Morality of no coffin Pictures

[Asher Kelman]

We have photographers embedded in Iraq. They are allowed to take pictures of combat and for sure have shown the dead and dying. Especially the carnage amongst Iraqi civilians.

However, we do not get pictures of the contractors killed in their unarmored Humvees or of the soldiers who still lose their lives in combat!

Is preventing these photographs respectful of the sacrifice families have made? Is that just being decent?

Or else is it still more immoral to hide the flag-draped coffins from the public?

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

There is an unspoken rule here in the UK not to show pictures of dead people period, was told that by the photo editor of the Sunday Telegraph at a talk he gave at a CPS conference.

To be honest it does make sense from a photographic point of view I suppose, shooting dead people in a war zone is kind of like shooting homeless people for a street photographer. Photos should give over a message, not shout it into your face, to that extent the military realise how much more damaging that shot of the draped coffins in the plane going home was, compared to images of dead combatants in the field. One makes you turn away with disgust, the other is poignant and will stick in your mind possibly for ever and thereby is a far more powerful and effective photograph for 'making a difference'.

I recently saw a photo from the World Press Photo competition, a photo where a media fest is (gruesomely in my opinion) taking photos of a baby killed in warfare. From the front that photo would have been distateful to say the least, moreso that the dead baby is being displayed in this way. From the back it is still gruesome but a far more powerful message (and not one complimentary to the press either!).

It does go back to the debate over how honest any reporting is these days given that it is driven by a specific editorial agenda and the medias mass hunger for news and photos however unethical it might be, Lebanon being a case in point. I don't know if the photos that Robert Capa and those of his time shot were presented with an agenda or were simply documenting war, I haven't studied it and am far too young to remember! What I do know is that the vast majority of war photography and reporting done now is agenda based and thereby pretty much useless.

If the photos of the flag draped coffins were to be shown alongside pictures of the atrocities that these young soldiers died to try and prevent then I would believe them to be ethical. But we all know exactly what type of editorials those pictures are used to drive. That is where the use of the photo becomes immoral. Those soldiers died for a cause they believed in, to use their dead bodies to drive a campaign to discredit their work there is IMO both unethical and discretitable whatever your personal opinion on the political side of the matter is.

 

[Asher Kelman]

If the photos of the flag draped coffins were to be shown alongside pictures of the atrocities that these young soldiers died to try and prevent then I would believe them to be ethical. But we all know exactly what type of editorials those pictures are used to drive. That is where the use of the photo becomes immoral. Those soldiers died for a cause they believed in, to use their dead bodies to drive a campaign to discredit their work there is IMO both unethical and discretitable whatever your personal opinion on the political side of the matter is.

My emphasis!


Hi Ben,

A very considered and careful response, pretty representative of a lot of liberal thinking British and Conservative bush-supporting Americans; a paradox, indeed!

Then the world of Journalism has to take responsibility!

It goes from street reporter all the way up to desk anchors, and executives. During Katrina, one brave male Fox News reporter, bucked the national news P.C. light-foot-walk, crushed the sacred republican eggs and bitingly reported with horror, anger, disgust the discarded people huddled on the bridges for days helpless ignored by the President, the senate and congress! That from a right wing, liberal-slamming news station! Those pictures were riveting and exemplary. The response of the government has been disgraceful!

I was told in England during training to shield the diagnosis of terminal cancer from patients so they would be "protected".

Of course I was utterly disorientated to be confronted with utter open disclosure by specialists in the USA.

How did it work? Were the patient's stripped of hope, devastated and giving up the fight? No! On the contrary, they felt respected, not excluded and ready for teamwork to deal with the crisis head on!

That is our nature. We are a species able to extemporize but cannot function with deceit or obfuscation. For our strength is in making rational decisions and with no facts, we're stripped of this greatest human quality.

Asher

 

[Nill Toulme]

Very interesting and thoughtful Ben. My immediate reaction, however, is that there are a number of assumptions inherent in what you've said — perhaps even so as to rise, if only unconsciously, to the level of what you characterize as an "agenda" of your own...

...What I do know is that the vast majority of war photography and reporting done now is agenda based and thereby pretty much useless. ...

