or understand about the war going on in Afghanistan by showing us that picture. It didn't add anything of value. It added pain.

Craig Gillette wrote:
Swill filter on..... It didn't add anything of value. It added pain.



Hopefully you're right! It should distress everyone who viewed it.

Lots of things are distressing. People figure that out all the time. You did. You probably did it without help. Nobody else needs help either. That's the part you don't understand. It's not up to you to decide for anyone else what they should or shouldn't be distressed by.

I'll leave you to your own distress.

http://www.thephotodictionary.com/blog/2009/09/11/subject-of-famous-vietnam-war-photograph-spreads-hop/

Craig Gillette wrote:
Lots of things are distressing. People figure that out all the time. You did. You probably did it without help. Nobody else needs help either. That's the part you don't understand. It's not up to you to decide for anyone else what they should or shouldn't be distressed by.

I'll leave you to your own distress.



Clearly, you're under some delusion that I decide what should be presented to the public or not. The images of war are merely a record, we are free to view them or not. What you don't understand is for you or our government to try to hide them from scrutiny is censorship.

Mickey wrote:
The fact that the AP refused to respect the wishes of Lance Cpl Bernard's father says it all. As a Vietnam vet myself and the father of a son and daughter that are in Afghanistan right now I KNOW the realities of war. I don't need some embedded drama seeker looking to make a name for herself or some media type telling me about my "right to know". Can we honestly trust anything the media tells us anymore? Especially when they say it's for our own good. Sorry, I've got to stop now. I have strong feelings on the subject and WILL say something I shouldn't if I don't stop.


That's it, Mickey. Media whores, photographers and all, very often care about one thing and one thing only at the wanton exclusion of everything else: $$$$$.

Craig Gillette wrote:
Journalists have an unwarranted arrogance. They aren't the only ones with the truth and they have no special insight into the issues of war or anything else. If they weren't going to listen to the answer, they shouldn't have gone to the family and asked.

"These images leave an indelible mark on the psyche of those who would otherwise choose to live in the complacency of ignorance and denial." (spelling corrected) It's hard to be more self-righteous and insulting. This concept that the public "needs" some journalist or organization to tell them what's right, wrong, good or bad or proper is crap.

+1