Photo of dying marine: was it right for AP to publish?

Ray Fischer wrote:
Me wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
wrote:
...And if the picture was of you -- and the last memory your children
would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?



Yes, absolutely. But I would like for the people showing it to note
that I died to prevent the atrocities perpetrated on the
innocent 9/11 victims from happening again. Absent that,
I would expect my family to point out to my children
how the left wing scum had used my image for their purposes.

What's "left wing" about showing war as it is?

When rightard wingnuts want to kill people, any criticism makes one a
"left wing scum". Too bad that there were not more "left wing scum"
living in Germany 70 years ago.

Ahhhhh. Godwins. But what the hell...
"Left wing scum" and accusations of "evil" from "commies" or
"socialists" is just normal reaction from cult evangelists for the Ayn
Rand philosophy of economic rationalism, and they've been very active in
forums and blogs for years. Worse than (but not so different from)
scientologists.
Here's one of Britain's leading "libertarians" behaving as a Nazi
apologist, only mildly condemning fascism because they were "socialist"
nationalists after all, but comparing them to the (undeniable evil) of
Stalinist Russia, in a manner that suggests that Nazis weren't so bad,
and Britain declaring war and fighting them wasn't a good idea for
Britain's long term interests.
Here's the link:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc099.htm
This clearly shows that if you want, then you can rationalise pretty
anything using individualist "rationalist" philosophy, including making
excuses for one of the worst tyrants the world has known.
Sometimes war is (always undesirable but) morally correct as a last
resort. Bush's crusade wasn't.
Libertarians aren't inherently left or right wing. That axis is one
dimensional, and it's just not that simple. Libertarians strongly
influence the US conservative movement especially WRT constitutional
rights on gun control, anti-social welfare, anti regulation etc.
The ideology is a cult - they have no answers (that fit their
philosophy) to simple and real practical problems, like how to fund and
run a fire department, deal with public health issues, or argue
rationally why it's okay for anyone to own a handgun to use to shoot to
kill to protect property, but can't answer if you should you be able to
own a nuclear weapon to protect yourself (against socialist invasion
perhaps?) and if not, then why not, as exactly the same argument
applies, and pragmatism (one of several evils to them) would be needed
to find an answer.

In article , real-address-
says...

Came across this article about AP publishing a photo of a dying US
marine and the controversy surrounding it. There hasn't been much
news here in the UK about it but I expect that it's big news in the
US.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53173,news,photograph-of-dying-marine-joshua-bernard-was-it-right-for-the-associated-press-to-publish

I'm all up for showing how things are and the press have done so on
may occasions, but at the same time the family must be very upset. So
I'm in two minds about this. Storm in a tea cup? Or genuine concern
on showing dead or dying NATO/ISAF soldiers?

I think the photographer is lucky to be alive. If you were trying to
snap a photo of *my* dying buddy, I'd blow your head off on the spot.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"Forty-two percent (42%) of U.S. voters say a group of people randomly
selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current
Congress."
- Rassmussen Reports

In article ,
says...

The picture itself is no news. The scum left-wing media use these
to try to make people feel sick and therefore want to lose a war.
Its standard stuff and long since the whole affair is well known.

And after all, telling the taxpayers how their money is being spent
cannot have any relevance. When neocons and rightards want to kill
people there can be no criticism tolerated.

laughter

I dunno if you keep up on current events, but the "neocon rightard" who
just vastly increased troop strength in Afghanistan is named Barack
Hussein Obama.

You might have heard of him. He's been in all the papers. Seen him on
TV a couple times, too.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Forty-two percent (42%) of U.S. voters say a group of people randomly
selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current
Congress."
- Rassmussen Reports

In article m,
kens says...

People
die in wars. If you don't like it then stop the ****ing wars.

Amen.

"The way to avoid war is to not have enemies."
- Sheryl Crow

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Forty-two percent (42%) of U.S. voters say a group of people randomly
selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current
Congress."
- Rassmussen Reports

On 2009-09-08 02:04:29 -0700, Giftzwerg said:

In article , real-address-
says...

