Worthwhile discussion - comments

[Bigduke6]

SSgt Vijuri, you are operating from several bad assumptions.

- The military does not do any one a favor with it embeds a reporter. The journalist is there so that the people paying for the military, can see how the military is doing. Good or bad. Just because some Lieutenant says "embedding is a priviledge", doesn't make it so. The military has a choice: either put out information about itself and risk failure as a media organization, or leave it to the professionals and risk reports it doesn't like. The Marines are with this guy choosing the former, and it is pretty clear already they suck as a media organization.

- A reporter that accepts the trade off "We let you embed with us but you have to print/air/make public only stuff that we like" by definition ceases to be an independant journalist. This is why most independant journalist these days think embedding is a waste of their time. Why risk your life to do reports the military's public affairs office already is doing?

- The military has every reasonable right to censor information found by the reporter, that harms operations. It does not have the right to act as editors in a news organization, and censor information that is unpleasant, but does not have meaningful effect on operations. The pictures of the dead Marines fall into the second category. They were unpleasant, shocking even. But not something the Marines should be censoring - as is demonstrated by the Marines' hopelessly weak arguement that the pictures provide the enemy "valuable after-battle assessment".

The Marines, themselves, made public the number of dead and wounded the day after the bombing. Then they turn around and come down on a photgapher making pubic information they already gave to the enemy.

- If we are to believe the NYT article, the military itself says the photographer was, legally speaking, in the right.

In Mr. Miller’s case, a senior military official in Baghdad said that while his photographs were still under review, a preliminary assessment showed he had not violated ground rules established by the multinational force command. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, emphasized that Mr. Miller was still credentialed to work in Iraq, though several military officials acknowledged that no military unit would accept him.

This means the leadership of military units, which are supposed to be held together by discipline, are violating the very rules their commanders set out. The bottom line here is, no matter what touchy-feely problems the soldiers or the PAO section might have with it, it's not against the rules to take pictures of dead US soldiers, unless they can be identified.

The photographer checked with the company leadership before he made the pictures public. They said "Nope, we can't identify those guys from the pictures." It's in the article.

- The military continues to punish photographers taking pictures of dead soldiers, despite rules allowing it, and plenty of pictures of dead US soldiers from previous wars. In other words, the military is ignoring history and allowing its soldiers to make up rules of their own.

- The photographer in question is not just some guy. Zoriah Miller has, from what I read, worked as a war reporter for longer than many of the Marines that hate him, have been alive. Miller has, probably, been in more wars and combat zones than any of the Marines he was covering. He makes his living publishing his pictures with pretty much all of the top photo agencies in the world. Here is the list of the places he has worked in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Japan, Korea, China, Philippines, Pakistan, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, The United States, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Belize, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Mexico, Canada, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Gaza, Israel, West Bank, Lebanon, Turkey, Morocco, and Kyrgyzstan.

The idea the US Marines Corps has any chance at all of knowing better than a guy like this what is and is not a reasonable news photograph, is laughable.

I will add that this is a common mistake made by US soldiers. They seem to think they have a monopoly on knowledge of war, and what is appropriate in a war. They forget that there all kinds of wars, and that each of them has at least two sides. The war reporter doesn't have that luxury. In fact, most of the time the reporters/photographers covering them often are far more experienced, and more importantly, have risked their lives and seen death alot more, than the guys in the ranks. This guy Miller is a classic example.

(AKD, you seem to be making the same kind of mistake. A professional free lance news photographer routinely posts his pictures on the Internet so news organizations can check them out. This does not make Miller a blogger. It makes him a photographer doing his job the way pretty much every one in the profession does it. What, the way things are supposed to work is the Marine censors check out negative while they're in the developing bath? That so last-century, the world's digital dude.)

The bottom line here is that the Marines clearly do not have a clue on how journalism works, they are so arrogant that they think whatever standards they themselves invent could and should be enforced on reporters, and their opinion of themselves is so high they think they are doing reporters a favor by letting the reporters tag along. That thinking is stupid, fallacious and, to repeat, they will inherit the whirlwind.

This was an embedded reporter, who had voluntarily signed a contract and was otherwise under a courtesy of a military organization. He was not your Iraqi freelancer doing his stuff on his own. Simply put, this reporter fella could not use his discretion freely, as there where limits of what kind of "cooperation" the Marines were agreed to provide him.

Pacta sunt servanda. Surely this young reporter dude is not a whisteblower of any kind, people do know Marines and local Iraqis are not toon superheroes (dunno about the Marines themselves), and get hurt in a combat against the local insurgents and because of terrorist attacks. Due to unfortunate terrorist action, he got an opportunity to shoot lots of graphic content, which included dead bodies of the Marines.

An opportunity to score big for personal benefit or a wide ranging common policy issue? Who cares. Too bad he signed that waiver. What would Jesus do?

[John Kettler]

Bigduke6,

Superlatively argued! Would add that the military has plenty of combat camera types, using state of the art image capture and transfer tech, so that there should be no eyes rolling over being blindsided by standard photo reporter devices or procedures. Saw an entire program on this, and the combat camera types are rocking digital cameras mit digital relay, smart cards, satellite uplinks, etc., themselves. Further, I completely agree that if the reporter broke none of the rules, then it's the Marine leadership which should be roasted in the fires of adverse media and negative consequences, not the reporter. I think it "most ungood" (an expression from my now deceased father) that the Pentagon gets to exercise the extreme control over the media it does now. Had this been the case during, say, Vietnam, would we have even heard about My Lai? In fact, there's an entire book devoted to this question that I saw at B&N recently but didn't have time to peruse.

