[MMike]

Seattle Times is totally cashing in...saying that it has "stirred national debate". Is it wrong to have published this photo?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001912332_tami25m.html

It's been going on for a week now. The photographer has been sacked from her job and everything.

(We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.)

 

[biggins]

first, i think it sucks that our or anyone elses soldiers are dying especially people at such a young age. secondly i am not a supporter of war. i think diplomacy is a better option (unless someone comes over and starts bombing the crap out of us)i think that invading other countires is rediculaous and way outdated. but conversly, when someone decides to not go to college or what ever and enlist ion the armed forces it is a real possibility that they may go to war and they may die. that is why i never did it, i dont want to die for my country. i think it is a agreat country but it has too many problems that would most certainly stop me from wanting to die for it and i certainly 110 percent would not want to die to uphold any pea brained shenanigan of george bush.

 

[Honor]

not at all wrong. the people need to know now fuq'd up this whole GWB thing is. I think that a war half way around the world is a war far away, and photos such as this one helps bring a reality to the home turf.

 

[Instigator]

Originally posted by Honor
I think that a war half way around the world is a war far away, and photos such as this one helps bring a reality to the home turf.

I agree.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Originally posted by Honor
not at all wrong. the people need to know now fuq'd up this whole GWB thing is. I think that a war half way around the world is a war far away, and photos such as this one helps bring a reality to the home turf.

Exactly. Bush's policy against publishing photos like these are another attempt at manipulating public opinion.

 

[Motionboy2]

I can't believe that this country has allowed a ban of photos of the deceased. That is, in my opinion, a direct knock to freedom of speach and freedom of press.
If we only allow photos of combat, photos of "the enemy's" deceased and photos of live solders returning that is the most blatent propaganda that has ever been put out there.
If the public doesn't see it, then they just assume it isn't there.

I think the fact that she lost her job and has had the presedent come down on her, enforcing this ban, is one of the biggest strikes against america in this war.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by Honor
not at all wrong. the people need to know now fuq'd up this whole GWB thing is. I think that a war half way around the world is a war far away, and photos such as this one helps bring a reality to the home turf.

It is too bad for America but, that is the exact reason the government has "banned" them.

 

[fluff]

God forbid someone posts a picture of all the Iraqi dead too...

Do people in the US not understand that people die in wars?

 

[Tweek]

The truth hurts.

No reason photos like that shouldn't be allowed to be published unless they show the faces of the deceased without the family's consent.

 

[Serial Midget]

I see nothing wrong with publishing the photo and everything wrong with banning it.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Originally posted by fluff

Do people in the US not understand that people die in wars?

i´ve wondered the same for a looooooong time.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by fluff
Do people in the US not understand that people die in wars?

No no, Americans most definitely know that people die in wars, but we don't like Americans dying -- hence the response to the photos. It's ok if others die tho.

 

[brenth]

I don't think its wrong at all for these pictures to be out there, and I do agree that it is wrong on a free speech basis for these pictures to be banned.

I am not for the war, and I don't like bush at all, but i'll tell you, the first thing I thought when I saw those pictures ( and I looked though all 350 of them), was the extreme care and reverance that was being displayed by everyone pictured. It was very moving to me.

 

[Silver]

Well, the photos aren't banned...because we are seeing them.

However, the lady who took the photo and her husband both got fired from their jobs. Now since they didn't work for the government, it isn't a free speech issue.

Technically.

 

[Motionboy2]

Originally posted by Silver
Well, the photos aren't banned...because we are seeing them.

There is a ban on taking photos of deceased solders. It has apparently been in place since 1991, during the persian gulf war. They don't punish those that present the photos, but they punish those who take the photos.

There are several articals about it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

There are a few reasons that the ban on pictures of deceased soldiers exists. The main one though, is that the next of kin should be notified in an apropriate manner, not by seeing their dead kid on the front page of some newspaper and learning about it that way. With the speed of information and digital photography these days, surely you all can see how that's an issue.
The next logical question is, why not release the photo after the notification, right? Well, notifications of death arent always simple things to deliver. The timeline varies from case to case and when you have numerous people dying every day and THERE IS A F***ING WAR GOING ON, its not always the priority of the public affairs guys to make sure some random photographer has the correct dead guy i his photo before he releases it. So, a simple and effective blanket rule exists. Break it? Get fired. Hamper your rights? Sure, but your rights to see dead people dont supercede the custom of a formal death notification.

