p.3 #2 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
The left to right political spectrum is not an American political party phenomenon nor do the two main parties define left or right nor are they completely definable as left or right - the political spectrum extends well past the boundaries of what either party would formally describe in their platforms or in their legislative approaches. I carefully avoided applying blame for these events to a particular party or parties because it's not an American spectrum or world.
I didn't suggest the Democrats were responsible for the results of Stalins collectivization efforts nor would it be realistic to suggest that American isolationism resulted in the militarization of the Rhineland or set policy for the League of Nations.
But if you want to get the message that I think that the left and especially the far left has caused many of the world problems, either through action or inaction, that would be a reasonable interpretation. Do I give the Democrats credit/blame for all of the world's ills. No, that would be silly. If you think you can link the Republican Party with Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc., then that's kind of your windmill to tilt.
p.3 #3 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
The left to right political spectrum is not an American political party phenomenon nor do the two main parties define left or right nor are they completely definable as left or right - the political spectrum extends well past the boundaries of what either party would formally describe in their platforms or in their legislative approaches. I carefully avoided applying blame for these events to a particular party or parties because it's not an American spectrum or world.
True.
But if you want to get the message that I think that the left and especially the far left has caused many of the world problems, either through action or inaction, that would be a reasonable interpretation.
So who is "the Left?" You keep using the term, and I'm presuming you use it to designate someone, so who are they? Who was "the Left" that did nothing about all those bad people and bad events?
p.3 #4 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Look it up. It's an old term, the usage dates back to roughly 1791 in France. The "left" of 1791 is not the left of today. As one moves to the left one moves more or less from minimal governemtn control/free market captialism, through more controls, socialism, to complete controls/communism. As one moves to the right, eventually there is fascism.
However, check out the last 5 or 6 paragraphs for an example of the problems noted above:
As you've pointed out the US and the Soviet Union (or Comintern) were involved in a war in Viet Nam and the war pushed west into Laos and Cambodia. The Kmer Rough is said to have taken advantage of the opportunity created when North Viet Namese troops were driven out of Cambodia causing a vaccuum. And vacuum or not, there's no real excuse possible for what the Kmer rouge did. It's not unusual for a new goverment to attempt to create a new state under it's own philosophical approach. Why they chose to drive pretty much everyone out of the cities and kill something in the neighborhood of 2 million or more people is their approach. People have all kinds of opportunities, what they make of them is their choice.
The problem with that (and I'm sure you're able to find any number of sources that stop there), is that were there no North Viet Namese in Cambodia, there'd have been no vacuum when they left. You can see where this tit for tat stepping stone approach would lead. That is, if it didn't stop with the US bombing. So, why were there North Viet Namese troops in Cambodia? Supporting the war in the South. The blame game goes back... The policy of global containment goes back to Truman. It was continued under Eisenhower. US support for the French effort against the Viet Minh was heavy. The Geneva talks were going on as Dien Bien Phu fell. Do you need to read here who supported or didn't support which sides in the conflicts in Indochina?
Should global containment have been the policy or should the French (and the US) have taken a different approach to the nationalist movements in their colonies?
Then one could look to the struggle for or against communism as a drving political forces through pretty much all of the 20th century, and especially after 1917.
p.3 #5 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Look it up. It's an old term, the usage dates back to roughly 1791 in France. The "left" of 1791 is not the left of today. As one moves to the left one moves more or less from minimal governemtn control/free market captialism, through more controls, socialism, to complete controls/communism. As one moves to the right, eventually there is fascism.
I know precisely how the terminology of "left" and "right" originated. I would assert that it does not now and never did apply to the politics of the United States--or anywhere else other than France at that time and that place.
You've attempted to peg the extreme "left" as leading to communism and the extreme "right" as leading to fascism, but I'm sure you realize that communism is an economic system and fascism is a political system--apples and oranges.
To be sure, a state can't achive true communism without a totalitarian form of government (although a functional democracy can get pretty close to communism).
But fascism is also totalitarian, and there is no reason why a fascist government can't adopt communism (if, indeed, you understand what fascism actually is. You can find Mussolini's own definition on the Web). In fact, North Korea is both fascist and communist.
You would be better off using a 2-axis political system description (such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart) to get something of a superior definition of political dynamics in the US.
Should global containment have been the policy or should the French (and the US) have taken a different approach to the nationalist movements in their colonies?
That one is easy. Virtually all of the former colonies of Europe were pro-American at the close of WWII. Many of them had been promised independence by American diplomats and generals after the war. Some were inclined toward socialism, but had we played our cards right, they would have been our socialists (and indeed, we've learned to live with socialist allies).