Do you really mean to say that any and all information that is "agenda based" is useless? If so, I fear that tosses out about 99% of the information readily available to us.

If the photos of the flag draped coffins were to be shown alongside pictures of the atrocities that these young soldiers died to try and prevent then I would believe them to be ethical. But we all know exactly what type of editorials those pictures are used to drive. That is where the use of the photo becomes immoral. Those soldiers died for a cause they believed in, to use their dead bodies to drive a campaign to discredit their work there is IMO both unethical and discretitable whatever your personal opinion on the political side of the matter is.

Setting aside the several assumptions in this statement, is it any more ethical to bar such depictions in support of another agenda, as the administration has attempted to do? As believers in free speech and free press, should we not err on the side of too much information rather than too little?

IMO, our society is all too comfortably insulated from confronting the true costs of this and other wars. Not just the unfortunate inhabitants of the coffins, but the many many more who are blinded, crippled, paralyzed, and otherwise grievously wounded in body and mind are too much out of sight, out of mind.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

You are right of course, the media by definition is not the 'truth', it is driven by agendas and you choose to follow a particular agenda based on your own beliefs. The left wing Gaurdian newsaper in the UK is a good example. It is bought by 'Gaurdian' readers, etc. Where it gets fuddles is when a large news outlet such as the BBC has a specific agenda which is then imposed on the majority of the UK who watch the 2 BBC stations (out of 5 total!) and the popular radio stations.

So we either choose to pursue our own agenda by filtering the media which we expose ourselves to (possibly subconsciously) and therefore would admit that the media we respond to is anything but impartial, or we are too stupid to realise that there is an underlying agenda to the media in general which would invalidate the impartiality of said media.

As humans we love to to be told things that we already think, we are happy to be told news and accept it as true precisely because it is 'easy'. A nurse died because of misreporting of the Pope last year. These are people who are looking for an excuse, excuses fueled by an irresponsible media. How many people died because of a doctored photo of UK soldiers abusing prisoners in a newspaper here? The majority of people are quite happy to accept what they are told, they are not making rational decisions based on the facts because the majority of the world will accept what they are told in the media as 'the facts'.

What is the answer? I don't know. However I would hope that those controlling the media would remember the responsibility of their actions. Far too many deaths have been caused, and will be caused by the often utterly immature agendas being pursued by ignorant people who can not see past their own thoughts. Especially when extremists are extremely savy as to how easy it is to manipulate the entire western hemisphere though the ease which the media will allow itself to be manipulated.

I've been a soldier, an officer in war. I've been in combat and lost friends. You cannot view war from outside the persepective of war but that is exactly what the media does. Either war is totally wrong and never justified or you have to accept that war is a very very nasty thing. People living in the comfort of their homes in the comfortable west don't like seeing nasty things, they want a 'clean' war - G-d help them for their naivety.

I often wonder exactly what would happen would WW2 to have happened today...

 

[Nill Toulme]

... Far too many deaths have been caused, and will be caused by the often utterly immature agendas being pursued by ignorant people who can not see past their own thoughts. ...

Careful now, that's our administration you're impugning there.

Especially when extremists are extremely savy as to how easy it is to manipulate the entire western hemisphere though the ease which the media will allow itself to be manipulated.

Well, yes, I have to admit that also accurately describes our administration, but I think it's quite rude of you to keep pointing it out. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Nill, I'm not going to argue another countries politics for them! Personally I think that the entire western world is happily comitting suicide through political correctness and that Osama has not stopped laughing since 9/11, but everyone to their own!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Nill, I'm not going to argue another countries politics for them! Personally I think that the entire western world is happily comitting suicide through political correctness and that Osama has not stopped laughing since 9/11, but everyone to their own!

Hi Ben,

I think the issue of social political correctness wrapped in a Chamberlain-Jimmy Carter self-delusion is separate from information-fed decision making which should come from a well informed society.

The former is based on the false and simplist assumption that the latter, the backbone of our science and society, can simply "understand", empathize with and thus communicate with extremists and fascist and avoid their wrath.