Wish I could remember the title, but the gist of its was hiding the truth. Even the editors of the venerable ARMY TIMES have come out foursquare against ridiculous restrictions on war reporters, such as authorization from the wounded to show images of them. They point out, and rightly so, that had we such restrictions in place in earlier wars, our understanding of what happened and the price paid by those involved simply wouldn't be what it is.

http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion/airforce_opinion_editorial_070625/

The OpEd is an unflinching look at what I believe is the real issue here: the insane notion that you can fight wars involving American troops, take casualties among same, yet never have to acknowledge it in any way meaningful to the people whose sons and daughters they are and whose taxes pay for the wars. It IS well that war is so terrible and were the true price presented to the American public, then, and only then, can it make truly informed decisions.

To me, the responsibility of an embed is to not blow OPSEC on a mission about to execute or, in some cases, already in progress. That responsibility does NOT include providing a highly sanitized model of the grim, gruesome reality of war so that lower Marine commanders can appease higher ups apparently wanting to keep the American public in the dark by denying it fundamental information via what McLuhan called the hot media. In his day, they were TV and radio. Nowadays, the list is longer, the communications faster, and the audience global. The struggle, though, between controlling war reporters and their legitimate information gathering and presentation functions is an old one, as seen in such seminal studies as Keighteley's THE FIRST CASUALTY.

On balance, I think the Marine Corps leadership involved looks bad in this one, even if you wish to invoke the John Paul Jones comment about defending democracy with an absolute dictatorship, referring to the U.S. Navy's rigid disciplinary practices back then. The reporter is there to report, and, IMO, only the exceptions listed should prevent him, and then only briefly in most cases, from doing just that. "He made us look bad," which seems to be the position taken by the Marine leaders involved, is simply lame.

Regards,

John Kettler

P.S.

BFC,

Since I'm still feeling my way on just what the "no commercial site" rule means, I hope the link I've given is okay. Am sure we'd all appreciate some clarification on the, er, commander's intent on this important matter.

[Bigduke6]

John,

Yeah, First Casualty pretty much says it all on this issue. The military almost always tries to manipulate the information flow and it almost always is burned in the process. Most of the time, this is because information supression works for a while, making the news that much more shocking when it finally comes out.

My personal opinion, The Army Times, Stars and Stripes, and similar pubs are doing good work getting reporters into the dirt with the troops, and they are doing a pretty good job telling the troops what the troops are up to. The combat pix are sometimes excellent. That said, their readership/viewership is primarily military, so naturally there is an emphasis on the good the military is doing, and a certain uncritical acceptance when some Colonel says something iffy, like, "The locals they really appreciate us." So I would say their reporting is to my taste a bit one-sided, but then, I'm not in the military.

The point is, of course, also not military are the overwhelming majority of the readers of NYT, or viewers of photographs shot by this guy Zoriah Miller. Those consumers of that media are civilians and they don't really have much to do with the military except pay for it. So it really makes little sense for the enforcement of USMC values on reporting by the NYT or Zoriah Miller.

The modern military seems to think it can operate without the media, or at a stretch can and should sanitize news, and that it the military has every right to try and manipulate US public opinion.

Well, of course they can try.

[akd]

The photographer checked with the company leadership before he made the pictures public. They said "Nope, we can't identify those guys from the pictures." It's in the article.

According to him, he asked some "guys" he was bunking with if they could ID the victims, not company leadership. Please don't make up facts.

- The photographer in question is not just some guy. Zoriah Miller has, from what I read, worked as a war reporter for longer than many of the Marines that hate him, have been alive. Miller has, probably, been in more wars and combat zones than any of the Marines he was covering. He makes his living publishing his pictures with pretty much all of the top photo agencies in the world. Here is the list of the places he has worked in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Japan, Korea, China, Philippines, Pakistan, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, The United States, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Honduras, Nicaragua, Belize, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Mexico, Canada, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Gaza, Israel, West Bank, Lebanon, Turkey, Morocco, and Kyrgyzstan.

The idea the US Marines Corps has any chance at all of knowing better than a guy like this what is and is not a reasonable news photograph, is laughable.

I will add that this is a common mistake made by US soldiers. They seem to think they have a monopoly on knowledge of war, and what is appropriate in a war. They forget that there all kinds of wars, and that each of them has at least two sides. The war reporter doesn't have that luxury. In fact, most of the time the reporters/photographers covering them often are far more experienced, and more importantly, have risked their lives and seen death alot more, than the guys in the ranks. This guy Miller is a classic example.

(AKD, you seem to be making the same kind of mistake. A professional free lance news photographer routinely posts his pictures on the Internet so news organizations can check them out. This does not make Miller a blogger. It makes him a photographer doing his job the way pretty much every one in the profession does it. What, the way things are supposed to work is the Marine censors check out negative while they're in the developing bath? That so last-century, the world's digital dude.)

The bottom line here is that the Marines clearly do not have a clue on how journalism works, they are so arrogant that they think whatever standards they themselves invent could and should be enforced on reporters, and their opinion of themselves is so high they think they are doing reporters a favor by letting the reporters tag along. That thinking is stupid, fallacious and, to repeat, they will inherit the whirlwind.

Bigduke, I have a degree in photojournalism and have worked as a freelancer. I have many friends still in the field. Please stop preaching to me about the job. The military has allowed thousands of journalists to work in Iraq producing tens of thousands of uncensored images. This has not been a heavily censored or heavily sanitized war by any stretch of the imagination. Using Vietnam as the standard is nonsensical. How could it possibly be considered rational for the military to base its policies on Vietnam?

If there are fewer journalists embedding today it is due to one primary reason: the consumers are no longer interested and the media has moved on.

[Bigduke6]

AKD,

Fair enough, but that leaves me with some questions:

Why in the world would you call a working photojounalist, who has won awards, earns his living with his camera, and has a war zone pedigree a mile long, a "blogger"?

