In Perspective, Planet: Capa like Pictures right or Wrong even if the War is Necessary and Moral?

"In this photo taken Friday, Aug. 14, Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard is tended to by fellow U.S. Marines after being hit by a rocket propelled grenade during a firefight against the Taliban in the village of Dahaneh in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. Bernard was transported by helicopter to Camp Leatherneck where he later died of his wounds." Read more here.

Daryl Lang of PDN, (Photo District News), complained that AP waited 3 weeks before publishing the photograph.

"Typically, AP photographs are released the same day they are shot, often within hours. But photos of killed service members are sensitive. The AP acknowledged “long deliberations” within the news agency over the picture. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had urged the AP not to release it."

"In a statement about the picture, the AP said: “The photographer, crouching under fire, took the picture from a distance with a long lens and did not interfere with Marines tending to Bernard...The decision to release the photo of the mortally wounded Bernard followed long deliberations within AP about whether to do so. An AP reporter also met with Bernard’s parents, so they could see the images in advance of their release.”

Bernard’s father opposed the release of the picture, the AP reported.

The AP provided the package of material to newspaper editors a day in advance to give them time to decide how to use it. The material was under embargo until 12:01 a.m. September 4.

Before the photo was published, secretary Gates asked AP CEO Thomas Curley to reconsider releasing the photo. “I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family,” Gates wrote in a letter to Curley. “Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling.”"

So what should we think? Should reports of the war be sanitized:

• To protect the privacy of families?
  
  
• Maintain the fighting morale of the Nato forces there?
  
  
• To Prevent Erosion of Support for the War against the Taleban and Al Queda?

Or should we follow Capa's devotion to bringing reality to us? If the war is indeed just, is that a safe thing to do?

Asher

First things first. Robert Capa's "devotion" was principally to his own notoriety as a daredevil and a -ahem- "ladies man", not really to being the great photojournalist his brother devoted his life carefully re-crafting his memory to be. So it's most productive to just set Capa aside here.

This question of war reporting, whether photographically or textually, is a century-old one that won't be resolved, or even clarified, here. Briefly, my own perspective is that the objectives of photojournalistic coverage of ugly conflicts is no different than those of advertising; to remind and highlight. Whether or not those are constructive undertakings is always a matter of debate. Eddie Adams's 1968 vietcong execution photo is often credited with turning the tide of public opinion against the Vietnam war. That's highly debatable. But more recently the amateur p&s snaps of Iraqi prisoner tortures certainly exposed those sadistic, over-zealous practices to public criticism. (Still, it's doubtful that prisoner torture has ended. It's merely done more discreetly and "professionally".)

Whether a war is "just" or unjust is entirely a matter of one's point of view. Today it has become ever harder to determine who the combatants are and nearly impossible to identify the motives for killings in the Middle East. War there just become a dial-tone of centuries-old hatred unlikely to ever stop in our lifetimes.

So what role do photos have in this mess? Today, relatively little of anything meaningful.

Ken Tanaka said:

First things first. Robert Capa's "devotion" was principally to his own notoriety as a daredevil and a -ahem- "ladies man", not really to being the great photojournalist his brother devoted his life carefully re-crafting his memory to be. So it's most productive to just set Capa aside here.

Click to expand...

Most of the photographs, at least of the Spanish Civil War were documentary, ordinary folk on the roads, soldiers stopping for a smoke, overloaded carts abandoned by the roadside, a man shot.

Yes the brother might have repackaged him. Anna Frank's father didi that too! She wrote strongly nationalist novels. However, her fierce hatred of the Nazi tormentors (and Christians who spawned them), and her ardent Zionism was distilled and repackaged by her apologist father. Her ardent cries were ultimately transmutated to a universal fight for justice. It was safely addressed to all the oppressed and ironically wrapped "Christian" forgiveness, "in spite of all, man is still human", (paraphrased).