We should have stuck to our own political morals of state independence, but instead, the European desk chiefs at the Stated Department won their insistance that the world should be returned to its pre-war state, including the European colonies.
p.3 #6 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Craig Gillette wrote:
Strawman? No. You're looking to make excuses for the most brutal and heinous kinds of behaviors. That's unacceptable. The left made excuses for the killing fields in Cambodia, for the atrocities in China as Mao consolidated power or with the Great Leap Forward, ignored the genocide in the USSR under Stalin. Before World War II, some groups did try to fight the coming of the fascists and their allies in Europe, especially in Spain. But too many decided that if they'd just let Hitler remilitarize the Rhineland, he'd be happy. The League of Nations turned away from Haile Selassie and Ethiopia. Chamberlain helped dismantle Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler.
After World War II, most of Europe did not collapse into anarchy.
Besides, we all know what the real problem is. The United States has not abandoned Israel. And even if we did, Iran and Iraq would still be fighting internally and fighting each other. The fundamentalists would still be trying to convert the infidels or the apostates. And you'd still be making excuses....Show more →
Actually yes, it is very much a strawman. Did I or anybody else in this thread make the arguments you're "knocking down"? Not at all.
As for the appeasement argument: There was not a single threat to U.S. national interest to "appease" in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Yes, Saddam was giving material support to Palestinian suicide bombers. Yes, this is inexcusable, but it has more to do with Israel's national interest than America's.
That ridiculous "but, but, but, appeasement-Chamberlain-pre-WWII" argument is not an historical parallel. It's another goddamn strawman.
And no, Europe didn't collapse after WWII, but the Allies didn't disband the entire state in any of the conquered countries. They fed material support in and actually won over the population. If you want a real historical parallel to wrap your head around, why not compare what the U.S. did right in post-war Japan with what they completely screwed up in post-invasion Iraq.
p.3 #7 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Beauchamp wrote:
Actually yes, it is very much a strawman. Did I or anybody else in this thread make the arguments you're "knocking down"? Not at all.
As for the appeasement argument: There was not a single threat to U.S. national interest to "appease" in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. Yes, Saddam was giving material support to Palestinian suicide bombers. Yes, this is inexcusable, but it has more to do with Israel's national interest than America's.
That ridiculous "but, but, but, appeasement-Chamberlain-pre-WWII" argument is not an historical parallel. It's another goddamn strawman.
And no, Europe didn't collapse after WWII, but the Allies didn't disband the entire state in any of the conquered countries. They fed material support in and actually won over the population. If you want a real historical parallel to wrap your head around, why not compare what the U.S. did right in post-war Japan with what they completely screwed up in post-invasion Iraq....Show more →
The comparison to post-WW2 Japan is faulty.
Japan was an isolated and homogenous society without the ethnic and religious divisions and hatred (tribalism) that existed in Iraq prior to the US Invasion.
As interesting as this thread has become to read as a political POV bashing, I don't see much here that is "On Topic" and do wish the discussion would return to the original topic as it was interesting in its own right. I found it interesting and pertinent to the discussion of photography.
The historical stuff, while interesting, is not about photography.
Right versus Left and historical developments should be in another thread with its own topic.
p.3 #8 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Steady Hand wrote:
As interesting as this thread has become to read as a political POV bashing, I don't see much here that is "On Topic" and do wish the discussion would return to the original topic as it was interesting in its own right. I found it interesting and pertinent to the discussion of photography.
p.3 #9 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Take embed Michael Yon for instance. If providing assistance by lending a satellite phone were crossing ethical line, what would actually shooting at insurgents be considered? The first ever article of his that I read, IIRC, involved him taking a gun from a member of the squad he was attached to, then firing it into a room where the squad second in command was fighting hand to hand with an enemy combatant. I can't remember if he killed any of them, but nevertheless how different does that make him from the soldier who blogs about his day? Most certainly wouldn't consider the latter a journalist in any way, yet Micahel Yon is widely described as the most prominent freelance journalist embed in Iraq.. Would an international journalist embedded within the insurgents still be held with any regard if he picked up a gun in a firefight? ...Show more →
I recall a part in Dan Rather's autobiography, "The Camera Never Blinks" in which during the early 60s while covering a civil rights story in the US south, one of the local bigots pulled a gun on him. Inasmuch as people were getting killed in those parts, the cameraman (himself from the local television station) pulled his own gun, put it to the head of the bigot, and ended the confrontation. Rather didn't seem to have a problem with the cameraman changing the course that particular story was headed. Of course, Rather is a Texas boy himself, so perhaps it all seemed natural to him.
As I said before, the presence of a report is always a matter of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in action. Only if the report is utterly invisible will his presence not change the very thing he is recording.
p.3 #10 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Keep your excuses. I don't buy them. Iraq, like any country should be capable of self-goverment. At some point the excuses wear thin and they'll have to be a country - or not. If they'd rather fight over ancient or modern enmities, sectarian differences, tribal boundaries or interests, than become a functioning country, that's up to them.
p.3 #11 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Keep your excuses. I don't buy them. Iraq, like any country should be capable of self-goverment. At some point the excuses wear thin and they'll have to be a country - or not. If they'd rather fight over ancient or modern enmities, sectarian differences, tribal boundaries or interests, than become a functioning country, that's up to them.