Are you rejecting the point of the NYT article saying, in essence, that the military has over the course of the war become more and more restrictive of the media?

Wouldn't you agree that if the military were to pursue a policy of keeping the reporters from the action, and punishing journalists reporting things the military doesn't like, that that policy would tend to keep reporters from being with the troops, and over the long term set up the military and the media as antagonists?

In your considered opinion, if the dead soldier pictures we are talking about were on the next cover of Newsweek, would that sell more or less Newsweek magazines?

The problem is not censorship. The problem is a military leadership assuming that its version of reality, military values, must be assumed by reporter - and if the reporter does not, he is "disloyal." The problem is a military that has decided that manipulating the message is more important, than keeping its hands off the press.

It was as nearly as I can tell within the USMC's own regulations to publish pictures of dead Marines. Retaliating against a photographer covering Marines in combat, for following the Marines' own rules for the media, is a small but undeniable case of the press being repressed by the military - every member of whom, it is worth pointing out, swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

[akd]

AKD,

Fair enough, but that leaves me with some questions:

Why in the world would you call a working photojounalist, who has won awards, earns his living with his camera, and has a war zone pedigree a mile long, a "blogger"?

Because he primarily publishes his images in blog form and does so as blog entries, including journal-style first person accounts. Not saying there is anything wrong with blogging (see Michael Yon for a very different perspective), but it can be more "dangerous" due to lack of review and imperative to rush publication.

Are you rejecting the point of the NYT article saying, in essence, that the military has over the course of the war become more and more restrictive of the media?

NYT would have us believe that more restrictive controls on media have reduced coverage. There may be some limited circumstances where this is true, but the main factor is decreased interest in covering the war because it is becoming more difficult to sensationalize and public anxiety over the situation has decreased significantly.

I'll leave NYT's motivations for this angle to you to consider for yourself.

Wouldn't you agree that if the military were to pursue a policy of keeping the reporters from the action, and punishing journalists reporting things the military doesn't like, that that policy would tend to keep reporters from being with the troops, and over the long term set up the military and the media as antagonists?

If it appeared that there was a general move to punish reporters for all negative coverage, not just graphic imagery of US war dead, then yes, but I really haven't seen this. Apparently the military in Iraq can't even agree on booting Zoriah out, so I don't think him no longer being welcome with the Marines is a sign of an intentional policy to hide the war from the public.

In your considered opinion, if the dead soldier pictures we are talking about were on the next cover of Newsweek, would that sell more or less Newsweek magazines?

More, but Newsweek would unleash a ****storm on itself, possibly dooming it's already uncertain future. What would be the motivation for them to put such imagery on their cover other than to cause disgust and fear, serving the aims of the terrorists who planned the bombing. Do you believe like Zoriah, that if terrorists see their handywork shown to the world, they will realize the errors of their ways and renounce arms.

The problem is not censorship. The problem is a military leadership assuming that its version of reality, military values, must be assumed by reporter - and if the reporter does not, he is "disloyal." The problem is a military that has decided that manipulating the message is more important, than keeping its hands off the press.

I don't understand the alternate reality or message you believe the military is trying to promote. That a Marine's face can't be partially detached in a suicide bombing blast?

It was as nearly as I can tell within the USMC's own regulations to publish pictures of dead Marines. Retaliating against a photographer covering Marines in combat, for following the Marines' own rules for the media, is a small but undeniable case of the press being repressed by the military - every member of whom, it is worth pointing out, swore to uphold and defend the US Constitution.

And every member of which has their civil rights repressed daily. They can expect to have a level of trust honored by those that they protect that may be impossible to set forth in regulations.

[JonS]

Do you believe like Zoriah, that if terrorists see their handywork shown to the world, they will realize the errors of their ways and renounce arms.

Uh ... who cares what the terrorists think? If you refuse to be terrorised they lose. If you keep jumping at every real or imagined shadow they win.

[Stalins Organ]

NYT would have us believe that more restrictive controls on media have reduced coverage. There may be some limited circumstances where this is true, but the main factor is decreased interest in covering the war because it is becoming more difficult to sensationalize and public anxiety over the situation has decreased significantly.

publishing pics of dead Americans seems to be pretty sensational.

Dead Iraqi's are, of course, blase

[Affentitten]

Dead Iraqi's are, of course, blase

You mean dead insurgents.

[Bigduke6]

AKD,

Reasonable comments, but still....

Because he primarily publishes his images in blog form and does so as blog entries, including journal-style first person accounts. Not saying there is anything wrong with blogging (see Michael Yon for a very different perspective), but it can be more "dangerous" due to lack of review and imperative to rush publication.

What are you driving at here? There is no rush to publish on a blog. On the other hand, if the photog gets some one interested in the shot, then by definition the editorial process is happening.

In my experience, the quality and validity of news shots depends about 95 - 99 per cent on the shooter, and the rest on the editorial process. I think this guy's credentials are so solid it's just silly for the Marines to second guess him. He for a living goes to war zones and wins awards for his pictures.

NYT would have us believe that more restrictive controls on media have reduced coverage. There may be some limited circumstances where this is true, but the main factor is decreased interest in covering the war because it is becoming more difficult to sensationalize and public anxiety over the situation has decreased significantly.

I'll leave NYT's motivations for this angle to you to consider for yourself.

If it appeared that there was a general move to punish reporters for all negative coverage, not just graphic imagery of US war dead, then yes, but I really haven't seen this. Apparently the military in Iraq can't even agree on booting Zoriah out, so I don't think him no longer being welcome with the Marines is a sign of an intentional policy to hide the war from the public.