So your disclosure of Capa being repackaged by his brother is something new to me but will help me better understand his work and now have an idea of gaps that need to be filled in my knowledge of his work and intent. The "Ladies man" comment, I have no reference for as for a lot of the time he weas with just one woman , a fellow photographer. Again, my knowledge has gaps here.

Ken Tanaka said:

This question of war reporting, whether photographically or textually, is a century-old one that won't be resolved, or even clarified, here.

Click to expand...

In the great battles of the Aztecs, Incas, Pharaohs, Romans, Napoleon's France and more, the artists of the winning side wrote the history in celebratory carvings and paintings. We see the grand armies, chariots of war and the vanquished in chains.

War photography by contrast, allows other glimpses of the disruptions, horrors and gallantry of war. Yes pictures are selected for impact by the photographer and perhaps for political message and then further filtered by editors for the like reasons. Still it's better than before. The reaction to these pictures requires the reasons and or excuses for war to be re-formed until that is no longer sustainable and public support collapses.

Ken Tanaka said:

Briefly, my own perspective is that the objectives of photojournalistic coverage of ugly conflicts is no different than those of advertising; to remind and highlight. Whether or not those are constructive undertakings is always a matter of debate.

Click to expand...

Ken Tanaka said:

Eddie Adams's 1968 vietcong execution photo is often credited with turning the tide of public opinion against the Vietnam war. That's highly debatable. But more recently the amateur p&s snaps of Iraqi prisoner tortures certainly exposed those sadistic, over-zealous practices to public criticism. (Still, it's doubtful that prisoner torture has ended. It's merely done more discreetly and "professionally".)

Click to expand...

It's worthwile for the young folk to learn something of Eddie Adams and the Digital Journalist as a nice article here

I'd say that this picture of the reaction of 14 year old runaway girl, Mary Ann Veccio added strength to the antiwar feeling:

Ken Tanaka said:

Whether a war is "just" or unjust is entirely a matter of one's point of view. Today it has become ever harder to determine who the combatants are and nearly impossible to identify the motives for killings in the Middle East. War there just become a dial-tone of centuries-old hatred unlikely to ever stop in our lifetimes.

Click to expand...

Ken,

It's our overlapping delusions.

Asher

1. Afghanistan is NOT in the Middle East.

2. where there is a war, declared or not, people die and/or are injured.. It is human beings, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, husbands, wifes and other relatives and friends that die or are injured on both sides.

whatever your opinions, death is death, injury is injury. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions have died
from both sides.

I have no answers, but at least I know my geography! let's at least know where people are dying. Whether they are right or wrong only time will tell.

fahim mohammed said:

1. Afghanistan is NOT in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Fahim,

I doubt that Ken is anyway challenged in geographic locations of yesterday's and today's wars, insurrections, fighting and killings. The mention of the "Middle East" likely reflects current topics in the news. Recently bombings in the Middle East edged out Darfur, Afghanistan, Restive Chinese regions and other spots where people are fighting and being dying.

fahim mohammed said:

2. where there is a war, declared or not, people die and/or are injured.. It is human beings, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, husbands, wifes and other relatives and friends that die or are injured on both sides.

whatever your opinions, death is death, injury is injury. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions have died from both sides.

I have no answers, but at least I know my geography! let's at least know where people are dying. Whether they are right or wrong only time will tell.

Click to expand...

I agree with your feelings. The question is this. If you have pictures from a war zone where your countrymen are fighting, should you publish the good and bad, even if it undermines your country's strategic interests in terms of public support. For example, in Baghdad right now, police don't allow photographers to snap images of those murdered in an homicide bomb attack, people torn apart, others dying and passers by screaming and walking dazed. Is that policy of image suppression morally correct.