I know you all really like to think of everything as a goddam conspiracy around this place, but jeezus, have a little respect and understanding.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by Motionboy2
There is a ban on taking photos of deceased solders. It has apparently been in place since 1991, during the persian gulf war. They don't punish those that present the photos, but they punish those who take the photos.

There are several articals about it.

I agree this is an end run around the first amendment, but I don't think it's going to be a direct issue. Even if it somehow got to the courts, you know at the end of the Supremes will all of a sudden become very concerned with privacy.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tweek
The truth hurts.

No reason photos like that shouldn't be allowed to be published unless they show the faces of the deceased without the family's consent.

This photo in particular, I dont have a problem with BUT, a line has been drawn in the sand. There's no reason to eat away at it.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
There are a few reasons that the ban on pictures of deceased soldiers exists. The main one though, is that the next of kin should be notified in an apropriate manner, not by seeing their dead kid on the front page of some newspaper and learning about it that way. With the speed of information and digital photography these days, surely you all can see how that's an issue.
The next logical question is, why not release the photo after the notification, right? Well, notifications of death arent always simple things to deliver. The timeline varies from case to case and when you have numerous people dying every day and THERE IS A F***ING WAR GOING ON, its not always the priority of the public affairs guys to make sure some random photographer has the correct dead guy i his photo before he releases it. So, a simple and effective blanket rule exists. Break it? Get fired. Hamper your rights? Sure, but your rights to see dead people dont supercede the custom of a formal death notification.

I know you all really like to think of everything as a goddam conspiracy around this place, but jeezus, have a little respect and understanding.

These are faceless and nameless coffins...not photos of the faces of deceased soldiers.

And if your concerns were really an issue, there wouldn't be a blanket policy against it, the Pentagon would simply ask that photographers wait until notifications were made.

That might be a reasonable way to do it, and I think you might get a lot of voluntary compliance. Since that doesn't seem to be an option, the only thing that comes to mind is that the people in charge don't want the general public to see the consequences of war. They just want us to think it's a smart bomb video game where no one (except of course the evildoers) gets hurt.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
These are faceless and nameless coffins...not photos of the faces of deceased soldiers.

And if your concerns were really an issue, there wouldn't be a blanket policy against it, the Pentagon would simply ask that photographers wait until notifications were made.

That might be a reasonable way to do it, and I think you might get a lot of voluntary compliance. Since that doesn't seem to be an option, the only thing that comes to mind is that the people in charge don't want the general public to see the consequences of war. They just want us to think it's a smart bomb video game where no one (except of course the evildoers) gets hurt.

1. I think you must not work with the media very often.

2. My concerns ARE the issue. Military PR is my job.

3. No one wants you to think that soldiers arent sacrificing. Everyone knows what's going on over there. It may come to "your" mind that people dont want you to see what's going on, but I can tell you taht the Govt. has literally spent millions on embedding media with our troops to give a more accurate portrayal of what;s happening.

 

[Ridemonkey]

I see photos that could be interpreted as patriotic or anti-war. I heard some radio interviews where people said they were impressed with the care and respect given to the deceased soldiers.

I don't see any bodies. So BS, how about you participate in this discussion like a rational adult rather than fly off the handle with your knee-jerk reactions. Don't they have PR training in the military?

 

[Silver]

Dude, I work in PR and marketing. I'm the flip side of the coin. I understand you'd really like people to stay on the killing evildoers message point without dwelling on the fact that people actually do die in these things....and I'm aware that is your job. Those millions spent embedding journalists pay off with breathless pieces about how well US weaponry works, but it also seems to gloss over the other side of the reality.

The US media has done an abysmal job on covering this conflict. You'd almost think that there were no photojournalists left in the US anymore. You get a decidely different view of things by reading media from other countries...any other country, really.

There actually are gentlemen's agreements about what gets shown. Look at how much press you're seeing of the Bush twins compared to what the Royal Family goes through in Britain.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
I see photos that could be interpreted as patriotic or anti-war. I heard some radio interviews where people said they were impressed with the care and respect given to the deceased soldiers.

I don't see any bodies. So BS, how about you participate in this discussion like a rational adult rather than fly off the handle with your knee-jerk reactions. Don't they have PR training in the military?

Who flew off the handle?

And yes, the do have military PR training. HERE is where I went to school.