True, we have no unshakable proof, but the Gray Lady doesn't rush, ever, and that article of theirs cited three or four documented instances where the military punished photogs for shots the military doesn't like. The arguement is that is evidence of a trend.

I for one have not heard of any recent cases of the military being amazingly forthcoming and helpful, media-wise. Were you to know of such, that would certainly undermine the NYT's allegations.

I think you are partially right that the low public interest is a factor in low media presence, but let's consider a minute. What if the media could report without retaliation on things like military waste, or conditions inside prisons holding detainees, or what the troops really say about the locals, or whatever other nasty information reporters left to their nefarious devices would dredge up. Which they would, I think, were there no threat of retaliation. I bet that would raise the interest level in war stories. I wonder which it is, there are no war problems, or some one is hindering media investigation into war problems?

More, but Newsweek would unleash a ****storm on itself, possibly dooming it's already uncertain future. What would be the motivation for them to put such imagery on their cover other than to cause disgust and fear, serving the aims of the terrorists who planned the bombing. Do you believe like Zoriah, that if terrorists see their handywork shown to the world, they will realize the errors of their ways and renounce arms.

Oh for Heaven's sake, how can you have a journalism degree and not recognize such a bald-faced lie? Zoriah is obviously equivocating, he is using the morally okay arguement "I want to make the terrorists change their ways" to put off any one mad at putting scary photographs on his site. Reporters lie all the time about their work justifications, they're no different from any one else. The difference is that, when the good reporters are actually doing their job, they expose lies, and do their best to get at the truth.

A guy with that kind of work pedigree for sure has no illusions about war, the idea of his wanting to change terrorist minds is silly. He just got some good shots, legally, and now his job is to peddle them. That's what reporters do, that's their job. It isn't pretty, but of course soldiers kill sometimes and we approve of that.

The issue is not, however, whether the photographer is a nice guy. At the end of the day, the issue is whether the pictures of the dead Marines were newsworthy.

My view is, the pictures have undeniable news value. I disagree with you, I for instance could see Newsweek putting those pix on its front page, pretty easy to do, all that has to happen is the editors decide enough dead soldiers is enough, and the picture makes that point extremely clear. Kind of like when Life did that pictorial of every dead guy during a single week of Vietnam - the point was this big magazine was putting faces to the names so readers could really get how many people were dying.

Obviously the Newsweek editorial board isn't to that point right now, but if not Newsweek then NYT, or some counter-culture mag, or the Daily Telegraph, or the Jerusalem Post, or the Straits Times - it's a big world out there, and it is pretty narrow-minded to think that the only media market in the world is the US market, and so any photographs taken of US troops in Iraq should be valued in pure US terms.

I don't understand the alternate reality or message you believe the military is trying to promote. That a Marine's face can't be partially detached in a suicide bombing blast?

No, the wierd groupthink is that the Marines seem to think they know better than reporters what is a valid news photograph. That's dumb. I mean, would you expect a bunch of reporters to know better than the Marines how to clear a house? So why expect the reverse?

And every member of which has their civil rights repressed daily. They can expect to have a level of trust honored by those that they protect that may be impossible to set forth in regulations.

Yeah well, that's very true, but there is always the let's-lie-to-the-reporter factor. Trust goes both ways.

Could it be this photographer got sick of being jerked around and lied to by the Marines? I have no idea, but there is the NYT article claiming the military is torquing down on the media, and no matter what you think of the NYT, I sure haven't been alot of reports of late of the Pentagon's policy of unprecedented openess and media access when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm going on a limb here, but speaking from experience, stranger things have happened, than a reporter just getting fed up after trying hard to do his job and having the military stand in his way, and so eventually the reporter goes public with the stuff he was supressing because he was trying to be a good guy.

After all, usually reporters try really hard to be friendly with their subjects, it makes their job a whole lot easier. But sometimes, subjects don't want to be friendly back. Maybe that's what happened here. Maybe the field grades just screwed with old Zoriah one too many times, maybe the privates refused to have their pictures taken while they were alive, maybe the NCOs lost his chow.

We don't know something like this happened, but of course if it did it wouldn't be a big leap for the photog to figure he would be wasting his time with the Marines in the future, so why not end the relationship with some photos the Marines really didn't like?

I am shamelessly speculating of course. It could just be this photographer is a jerk and the Marines did everything right and bent over backwards to give this guy access and support Freedom of Speech, his chow was on always on time and warm, he got to go on whatever patrol he wanted, he never got bumped from a helicopter, the privates were glad to have him along and they helped him get good pictures. Sure, if that's what happened then the Marines have every right to be upset.

[Stalins Organ]

You mean dead insurgents.

No. I don't.

[SSgt Viljuri]

What puzzles me greatly, is this somewhat totalitarian sounding and profoundly erroneous notion that it would somehow perfectly okay for news people and photographers to violate privacy and common decency, let alone their contractual obligations, as long as it serves the purposes of citizen activists, Internet Brigades or what ever form shared interests take on this issue and others?

Freedom of press is not an absolute, not even in the US. Rights, basic or derived, do conflict with each other. These conflicts can not be resolved based on how highly someone values himself or how great salaries news media people command (talking about money wrongly spent), nor this can be solved based on how much somebody hates GWB or the Iraq War and how much he wants to vent his feelings about it!

Somehow this discussion has been mostly about non-issues.

[akd]

AKD,

Reasonable comments, but still....

What are you driving at here? There is no rush to publish on a blog. On the other hand, if the photog gets some one interested in the shot, then by definition the editorial process is happening.

In my experience, the quality and validity of news shots depends about 95 - 99 per cent on the shooter, and the rest on the editorial process. I think this guy's credentials are so solid it's just silly for the Marines to second guess him. He for a living goes to war zones and wins awards for his pictures.