That's the same question I posed in the initial post. On one side, the human death toll and reality should be known. On the other hand do these pictures merely desensitize us at home to such awful losses or serve as grist for propaganda makers? It seems to me that truthful news should be given and presented with a balance of viewpoints. The humanity of both sides needs recognition. That goes for photographs too. Photographs must be placed in context. As long as the pictures are representative, balanced and not staged, skewed, enhanced or "spun" for propaganda, then, I contend that samples should be shown. That people died, should not be some state secret!

Even then, some caution is also needed to prevent such pictures becoming routine news, (like the scores of sports of peripheral interest) or else mere armchair entertainment.

Asher

point 1. Asher, you are correct. But with serious contender for the vp post seeing ' russia from their
window' one begins to have doubts. remember serious vp contender.

point 2. I agree with the your pov as boldfaced below.

Re: Capa..wasn't there some question about his pic re the spanish soldier being shot in the spanish
civil war?

I have held a human being in my hands, while the life slowly was ending. That experience has taught
me the value of a human being...seeing death up close, the breadth slowly leaving, the body going limp, the flame gone. Just the memories linger. Imagine this million times and the horror sinks in.

such an experience cannot be understood by someone seeing video screen images of precision guided
destruction being rained on other humans.

I am sorry for the rant.

Asher Kelman said:

Fahim,

...snip....

It seems to me that truthful news should be given and presented with a balance of viewpoints. The humanity of both sides needs recognition. That goes for photographs too. Photographs must be placed in context. As long as the pictures are representative, balanced and not staged, skewed, enhanced or "spun" for propaganda, then, I contend, that samples should be shown.

.....


Asher

Click to expand...

Fahim,

he subject was publication of photographs of the human injuries and deaths in war. Such death does not occur vacuum. There's a huge spectrum of causes, indoctrination, nationalism, delusion, poverty, geopolitical exploitation and using that as an excuse to become rich on the backs of one's people and more. Still, let me leave that aside for now, knowing there are a lot of elephants in the room.

Let me side track to one discrete aspect from all of all the long list of brutality we commit, contribute towards or tolerate. It's the modern phenomenon of the so called "suicide" bomber, better termed homicide bomber, since the prime intent is to massacre folk who happen to be in some market or such place.

It's hard for me to grasp the idea of "self-sacrifice" to a cause where one does not merely fight bravely and risk dying, but actually uses one's body as a tool to murder civilians as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Leaving aside the Palestinian-Israeli battlefield, with two nationalist peoples, where we know there is hatred, (and need for revenge and "justice" drilled into children's minds from kindergarden. There I might comprehend but not condone using these young folk as traveling bombs if it was against soldiers in some "battle". However, how can this also happen so readily where it's one's own people one kills, mothers, boys, girls, just people shopping? How can one persuade and motivate a young nationalistic and or religious persons to do such carnage to innocents? The market bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan show this is something folk accept as an instrument of war.

In battle, sure, young folk are brave! They carry convictions and fight till victory or death. But the organized murder of civilians as a matter of political creed or faith, How is that possible? Somehow, leaders have dehumanized ordinary people and made them into vermin? How do we do that so readily? It seems that's part of our dark side. Still it happens and photographers take pictures.

If the pictures are NOT shown, does that serves any good? The grieving families are certainly not tricked by this! So what's the reason for suppression? Does silencing such news perhaps decrease hysteria and the consequent need for blood revenge? Is there another downside. When Iraqi' factions "kill each other", does it lessen the moral wrong for civilian deaths in a shelling of insurgents firing from among homes, "after all this is how these people are, killing each other and so civilian deaths should be accepted as an overhead of war"?

It may be entirely wishful thinking, but don't we want to increase the value of people. Does showing pictures help that cause? If the pictures are or are not shown what effect, if any, might it have on the occurrence of civilian massacres? Maybe it's of no consequence!

General Petreus wants US troops to err on the side of not firing whenever there are civilians. That's not just a matter of photography!

I have no solutions, but question the censorship of war pictures to sanitize events.

Asher

Asher, Re: the act of publishing photographs like that shown in your op is something I would support, if done with the caveat I have previously boldfaced.

