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

Of all the people who have been killed over there, I'm sure they could have found some family who didn't object to having their dying son or daughter's picture printed. This family asked them not to. That should've been it.

If the family does not consent to the photograph, then they should respect that right. There should be no debate about it.

professorman wrote:
If the family does not consent to the photograph, then they should respect that right. There should be no debate about it.

As a 20-year vet myself, I couldn't agree more.

So, just to be clear here, we shouldn't have published photos of the twin towers falling if it would have offended any of the families of the dead? Part of living in a free society is accepting a free press - even when it's distasteful or offensive.

No one said that. It should be clear that there was supposed to be a "wall" between editorial opinion and news. Perhaps something taught now as a conceit or a fable in journalism classes.

Numerous news agencies chose not to display the image in question. The picture in question was not immediate and apparently not newsworthy enough to be universally shown. That leads to the unavoidable possibility that those that chose to show it did so for other reasons. In at least one case, one editor clearly admits he chose to show it to support his political views. The 9-11 building collapses and jumps were immediate and newsworthy.


The concept that the public has to accept a biased and offensive "free press" is exactly what I stated before. We don't have to accept what the "press" chooses to offer and manipulate, we don't have to buy it, we don't have to support the products that pay for it. The press is supposed to be working for us, they aren't in charge of the process.

Craig Gillette wrote:



The concept that the public has to accept a biased and offensive "free press" is exactly what I stated before. We don't have to accept what the "press" chooses to offer and manipulate, we don't have to buy it, we don't have to support the products that pay for it.

I agree with this. Everyone gets to choose which source of information they wish to support.

Where I think we disagree is in who gets to choose what is "immediate and newsworthy". You? Me? The government? By allowing the jounalists free rein we do our best to guarantee that nothing is covered up. If they overstep the bounds of fairness or good taste then we are free to turn away and patronize another news outlet.

Journalists may well be the problem. Between selling ad space and opinions, they've left real, comprehensive and objective news behind.

I was under the impression that as adults we are free to decide what we filter as worthy of our interests. I often find my mind wandering when CNN cues a sound bite of Lindsey Lohan's lastest car crash...I guess some of us were endowed with the intelligence to search for the TV remote.