Well, the ethnicity-ignoring "nation-state" is a purely European concept that Europeans only invented themselves in 1648 and then imposed on the rest of the world. However, the rest of the world has never really fully bought into it (we can even argue how well Europeans have bought in to it to this date).
Where Europeans drew nation-state boundaries across their colonies that fairly well corresponded with actual ethnic group boundaries, it kindasorta works. Where the nation-state boundaries attempted to ignore ethnic groups, it has failed and territorial wars continue.
The real problem in Iraq is there is no ethnic "nation of Iraq," and the various ethnic groups living in what Europeans defined as "Iraq" in their guts have never bought in to the concept.
p.3 #12 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
I don't disagree they are recent/non-ethnic boundaries but deciding definitively it's the US's fault, or the Brits', or the League of Nation's or the Ottoman Empire's, isn't going to solve their problems. Boundary and border and "ethnic" and sectarian conflicts predate anything approaching European influence in the area.
Given the number of different previous empires, etc., that have dominated the area, I doubt any other parsing of boundaries is going to find any kind of universal acceptance either. They can look for reasons not to fight, or reasons to fight.
p.3 #13 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
Well, the Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting literally since Muhammad died, so we certainly aren't going to have them singing Kumbaya any time soon. Yet, creating a very loose confederation of largely self-governing ethnic provinces may be the least bloody way out ("least bloody" being extremely relative).
Actually, the US Army is doing exactly that--enforcing local control by local groups (instead of the Iraqi central government)--which is the reason the "surge" appears to be working.
A provincial confederacy would not be bloodless by any means--we'd see at least the level of violence India experienced with Partition. Further, just as with India and Pakistan, there is likely to be continued violence along the borders. But each province may be able to sustain a nucleus of peace--a central core of tranquility--in which their populations can get accustomed to what peace feels like.
This is essential to their future. If they go too long with constant warfare, they will lose a generation of young men to violence. Young men who have never known peace as "normalcy" will never be able to accept peace as normalcy--they will never be able to become a generation of shopkeepers and farmers.
This was the reason the Sunni tribal chiefs got fed up with "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Those foreigners were/are life-long jihadis from childhood who knew no peace. When in control, they still practiced violence upon the people they claimed to "liberate." The tribal chiefs--who have known peace, who have known lives as shopkeepers and farmers--realized Al Qaeda in Iraq would not bring peace back to them.
But they are nowhere near able to come to anything like a Western liberal democracy. That takes centuries to develop, and it must be built from the bottom up (not from the top down).
p.3 #14 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
It's a shame that such an interesting topic (ethics in conflict journalism) will soon be locked because of the bickering over politics. Fred's made it clear he doesn't want political discussions, so please stop.
p.3 #15 · What are the rules of conflict journalism, exactly?
One of the basics of "ethics" is that by original definition, ethics are both personal and rational (thought out logically). That is, an individual must determine his own calculus for what is the ultimate "good" that he is aiming to achieve, and along the way what are the "right actions" that will get him there. Ideally, that calculus should be consistent and applicable to any situation.
Personal ethics is not the same thing as "morality." Morality, by original definition, is what is traditional in society. Unlike ethics, morality is not necessarily rational, it simply is what the people in the village are doing. A person can be extremely ethical yet considered immoral by his society (e.g. Socrates).
Most of us haven't worked out our personal ethics. Most of us go with the flow, generally being half-utilitarian (when we want to feel noble) or half-hedonistic (when we don't care about feeling noble).
Sometimes our hedonism (a "good action" is one that doesn't hurt) leads us to join mutual-support groups, and we accept a list of that group's commandments as "ethics" as the price for group membership.
Maybe, though, we actually take that group's commands to heart and rise above being members merely because it doesn't hurt, but be members because we become true believers...that's called "deontology."
So the OP was wondering how strict was the "ethical code" of the photojournalist. Over the course of discussion, it should be clear than when we're talking about life and death situations, each journalist had better have his own personal ethical code worked out...something that he can defend in his own mind whether his editor finds out about it or not.
What goes as "photojournalistic ethics" today is really more a matter of morality--what the village does--than something actually reasoned. We can see that in the logical discongruity of the "village's" gut reaction to digital image manipulation. It reminds me of my early days in the military in the 70s when commanders held it as an article of faith that anyone who parted his hair down the middle was smoking marijuana--no rational thought, just knee-jerk reaction.
But in life and death situations, journalists out on the edge of human civility have to make decisions: What action in the next five minutes is one I can live through...and live with? And when do I decide it's better to take the action that I won't live through because I can't live with the action that lets me live through it?
This calls for more previous thought than simply following village morality.