I cannot support fanatics and maniacs ( from wherever ) killing their own innocent people or other innocent folks, just as I cannot support outsiders killing innocent people in their thousands from the air/ground/sea. Both are crimes and those that practice such deeds are criminals.

I think not showing such photographs does sanitize the attrocities. Also it has hidden and continues to hide that so called ' liberators ' are not being welcomed with open arms and that their sons/daughters are not met with garlands. You know the saying Asher..' those who do not learn from history...'

Re: General Petreus..the recently bombed fuel tankers and killed ( massacared ) how many civilians..was it 50,60,70? the general only cares about such things as something which does not help the war effort.

But which photographer cjose to show these Afghan civilians...do we know the name of even on of them as the AP photograph?

Asher, me and you, might share similar feelings but both our opinions are shaped by our environments and however rational and objective we might want to be..there are things we cannot solve, fathom.

We are bystanders. Let's just pray our grandchildern inherit something better.


Regards.

fahim mohammed said:

Re: General Petreus..the recently bombed fuel tankers and killed ( massacared ) how many civilians..was it 50,60,70? the general only cares about such things as something which does not help the war effort.

Click to expand...

Now there's a tug of war. The German officer who called in the air strike, or the US officers who's planes that were ordered there in response.[/quote]

fahim mohammed said:

But which photographer cjose to show these Afghan civilians...do we know the name of even on of them as the AP photograph?

Click to expand...

Interestingly, Fahim, I wrote pretty well what you wrote. After each civilian massacre, we should get names. In practice, the photographer is also running for his life and cannot stop to do a social survey. One photographer wrote how the army unit came to a village dropped of some goods for the villagers and raced off as socializing made them targets. Now, imagine if Afghan or worse, foreign, reporters stopped to gather names at the site of the casualties around the fuel tankers. They would certainly become targets. Still, where possible, each person should be names and not treated as part of a sterile "body count".

fahim mohammed said:

Asher, me and you, might share similar feelings but both our opinions are shaped by our environments and however rational and objective we might want to be..there are things we cannot solve, fathom.

Click to expand...

Fahim,

I work from having taken a long journey and although still flawed by delusions as you might be because of our divergent backgrounds, we'd at least struggle with the problem, attempting to pull in the same general direction.

fahim mohammed said:

We are bystanders. Let's just pray our grandchildern inherit something better.

Click to expand...

At least we can exchange views and perhaps we might contribute in a miniscule way to better understanding.

Asher

Very quickly

Yes, I think that such pictures do have a place. I understand the use, as well as the control, of such images for purposes of propaganda. Usually the perpetrators believe the end justifies the means and that limiting knowledge and particularly the ability of people at home to identify with the enemy dead and their families is appropriate. This is about the war effort and not protecting the feelings of dead soldiers' famililes.

But I also understand the importance of bearing, or at least attempting to bear, witness of the evil that is done in so many places and the price of war that might just, sometimes, be avoided.

Last year I had a dream in which I saw the execution of 7 men. It was not pleasant, and even now disturbs me, but it also taught me that sometimes it is important that there is a witness for these things - even if they cannot be changed and are not even photographed. Sorry if that sounds naive and idealistic. Oh, and I'm not a dream reader

Also, we need to be aware that although we all have divergent backgrounds, there are also common threads that lead us to pull together in a similar direction. There are also people who do not share our understanding of the common humanity we share, and there reaction to these pictures may be very different to our own.

On Capa, there is a suggestion at least that the dying spanish soldier was faked or staged. This (oddly in today's world!) has caused some concern and damage to his reputation.

Mike

Good arguments.

For me I suppose this whole photo issue distills to one elemental truth: a photograph cannot tell a story. It can illustrate a story. It can suggest a story. It often sells a story. But contrary to the rhetorical blather that so often falls from photographer's mouths ("I am passionate about telling stories with my camera!" Errp.) telling a story requires language, something far beyond any photograph's capabilities.