Im talking policy, not knee-jerk reactions. Dont loke the policy? So sorry, but it exists for a reason.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver

The US media has done an abysmal job on covering this conflict. You'd almost think that there were no photojournalists left in the US anymore. You get a decidely different view of things by reading media from other countries...any other country, really.

I agree, but the media is your source of disinformation, its not the military. We release all the casualty information down the the small unit level as soon as we can. We allow media anywhere its reasonably safe for them to be. We have rules like the "no pics of dead soldiers" for very direct reasons, which i already explained. And as i said, this pic doesnt really bother me, per se. But, a rule is a rule and it shouldnt get eaten away. What's next, the back of some dude because it doesnt show his face? Is that OK? A severed arm? People can be identified by their families all kinds of ways. Its a safeguard.
...and i do read alot of news from everywhere actually. Its pretty critical to what we do to try and understand what people are thinking. But honestly, no crap, there isnt any kind of coverup with this stuff. I believe the onus is on the media.

 

[Silver]

So is the rule, "No dead soldiers."

I don't see any dead soldiers. I see boxes.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Silver
So is the rule, "No dead soldiers."

I don't see any dead soldiers. I see boxes.

Well, it appears they made a special case for these pics afterall anyway HERE according to this.

But look man, besides this photo, do you understand why the rule exists?

 

[Ridemonkey]

I understand the rule about dead soldiers - but why are we even talking about that? The photo doesn't have dead soldiers in it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
I understand the rule about dead soldiers - but why are we even talking about that? The photo doesn't have dead soldiers in it.

Because RM, its like anything else in this world. Give people an inch, and they want a mile. If first we go "Ok fine, coffin pics are allowed" Then the next question is "How about body bags?" They dont show anything more than a coffin right? Then its just some dude with a blanket over him. Then its just some guy covered in rubble... and so on, and so on.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Well, it appears they made a special case for these pics afterall anyway HERE according to this.

But look man, besides this photo, do you understand why the rule exists?

Special case? Looks to me like they were forced to.

I understand why the rule exists, I just don't think that the reasoning behind it is sound.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Ridemonkey
The photo doesn't have dead soldiers in it.

actually, it does. Ok, sure, you cannot see 'em, but the caskets aren't empty.

let's not play symantics.

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by LordOpie
actually, it does. Ok, sure, you cannot see 'em, but the caskets aren't empty.

let's not play symantics.

That's not semantics.

Is taking a photo of the outside of the plane those caskets are in prohibited as well?

 

[Just Lookin'...]

decided the difference between what's censorship and 'what's right' etc. is like walking a razor's edge - governments find it easier to ban 'all references' as opposed to 'what's appropriate to the circumstances' because that's how big government works.

reverently draped coffins with no one's name on it is a far cry from a twisted, burned corpse. however, anything that is open to interpretation is best locked down and buried. that's just the way the feds work.

we've given up a lot of our rights and freedoms since September 11, in the hopes that we'll sleep safer at night.

we're not the land of the free we used to be.

ultimately, it's very sad.

 

[$tinkle]

the photo is very much a big deal.

it needs to be shown, along w/ the photos of mass graves, with full & accurate descriptions; you know, that whole "the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth" thing. Everything that can be known, should be known. How else can we expect our leaders make an informed decision?

what does not need to happen is exploitation for political gain, or for propoganda. How that's prevented is unknown to me.

 

[biggins]

the ban on this kind of photo is rediculous
george bush is pathetic
this war is absurd
and these are the costs of being involved.

 

[$tinkle]

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by biggins
the ban on this kind of photo is rediculous
george bush is pathetic
this war is absurd
and these are the costs of being involved.

Biggins,

...how come you never debate, you just say stuff like this all the time? Seriously, its like that commercial where the cardboard stockbroker slides under that dudes office door and he's like "500 shares....GREAT!"
You know what Im talking about? ...and I dont just mean this thread dude. C'mon. Lets make cases here instead of just spraying jargon all over the place. You're gunna be viewed like 'sideways' in here if you dont first get some foundation for this stuff.

 

[Westy]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Biggins,

...how come you never debate, you just say stuff like this all the time?

Biggins is just the anti-N8.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You're gunna be viewed like 'sideways' in here if you dont first get some foundation for this stuff.

i see kitty has claws!

 

[MMike]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001912565_monlets26.html

If anyone cares...."letters to the editor" on this subject...

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
You're gunna be viewed like 'sideways' in here if you dont first get some foundation for this stuff.

was that the guy who was gonna graffiti his town when Bush came to visit?