True, we have no unshakable proof, but the Gray Lady doesn't rush, ever, and that article of theirs cited three or four documented instances where the military punished photogs for shots the military doesn't like. The arguement is that is evidence of a trend.

I for one have not heard of any recent cases of the military being amazingly forthcoming and helpful, media-wise. Were you to know of such, that would certainly undermine the NYT's allegations.

I think you are partially right that the low public interest is a factor in low media presence, but let's consider a minute. What if the media could report without retaliation on things like military waste, or conditions inside prisons holding detainees, or what the troops really say about the locals, or whatever other nasty information reporters left to their nefarious devices would dredge up. Which they would, I think, were there no threat of retaliation. I bet that would raise the interest level in war stories. I wonder which it is, there are no war problems, or some one is hindering media investigation into war problems?

Oh for Heaven's sake, how can you have a journalism degree and not recognize such a bald-faced lie? Zoriah is obviously equivocating, he is using the morally okay arguement "I want to make the terrorists change their ways" to put off any one mad at putting scary photographs on his site. Reporters lie all the time about their work justifications, they're no different from any one else. The difference is that, when the good reporters are actually doing their job, they expose lies, and do their best to get at the truth.

A guy with that kind of work pedigree for sure has no illusions about war, the idea of his wanting to change terrorist minds is silly. He just got some good shots, legally, and now his job is to peddle them. That's what reporters do, that's their job. It isn't pretty, but of course soldiers kill sometimes and we approve of that.

The issue is not, however, whether the photographer is a nice guy. At the end of the day, the issue is whether the pictures of the dead Marines were newsworthy.

My view is, the pictures have undeniable news value. I disagree with you, I for instance could see Newsweek putting those pix on its front page, pretty easy to do, all that has to happen is the editors decide enough dead soldiers is enough, and the picture makes that point extremely clear. Kind of like when Life did that pictorial of every dead guy during a single week of Vietnam - the point was this big magazine was putting faces to the names so readers could really get how many people were dying.

Obviously the Newsweek editorial board isn't to that point right now, but if not Newsweek then NYT, or some counter-culture mag, or the Daily Telegraph, or the Jerusalem Post, or the Straits Times - it's a big world out there, and it is pretty narrow-minded to think that the only media market in the world is the US market, and so any photographs taken of US troops in Iraq should be valued in pure US terms.

No, the wierd groupthink is that the Marines seem to think they know better than reporters what is a valid news photograph. That's dumb. I mean, would you expect a bunch of reporters to know better than the Marines how to clear a house? So why expect the reverse?

Yeah well, that's very true, but there is always the let's-lie-to-the-reporter factor. Trust goes both ways.

Could it be this photographer got sick of being jerked around and lied to by the Marines? I have no idea, but there is the NYT article claiming the military is torquing down on the media, and no matter what you think of the NYT, I sure haven't been alot of reports of late of the Pentagon's policy of unprecedented openess and media access when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm going on a limb here, but speaking from experience, stranger things have happened, than a reporter just getting fed up after trying hard to do his job and having the military stand in his way, and so eventually the reporter goes public with the stuff he was supressing because he was trying to be a good guy.

After all, usually reporters try really hard to be friendly with their subjects, it makes their job a whole lot easier. But sometimes, subjects don't want to be friendly back. Maybe that's what happened here. Maybe the field grades just screwed with old Zoriah one too many times, maybe the privates refused to have their pictures taken while they were alive, maybe the NCOs lost his chow.

We don't know something like this happened, but of course if it did it wouldn't be a big leap for the photog to figure he would be wasting his time with the Marines in the future, so why not end the relationship with some photos the Marines really didn't like?

I am shamelessly speculating of course. It could just be this photographer is a jerk and the Marines did everything right and bent over backwards to give this guy access and support Freedom of Speech, his chow was on always on time and warm, he got to go on whatever patrol he wanted, he never got bumped from a helicopter, the privates were glad to have him along and they helped him get good pictures. Sure, if that's what happened then the Marines have every right to be upset.

I never questioned his talent, or visual style, although I would say many of his shots feel derivative. Having artistic style and having judgement are different things. I've known many photographers with great style who lacked the proper judgement to be good photojournalists.

Read the guy's blog. He has an unquestionable political motive, to the point that I can only think it rather open of the Marines to allow him to embed in the first place. Regardless, there are many statements he has made that could very well lead to questions of trust in a U.S. military unit.

[akd]

*30 minute edit rule is really stupid. Please delete the above.*

AKD,

Reasonable comments, but still....

What are you driving at here? There is no rush to publish on a blog. On the other hand, if the photog gets some one interested in the shot, then by definition the editorial process is happening.

In my experience, the quality and validity of news shots depends about 95 - 99 per cent on the shooter, and the rest on the editorial process. I think this guy's credentials are so solid it's just silly for the Marines to second guess him. He for a living goes to war zones and wins awards for his pictures.

I never questioned his talent, or visual style, although I would say many of his shots feel derivative. Having artistic style and having judgement are different things. I've known many photographers with great style who lacked the proper judgement to be good photojournalists.

Read the guy's blog. He has an unquestionable political motive, to the point that I can only think it rather open of the Marines to allow him to embed in the first place. Regardless, there are many statements he has made that could very well lead to questions of trust in a U.S. military unit.

True, we have no unshakable proof, but the Gray Lady doesn't rush, ever, and that article of theirs cited three or four documented instances where the military punished photogs for shots the military doesn't like. The arguement is that is evidence of a trend.

They didn't say every photographer was punished for shots of the dead or wounded, they leave it to you to assume that if it happened in the 4-5 cases they cite, then it is a clearly systematic. Yet it is unquestionable that the direct access to military units and light censorship has been unprecedented.