When considering matters concerning one of the most important subjects of all, mortal aggression, I certainly think that people should base their decisions on something more reliable than a photograph.

Ken Tanaka said:

Good arguments.

For me I suppose this whole photo issue distills to one elemental truth: a photograph cannot tell a story. It can illustrate a story. It can suggest a story. It often sells a story. But contrary to the rhetorical blather that so often falls from photographer's mouths ("I am passionate about telling stories with my camera!" Errp.) telling a story requires language, something far beyond any photograph's capabilities.

When considering matters concerning one of the most important subjects of all, mortal aggression, I certainly think that people should base their decisions on something more reliable than a photograph.

Click to expand...

Ken,

Down the road if I get to ever write something more extensive on the subject, I'll quote the above verbatim. It's something that all news photographers and editors should admit to. The ideas apply to all of photography. "It should stand on its own" is something often demanded or claimed. Nonsense! I say. Every thing must have has context to create its relevance, significance and consequent thought. Anything we claim to be important in photography, should give us that essential framing.

Asher

Ken Tanaka said:

Good arguments.

For me I suppose this whole photo issue distills to one elemental truth: a photograph cannot tell a story. It can illustrate a story. It can suggest a story. It often sells a story. But contrary to the rhetorical blather that so often falls from photographer's mouths ("I am passionate about telling stories with my camera!" Errp.) telling a story requires language, something far beyond any photograph's capabilities.

When considering matters concerning one of the most important subjects of all, mortal aggression, I certainly think that people should base their decisions on something more reliable than a photograph.

Click to expand...

Ken, I have no disagreement with you here - a photograph without language may be as dangerous as no photograph or no language. Of course, language is also unreliable depending on the observer's viewpoint, but that shouldn't stop us communicating and discussing these topics.

Mike.

Well, the photographer did narrate the pictures at the end of a slide a slide show. I hope this with the accompanying text, does give a better framed story that the image itself.

Look at the digital Journalist here and the embedded video. Pictures were released after the marine's family had been notified. "AP's "Death of a Marine: A photographer's journal," the article can be found here." The direct link to the slide show with audio is here.

"A picture may be worth a thousand words!" but are they sufficient to represent what a Actually happened as opposed to what might seem to have happened. So is this pictorial reportage well set up and properly explained with context and the story?

Asher

I've thought about this for some time. The appropriateness of these images is not a new debate. Interestingly, Matthew Brady's images of the carnage wrought by the Civil War are highly regarded but essentially not at all different from the image of the dying marine discussed here. How, I wonder, were Brady's images received at the time? For time puts these images in a context we cannot appreciate at the moment; today's seemingly unfeeling depiction of the gore and suffering wrought by war can- and often does- become tomorrow's window into a time of incredible suffering that we seem to be condemned to endlessly repeat.

I have, unfortunately, seen this sort of thing and I've never photographed it nor cared to do so. I think often of the situation people mention wherein "He/She never talks about the war." I thought to myself that the reason for this was a wanting to put the horror behind one's self, of trying to forget about it. I know now that the reason people who have experienced this sort of thing do not talk about it is because it is pointless to discuss it with anyone who has not shared that experience. It is simply impossible to explain it, words- or images- cannot describe what it is like to be caught up in something like this. To know it, one must experience it. It is a terrible, terrible thing when it is up close and personal. No picture can convey just how terrible it is and it is my most earnest hope that those of you who have not experienced it never will.

There are countless moments in these situations that are infinitely more eloquent than the depiction of a dead or wounded person, be they soldier or civilian. Tom Lea's painting The Two Thousand Yard Stare is an example of this.

War is, conceptually, a political undertaking. In actuality, it is an extremely personal experience. The image discussed here is an outside-looking-in glimpse at an intimacy between these three marines that no one other than their brothers- those they experience this horror with- will ever understand or appreciate. The image, as a news item, evokes the political and trivializes the personal.