Came across this article about AP publishing a photo of a dying US
marine and the controversy surrounding it. There hasn't been much
news here in the UK about it but I expect that it's big news in the
US.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53173,news,photograph-of-dying-marine-joshua-bernard-was-it-right-for-the-associated-press-to-publish

I'm

all up for showing how things are and the press have done so on
may occasions, but at the same time the family must be very upset. So
I'm in two minds about this. Storm in a tea cup? Or genuine concern
on showing dead or dying NATO/ISAF soldiers?

I think the photographer is lucky to be alive. If you were trying to
snap a photo of *my* dying buddy, I'd blow your head off on the spot.

Unless the photog was one of his buddies.
There have been snap happy GI's in the field since 35mm made it
relatively easy to carry a "small" camera. My father used his Argus in
New Guinea, The Phillipines and Okinawa.
I used a Yashica Electro 35 in Nam. (i still have it, and it still
works fine http://sn.im/rnzd2-un0 )
I can recall one squad which had more Nikons, Pentaxes & Kodaks than weapons.

You shouldn't be surprised at what a 19-25 year old red blooded
American boy will try to use a camera for.
Today it is even easier for a grunt to be a field photographer, and he
gets to upload files to family, friends, Facebook, or any sharing site
when he gets back from an OP.
....and I am sure AP would not turn down any shots offered.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Son, I bet you never served or saw war face to face. If you had, you
would like it so much.




In , on 09/07/2009
at 08:53 PM, Doug McDonald said:



wrote:

...And if the picture was of you -- and the last memory your children
would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?




Yes, absolutely. But I would like for the people showing it to note that
I died to prevent the atrocities perpetrated on the
innocent 9/11 victims from happening again. Absent that,
I would expect my family to point out to my children
how the left wing scum had used my image for their purposes.

Doug McDonald

Fred has a point: http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

Ray Fischer wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
DG wrote:
If people are upset about the photo then they should blame the
politicians for the war, not the photographer for the image.
NO! They should blame the scum people who print it against
the family's wishes, and the people who
started the war: al Qaeda and the Taliban.

That's a rightard lie. It was Bush and the neocons who started the war.



You've got to be kidding ... Even Obama does not claim that. One of his
Czars that did sign on to a document claiming it lost his job yesterday,
and that was one of the main reasons.

The war was started by al Qaeda back in the 1990s, and restarted by
them on Sept. 11, 2001.

Doug McDonald

DG wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
On Sep 7, 8:10 pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
NO! They should blame the scum people who print it against
the family's wishes, and the people who
started the war: al Qaeda and the Taliban. There is nothing
wrong with the photographer taking it ... if the family
had agreed, publishing it would have been OK.

Since when does a photojournalist or a media outlet need permission to
take or publish pics?
\
When COMMON DECENCY suggests so, that's when!

Doug McDonald


So your patriotism moves you to destroy the first amendment over
"COMMON DECENCY"?


Who's side are you on?



on the side of good, not evil.

Common decency is good. Just because the first amendment says they
CAN publish, it does not mean they SHOULD.

There are likely plenty of picture where the victim is
unidentified and unidentifiable. Those, I do not apply this
same criterion to.

Note that the Left will use the same argument to say that their
favorite victims' picture should not be published. They
are hypocrites.

Doug McDonald

Twibil wrote:
On Sep 7, 9:49 pm, " wrote:
...And if the picture was of you -- and the last memory your children
would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?
Of course I would. Since when is dying for your country something to
hide or be ashamed of?

Not that I've died for my country yet, but as an ex infantryman thanx
for that anyway.

The wrenching photographs that have come out of wars ever since the
camera became portable enough to make them possible have let the
public see what war is really about, and right up until the end of
Viet Nam such photo-journalism was simply considered to be an
important -if risky for the photographer- part of history. (See Ken
Burns' Civil War documentary for a striking example.)

Then after Viet Nam the US military decided that it would be better if
the US public was not allowed to see such photos, as it might
prejudice them against supporting a future war -as the military felt
had happened in Viet Nam.

Ever since then, the military -and the rest of the US government as
well- have frequently tried to make it difficult to take such photos,
or to allow them to be seen by the public if they *are* taken.

Call it "editing history in advance", and you won't be too far wrong.


But before Vietnam the press never actually **supported the enemy**
as they do now.

Doug McDonald