I for one have not heard of any recent cases of the military being amazingly forthcoming and helpful, media-wise. Were you to know of such, that would certainly undermine the NYT's allegations.

The military is never going to be forthcoming with images of their own dead and wounded unless ordered by the commander-in-chief. The entire embed program is extremely helpful to the media, and we need look no further than the fact that self-published photogs and journalists like Miller and others are given direct access to units conducting combat ops. That hardly suggest extreme control and censorship.

I think you are partially right that the low public interest is a factor in low media presence, but let's consider a minute. What if the media could report without retaliation on things like military waste, or conditions inside prisons holding detainees, or what the troops really say about the locals, or whatever other nasty information reporters left to their nefarious devices would dredge up. Which they would, I think, were there no threat of retaliation. I bet that would raise the interest level in war stories. I wonder which it is, there are no war problems, or some one is hindering media investigation into war problems?

What if there is nothing interesting (i.e. scandalous) to report on detainee conditions now? You assume that something is covered up when it might simply be that the media is no longer interested. And the press has reported on waste and corruption. Once again, show me that there has been active censorship of negative reporting. You are assuming that if it is not in the news, that it is happening but being repressed. That is a product of bias.

Oh for Heaven's sake, how can you have a journalism degree and not recognize such a bald-faced lie? Zoriah is obviously equivocating, he is using the morally okay arguement "I want to make the terrorists change their ways" to put off any one mad at putting scary photographs on his site. Reporters lie all the time about their work justifications, they're no different from any one else. The difference is that, when the good reporters are actually doing their job, they expose lies, and do their best to get at the truth.

Once again, what lie was Zoriah exposing? That Marine's faces don't detach in suicide blasts? Given that all the circumstances of the deaths were openly reported, what was left for Zoriah to expose?

He's says the graphic reality of the effects of bomb. He says this is necessary, because only if the effects of violence are seen will violence be renounced and policy change.

But this is morally corrupt. The bombers want these images to be seen. It is the perfect outcome and ultimate justification of their act. They agree with Miller's motive, that if there American public is made to see such horrible images, they will change their policy and leave Iraq. Both Miller and the terrorists state this motive openly.

A guy with that kind of work pedigree for sure has no illusions about war, the idea of his wanting to change terrorist minds is silly. He just got some good shots, legally, and now his job is to peddle them. That's what reporters do, that's their job. It isn't pretty, but of course soldiers kill sometimes and we approve of that.

Of course he has no illusions about war. He has seen it and decided he enjoys it. It is thrilling, profitable, and easy to sell on moral terms to less objective consumers.

Anyways, these are assumptions about the "professional" duties of journalist: that they have no country, that they have no moral obligation to anything but the "truth" (as they define it). Complete moral detachment from all subjects is a recent concept, one that would have been incomprehensible to a journalist in the Second World War.

The issue is not, however, whether the photographer is a nice guy. At the end of the day, the issue is whether the pictures of the dead Marines were newsworthy.

My view is, the pictures have undeniable news value. I disagree with you, I for instance could see Newsweek putting those pix on its front page, pretty easy to do, all that has to happen is the editors decide enough dead soldiers is enough, and the picture makes that point extremely clear. Kind of like when Life did that pictorial of every dead guy during a single week of Vietnam - the point was this big magazine was putting faces to the names so readers could really get how many people were dying.

Jesus. The above is a face you think should be placed with a name? Did you even look at that picture?

Until you can explain why such an image was particularly newsworthy, your arguments are empty.

Obviously the Newsweek editorial board isn't to that point right now, but if not Newsweek then NYT, or some counter-culture mag, or the Daily Telegraph, or the Jerusalem Post, or the Straits Times - it's a big world out there, and it is pretty narrow-minded to think that the only media market in the world is the US market, and so any photographs taken of US troops in Iraq should be valued in pure US terms.

I think the Marines are well within the right to value the presence of journalists on terms of at least basic trust. If a North Korean journalist requested to embed with U.S. Marines and was rejected, would you cry out in defense of the poor repressed North Korean?

No, the wierd groupthink is that the Marines seem to think they know better than reporters what is a valid news photograph. That's dumb. I mean, would you expect a bunch of reporters to know better than the Marines how to clear a house? So why expect the reverse?

Newsworthiness is not a technical question. It is a moral question. It requires no special training, only empathy.

Yeah well, that's very true, but there is always the let's-lie-to-the-reporter factor. Trust goes both ways.

He was accepted into the unit, fed, housed, protected and trusted. What more do you expect? Automatic forgiveness for something deeply hurtful to the unit because, well, he's a journalist and knows what's best for us more than we stupid, ignorant grunts who probably dropped out of high school.

Could it be this photographer got sick of being jerked around and lied to by the Marines? I have no idea, but there is the NYT article claiming the military is torquing down on the media, and no matter what you think of the NYT, I sure haven't been alot of reports of late of the Pentagon's policy of unprecedented openess and media access when it comes to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

NYT is not the arbiter of truth. You are going to need to produce some slightly less biased sources if you are going to claim something as broad as a systemic crackdown on reporting facts on the ground.

I'm going on a limb here, but speaking from experience, stranger things have happened, than a reporter just getting fed up after trying hard to do his job and having the military stand in his way, and so eventually the reporter goes public with the stuff he was supressing because he was trying to be a good guy.

He didn't "eventually go public." He published those images as soon as he believed the family had been notified.

After all, usually reporters try really hard to be friendly with their subjects, it makes their job a whole lot easier. But sometimes, subjects don't want to be friendly back. Maybe that's what happened here. Maybe the field grades just screwed with old Zoriah one too many times, maybe the privates refused to have their pictures taken while they were alive, maybe the NCOs lost his chow.