I'm not objective about this, I know. It's personal.

Wendy

Spot on, Wendy. Understanding of someone else's personal experience can only come about by capability to enter into that experience, usually but not always by having had a related experience. It's for that reason that peer bereavement counsellors are more effective than those with lots of qualifications but never experienced bereavement, to give just one of many related examples. So war photographs of the type discussed right or wrong, necessary or moral? Why bother answering. Those are the wrong questions. They don't inform or educate but may at best or worst shock the impressionable to who knows what effect.

Michael_Stones said:

Spot on, Wendy. Understanding of someone else's personal experience can only come about by capability to enter into that experience, usually but not always by having had a related experience. It's for that reason that peer bereavement counsellors are more effective than those with lots of qualifications but never experienced bereavement, to give just one of many related examples. So war photographs of the type discussed right or wrong, necessary or moral? Why bother answering. Those are the wrong questions. They don't inform or educate but may at best or worst shock the impressionable to who knows what effect.

Click to expand...

Wendy and Michael,

I have seen a lot of horror too and worked with killers, revolutionaries and troops, I have walked up a hill beyond troops behind sandbags to deal with a sniper shooting at everything below. People have died as I'm watching them. However, I don't believe that we cannot explain our feelings to others. We are above all sentient beings and articulate. So if you explain to us, even without the personal experience of mortal wounding, what you might have witnessed, we can experience enough of the pain, that we are there too. You just have to open up and not censor your feelings and relay what you saw, smelled, heard and the nature of the matter and I believe we'd understand.

That's what makes novels work and art, art; the ability to reinvoke in others, powerful feelings. However, there is a price that the story teller pays and that is the opening of partly healed wounds. That's really why we don't want to talk about these horrors. Only when our 3rd son was 10 years old, 35 years later, did my father in law disclose, without planning to do so, (at a show and tell, to talk about Patton's army), what he saw in Concentration Camps in Europe that he and his platoon liberated. But why did he remain silent for so long? It was too painful to think about!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Wendy and Michael,

I have seen a lot of horror too and worked with killers, revolutionaries and troops, I have walked up a hill beyond troops behind sandbags to deal with a sniper shooting at everything below. People have died as I'm watching them. However, I don't believe that we cannot explain our feelings to others.
Asher

Click to expand...

I certainly agree that feelings can be articulated. I don't think you can ever describe the situational experience to anyone who hasn't lived it.

It will probably take me years to sort all of this out!

Wendy

Asher Kelman said:

Wendy and Michael,

... However, I don't believe that we cannot explain our feelings to others. We are above all sentient beings and articulate. So if you explain to us, even without the personal experience of mortal wounding, what you might have witnessed, we can experience enough of the pain, that we are there too. You just have to open up and not censor your feelings and relay what you saw ...

... but why did he remain silent for so long? It was too painful to think about!

Asher

Click to expand...

Spot on, too, Asher. Some people communicate very well about tragedy and evoke significant depth of feeling in the recipient. That, as you say, is a main foundation of art. But does a photograph taken by a third party in pursuit of fame, glory, money, conviction or whatever communicate what personal disclosure can express? Not very often, I suspect.

But it's your second paragraph - not the first - that Wendy wrote about. For whatever reason, and pain is certainly one of them, they choose to censor those memories. It's their right and privilege, and probably adaptive in the short or medium term despite what Freud thought.

Cheers
Mike

Asher Kelman said:

[Julie Jacobson | Associated Press]​

Before the photo was published, secretary Gates asked AP CEO Thomas Curley to reconsider releasing the photo. “I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family,” Gates wrote in a letter to Curley. “Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling.”"

Click to expand...

I would think that the pain of suffering caused by the death are quite a bit bigger than the pain an suffering caused by its depiction.

If an activity is jeopardized, if someone shows the consequences and/or side effects, I wonder if this activity is really worth it.