Surprised there hasn't been any mention of this. An AP photographer snapped a picture of a wounded Marine in Afghanistan, moments before his death. The Marine's father begged the AP not to publish the picture and Secretary Gates even asked them not to run it, but they did anyway. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h1RsPnEIzKM7_Wb9631XMQDIWKeAD9AGOJM82 Not a legal issue, but one of common decency. No excuse for the AP's actions here.
The AP has just been bizarre for a couple of years now. I thought it was not right for the last administration to ban photos of military coffins arriving back in the US, but I did support privacy if requested by the families. That is what should have ruled the day here. The guy's family did NOT want this picture published. If ignoring that request is not a breach of common decency, it is tough to know what is.
It's one of those things probably no one will disagree on, so it's not a great discussion topic. I do agree with the two posts above.
What has changed? I don't remember this being an issue from the Vietnam War. Korea? WW II? While I definately have empathy for the family and understand the pain in seeing the photo, I also understand the need to have images from the war provided to the country. I don't think the general public payes enough attention to the results of war (both dead and injuried). Maybe there is some middle ground where the soldiers face can be blurred out...
This is a larger issue than just what the parents want. There is a responsibility for reporters to give us more and more accurate information, and the more important the issue, the more important that responsibility is. The greater good is done by showing everyone this image.
This is a little off-topic, but anyway... I was visiting friends in Toronto over the weekend, and happened to catch a bit of the news (CNN, I think) where they ran a story about a couple of Canadian soldiers who were recently killed in Afghanistan. It was complete with their photos, short biographies, and video of a ceremony in Afghanistan with flagged-draped coffins, etc. It seemed to be much more information than I ever recall seeing about any specific American losses. Nothing tasteless, but it definitely put a much more human face on the war. Personally, I never agreed with the ban on US media covering fatalities returning through Dover or wherever. On the other hand, I did see the photos of the Marine, and thought they were unnecessary. I also don't think that they should have been released over the objections of the family. Just my $0.02.
I agree to an extent, but I don't think the parents should have to see pictures of their son dying. I wouldn't have a problem with images like this if they could make it anonymous to spare the families. I'm not sure if keeping the name, unit, and details of the incident confidential is always possible, but I'd think it could be done frequently enough to allow some coverage like this.
Doubt it was CNN, we get that straight from Atlanta. Probably the CBC, which talked about this in news reports all weekend long. Either way, as much as a photo of a dying soldier isn't something I want to see. It does portray effectively the horrors of war, and is something that adds to the public discussion. Was there not a similar outcry about the photos of the downed American helicopter pilot's corpse dragged around by the riotous mob in Mogadishu in the early 90's?
Their is no "greater good here", just a company seeking to profit by generating controversy. This is more a race to the bottom, than any greater good. We should set some standards and hold journalists to them. One of those standards should be if the family of a deceased solider does NOT want pictures of he death published, you follow their wishes. If AP Reporters/Editors what to show people at the moment of death let them follow their own grandparents around. Maybe they will get lucky and catch grandma being hit by a car. Then they can justify making profit from our "baser instincts" by claiming it was for "the greater good".
I guess I have to ask why this, and why now? How long have we gone with nothing approaching this photo coming out of either Iraq or Afghanistan? Is it suddenly appropriate to share this images with the American public? Wouldn't this be aiding and comforting the enemy? You know, the same reasons that were given for not showing anything remotely close to this photo, including flag drapped coffins returning hom.
After being outraged at how we wasted this kid's life, I didn't have enough left to give a damn about the photo. Either I just don't have as much outrage to go around as I used to or I've just become more adept at where to direct it.
When compared to the public acknowledgment of deaths during Peacekeeping operations, the way the media has handled Canadian deaths in Afghanistan can be considered to be overkill. As for the US, there are still some bad memories from one of the more notable pictures featuring a dead US soldier.
The photo didn't need to be released above the objections of the parents. But photos like this DO need to be released. To many of you, especially the right-wing-pro-war-Cheney cabal, war is a video game, where we bomb insurgents with UAVs and blow up embassies with remote-control GPS-guided missiles. There are young men and women dying, or coming home with missing limbs, brain damage, and combinations thereof. This isn't pretty. Sure, the casulty counts are low, but that's only because we manage to save those with brain damage and missing limbs that would probably have died in any previous war. People are getting killed in messy ways, that happens in war. But we should be reminded of it often so that we can determine as a nation if sub $5 gas prices are worth it. Because, lets be honest, that's what this war is about.
So that the PlayStation generation and the Nascar Dads realize that wars arent video games or Hollywood movies.
again, I'm not aware of this responsibility for the press to give us "more and more" information - accurate or not. and even if you accept that as being the mission of the press, I'm not exactly sure how showing a dying person (be it civilian, military, American, or Tali) accomplishes that.
No big surprise here. AP spent the last eight years dutifully cheerleading the Iraq war and licking Rove's balls, and now they're trying to steer public opinion about Afghanistan.
you are silly to think that those who support the war will change their minds over a photo of a soldier dying in said war. most of the NASCAR dads you're talking about are also hunters who are familiar with the sight of blood and dead corpses, (albeit animal) so I don't think they're going to get squeamish because the AP decides to publish a photo of a dying person.
I think the way the Canadian government does it is much more tasteful and effective. it shows the human aspect of the war, the fact that those are real people with families and friends who are no more as a result of the war. to me, that brings it home much more effectively than a tasteless photo of a dying person. would you guys who support publishing the photo be okay with publishing photos of dying people after car accidents?? you know, just to really bring home to people how bad drinking and driving is...
I seriously don't recall, but did news outlets show dead & dying kids at Columbine and Virginia Tech?
I honestly don't recall either, but as far as I do remember, I don't think so. I think they showed kids that were standing around in shock and consoling each other, but I don't think there were any pics or video footage of people actually dying.
okay, I did a quick pic search of both shootings and in the case of VT, there are a couple of pics withe police carrying dead or dying victims out of the building, but the pic is far enough away that you cannot see the face of the individual. I also saw a pretty close up view of one girl what was shot dead - in one pic her face is blanked out, but in another pic, it is not. not sure who actually took or published that particular pic, but it probably wasn't the AP or Reuters. either way, it's tasteless. in the case of Columbine, there is one pic of a dead or dying person being hauled out through a window by the police. again, you can't see the face of the individual as the pic is taken from too far away.
That was meant to be read as "(more) and (more accurate) information". And I like more information because you generally see the positions better with more information, and if there is less information you have to wonder who is editing the information for our consumption and for what reasons. Because it shows the cost of the war in an emotional way. Human decision making is emotional, not rational, and hiding the nature of the cost of war behind solely rational numbers is just another way of hiding the truth. At the time of the Battle of the Somme in World War I, the British Army released a heavily sanitized film of actual footage from the battle. They had no idea of the shock the film would cause among the population - up to that point, the general population didn't have an inkling of how the war was actually conducted.