We don't know something like this happened, but of course if it did it wouldn't be a big leap for the photog to figure he would be wasting his time with the Marines in the future, so why not end the relationship with some photos the Marines really didn't like?

Seriously? You think this is more likely than an extremely emotional reaction in the unit to the pictures he published?

I am shamelessly speculating of course. It could just be this photographer is a jerk and the Marines did everything right and bent over backwards to give this guy access and support Freedom of Speech, his chow was on always on time and warm, he got to go on whatever patrol he wanted, he never got bumped from a helicopter, the privates were glad to have him along and they helped him get good pictures. Sure, if that's what happened then the Marines have every right to be upset.

The truth is probably somewhere in between. No doubt he thought he was doing the right thing. The difference is I am willing to believe that the Marines might also be doing the right thing in the circumstances.

[Abbott]

Abbott

Sorry if I seemed insulting, didn't mean to be.

But you've got me wrong on the hatred/enemy thing. I love my country.

Anyway, and moving right along, you should hear me whale on the foreigners about how great our country is. And don't forget I volunteered and served in uniform, in the US military, at a time when military service generally wasn't considered patriotic, just stupid.

Nope, I did not think you were insulting, just the usual load of bull****, hell who cares?

I know your intelligent Steve but as far as the the U.S. Military goes if you ever tried to serve again (figure of speech) and your CO read the things you have regularly posted to this Forum you would be out. Hell I know if I served with you I wouldn't trust you and your constant *****ing and baiting concerning the United States, our military, our President and the war in Iraq. You have badgered all of them on this Forum for several years now. As you may have guessed I wouldn't sit still and listen to it come out of your mouth if we served together in war time. That doesn't mean I think you are a bad soldier, I have a high opinion of you in that regard, my opinion is your on the wrong side. Why, I don't know.

As for the NYT, well, yeah sure, lots of people think it's a useless liberal rag. That isn't the same thing as it actually being a useless liberal rag; after all, if they have been in business for three centuries they must be doing something right. They seem to be doing pretty well in keeping a loyal readership - can all those New Yorkers just be willing to pay all those years to read packs of lies day after day? Or just maybe the NYT does its job well, that's how they've stayed in business this long?

The NYT is widely known as not just a liberal newspaper but as a very far left newspaper and one of the most far left (if not the most) of the major newspapers. The NYT is also in a bind financially, suffering from sinking sales and it has lost a prominent amount of subscribers, bankruptcy has been mentioned a few times, this is well known here in the United States. I personally canceled my subscription to the NYT Times a couple of years ago.

AKD is on point in this discussion. The number of journalists in Iraq has fallen significantly since the tide of war has turned. No bad news makes for a bad news day, low sales, and their employers have pulled many journalists from Iraq. Good news is considered boring news and most often doesn’t get reported, again, low sales. What pays the bills is writing up bad news in such a way as to make it worse and by sensationalizing whatever can be hyped. If something bad happens you can count on many journalists making it worse and editors going over it again to try and make it kick some more. Sensationalism gets them noticed and that's what pays the bills, the New York Times is famous for this approach to news and (again) here in the U.S. that is well known.

By the way if you are not aware the parks in Baghdad are now filled with picnicking families on the weekends. You asked me once (with a poor tone) “The war in Iraq, how is that going for you?” At this point it is going pretty good, hopefully it will continue to improve and God willing and if the river don’t rise some soldiers will be returning home soon. I look forward to peace but I do not expect it.

[Stalins Organ]

Which god willing is that?

Pfffttt...what passes for "the far left" in the USA is just to the right of Genghis Khan in the rest of the world!

For someone who espouses free speech, individual rights, capitalism, despises socialism and all that, you indulge in an awful lot of condemning other people for expressing their views on the same differently.

And don't give me any of that "I may disagree with what you say but I'll fight to let you say it" stuff - you clearly prove above that you have no such redeeming conscience!

[costard]

quote: "Pfffttt...what passes for "the far left" in the USA is just to the right of Genghis Khan in the rest of the world!"

For NYT to be famously sensationalist, it'd have to be judged in company. Fox, anyone?

Pfffttt...

[Bigduke6]

OK, for starters, let's just set the record straight, this guy has put up dozens of photographs of US troops, and most of them I would say are excellent, and only a small percentage even conceivably show the US troops in a bad light. Here's a pretty good snap that I would say is typical of what he has of the troops:

Ok, now for the bombing. He didn't just plop the dead Marine picture on the front page of his web site, he placed it within a photoessay of the bombing, and he makes clear to any one willing to look that the images are graphic and if you don't want to see blood and gore, go no further.

He also states explicitly what he is trying to show with the photoessay: "My message is not that war yields great photography. My message is: War yields human misery and suffering."

This is the linkie to the photoessay, and he's not kidding, I'm putting it in bold, these pictures are graphic, it includes smashed kids and body parts on the ground, the dead Marines are far from the worst of it.

http://www.zoriah.net/blog/suicide-bombing-in-anbar-.html

(Off the subject - does any one know how to give web links names as per the old forum)

Now, the question is, are the Marines justified in objecting to this photoessay?

I think the evidence is very strong that they are not. Why?

1. The Marines' own rules allowed the pictures to be taken

2. The photoessay does not just show dead Marines, it shows the effects of the bomb blast, including on Iraqis.

3. The pictures of dead Iraqis substantially outnumber the pictures of the dead Marines, and further, in some of the pictures the dead Iraqis can be identified, their faces are clearly visible.

4. Among the dead Iraqis pictured are dead children, and by almost any human standard, the picture of a dead child is more shocking than the picture of a dead soldier.

5. There are no pictures of wounded Marines or identifiably dead Marines - and I think we can take it as a given he got shots like that.

I think the conclusion is inescapable that the goal of the photoessay is not "exploit dead Marines." There aren't that many pictures like that, frankly. Rather, the goal of the photoessay is obviously "Bomb blasts kill and maim indiscriminately and horribly, and this is how it looks."

The Marines' objections, it is worth recalling, were twofold.

1. The pictures give the enemy "valuable after-battle intelligence"

2. The pictures insult the memory of the Marines that died in the blast.

I know what I think and I know what AKD thinks. I invite people reading this thread to check out the link, look at the photoessay, and make a judgement for themselves.

The question of whether or not the Marine reaction was a form of censorship, depends directly on whether or not the Marine objections are well-founded.

On the larger subject of whether or not the military is open or closed to media, it is quite true that the numbers of accreditations are unprededented. No question about that. But I would point out, that allowing a bunch of reporters into the war zone, and allowing them to report what they see necessary to report, are two very different things.

If we take the bombing in Anbar as a case in point, it may be worth remembering that within minutes of the bomb blast the Marine leadership kicked this guy Zoriah off the blast site "for security reasons" - a justification which is at least questionable, as the Marines left their own people, and Iraqi civilians, on the bomb site.

[Bigduke6]

Nick,

To take your last comment first, yeah it's calmed down. I read the articles about the Baghdad parks, just like I read the articles a few days later about the woman suicide bombers and all those dozens of dead people.

But really, I'm just wondering how long all these neighborhood militias that are getting paid by the Americans to police their neighborhoods, will stay a stabilizing influence. I don't see an effective central government, I don't see a functional judiciary, and I see lots and lots of people with guns. A weak and corrupt central government and the regions divided up among armed gangs is not a recipe for long- or even medium-term stability. You may see all that as a victory for US arms, me, I see it as a ticking time bomb. The only hope for stability as I see it is another dictator. Buliding democracy looks pretty dead to me - which makes me wonder why we invaded in the first place.

But if the present situation no matter how your read gets the troops home, that suits me.

Still, you and I seem to agree. Neither of us is expecting peace.

Sorry if you think what I write in this forum is hateful, or badgering, or anti-American. I'm pretty proud of my country, actually. But one can't please everybody, and at the end of the day I have to answer to myself for my views, not you.

As to why I have the views that I do, even though I served, well, each of us is the sum of his upbringing and experiences. Yours and mine, they aren't the same. Speaking for myself only, I sure was alot more right-wing and rah rah America before I got a job that forced me to look at issues from more than one side. I was pretty ignorant when I was younger, I like to think I am less so now.

If you and I had been in the same unit, honestly, I think we probably would have wound up doing pretty much the same thing we do here. We disagree like Hell, but we're in the same boat so we're not going to kill each other. We'd probably have figured out a way to work together, without liking each other too much. But who knows, a shared firefight or a severe wound or something like that, and once I got out I might well have named my little boy Nick. Life can be wierd sometimes.

As to the CO and getting kicked out - well don't forget I actually was in the service and I had real COs. No big deal, I knew which lines not to cross and when to keep my trap shut, just like I knew when I could get away with being insubordinate. I was one of those smart-asses that had real trouble with military rigamarole, but my bosses said I was fairly good at the field stuff. It takes all kinds to make an army you know.

Nope, I did not think you were insulting, just the usual load of bull****, hell who cares?

I know your intelligent Steve but as far as the the U.S. Military goes if you ever tried to serve again (figure of speech) and your CO read the things you have regularly posted to this Forum you would be out. Hell I know if I served with you I wouldn't trust you and your constant *****ing and baiting concerning the United States, our military, our President and the war in Iraq. You have badgered all of them on this Forum for several years now. As you may have guessed I wouldn't sit still and listen to it come out of your mouth if we served together in war time. That doesn't mean I think you are a bad soldier, I have a high opinion of you in that regard, my opinion is your on the wrong side. Why, I don't know.

The NYT is widely known as not just a liberal newspaper but as a very far left newspaper and one of the most far left (if not the most) of the major newspapers. The NYT is also in a bind financially, suffering from sinking sales and it has lost a prominent amount of subscribers, bankruptcy has been mentioned a few times, this is well known here in the United States. I personally canceled my subscription to the NYT Times a couple of years ago.

AKD is on point in this discussion. The number of journalists in Iraq has fallen significantly since the tide of war has turned. No bad news makes for a bad news day, low sales, and their employers have pulled many journalists from Iraq. Good news is considered boring news and most often doesn’t get reported, again, low sales. What pays the bills is writing up bad news in such a way as to make it worse and by sensationalizing whatever can be hyped. If something bad happens you can count on many journalists making it worse and editors going over it again to try and make it kick some more. Sensationalism gets them noticed and that's what pays the bills, the New York Times is famous for this approach to news and (again) here in the U.S. that is well known.

By the way if you are not aware the parks in Baghdad are now filled with picnicking families on the weekends. You asked me once (with a poor tone) “The war in Iraq, how is that going for you?” At this point it is going pretty good, hopefully it will continue to improve and God willing and if the river don’t rise some soldiers will be returning home soon. I look forward to peace but I do not expect it.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Although I don't have any axes to grind what comes to the NYT (appears to be an arch-typical postmodernist hatchery for do-gooders), it is quite interesting to note that the same mag with supposedly "impeccable journalistic standards" has fathered such journalistic talent as him.

Given that there were many Americans and other nationals emigrating to the "Soviet Paradise", at least partly because of such shameless propaganda and falsehoods reported by the NYT, the paper seems to have blood on their hands, morally speaking.

Not that different to some contemporary phenomena, interestingly enough.