In fact, the enemies of the West, be it in Indonesia, hacking up Christians or in the Phillipines, beheading them, has nothing to do with any miscommunication, rarther the idea of Jiyad to establish a grand caliphate to run the planet.

Now may be one could argue that to have peace we should convert. But that is the only foolproof solution to the fundamental dispute. Who kinows, maybe, in the long run that is what we should do to have peace.

Until we reach that point, information about the real pain of war makes for more realist decisions as to when and how to go to war and to invest the resources to protect the soldiers.

The alternatve is that a "right-wing grand delusion", where our finest treasure, our children, return in dark boxes.

I'm not saying the war is right or wrong, but reporters must report or else we'll never know!

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I wrote a whole thing but have decided not to bother, I will say having lived in the Middle East and returning there in December that the west is utterly clueless about the realities and context on the ground and are heading for some very serious problems through their blinkered approach to just how serious the problems are in the Middle East right now and just how much worse they will be if the US will pull out soon. The ambassadors from Saudi, Jordan, etc stated it to Congress just yesterday, they have no illusions, but people in the US and Europe still maintain the fantasy that when the US goes then everything will magically become OK. G-d help you all.

Whether the war was justified or not, nothing 'easy' is going to fix it now. It has no doubt been fun for Iran and Syria to co-ordinate the civil war using the US as a scapegoat, and watching as the US happily agrees. These are very strange times.

 

[Asher Kelman]

So Ben,

Then you agree with me? I'm intrigued by the hand you did not show!

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Huh? I agree with no one, on principle!

I'm sure there would be far more goodwill in this world if all bridezillas were shot on application. Probably the end of all wars as bridezillas become mothers in law, the true axis of evil. Can you tell that it's far too late here and I've been post processing just one too many weddings of late?

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

oh, I see what you mean, nope I'm saying that said blinkered approach is a direct result of the media's distortion.

I remember when an ambulance was mistakenly hit by Israeli rockets at night during the Lebanon crisis. Of course the Katushas were being transported in trucks at night which would explain why this unfortunate event happened. The Independant newspaper in the UK ran a photo of the mostly unmarked truck lying on its side with a huge red headline, 'A WAR CRIME?'. Something they of course did not do in reference to the 3000 katuysha rockets purposely targeted at Israeli civilians.

Just a small example of the media distortion present at the time. Is that reporting the facts at the time to allow us to make a decision on the brutality of war? Or is it trying to incite mass histeria to drive a specific agenda? Hell, the headlines of the Gaurdian and Independant newspapers here in the UK are daily using extremely over exaggarated headlines and editorials to pander to their agenda. These are not tabloids, these are mainstream broadsheets and they are heavily influencing the thoughts of the British people.

Recently the media printed photos of an American pilot who mistakenly killed a British soldier in a friendly fire incident. It was almost a lynch party, they were writing like they wanted to kill him, with lurid headlines and horrible articles. Is that 'telling us what is happening'? Or is it firing up as much anti-US feeling as possible to fulfil an agenda?

The media is reporting war out of context and people are being killed as a result, Lebanon should have got the media to pull their socks up and get their act together. Unfortunately agendas and lurid headlines are far more interesting..

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Ben,

I might have reported it previously but it's worth repeating. Zimbabwe was previously a British Colony as we know. However, the Ian Smith govenment could not fathom that some path needed to be made for aspirations of the ZANU and ZAPU politcal nationalistic movements which expressed Black African mood for coontrol of the land.

Instead his administration tired to continue the course, give the finget ot Mr Wilson, the British Prime minister and, basing his speach on the wording and retoric of the American Declaration of Independance.

He did try. He was not I think a racist, but he was trying to put a fire out, too late.

Anyway, after the famous "UDI" or Unilateral Declaration of Independance, the U.K. press sought to portray the Smith govenment as a Nazi-like race hating bunch of ranch owners.

Well someone took a picture of workers sleeping of their lunch under the trees in the central green grass divide in the roadway in the center of town.

The picture appeared in Britsh papers under headlines that the police don't even borther to collect the bodies of the Africans they massacred!

The press has the potential to be a noble estate, but as in this example, the press let us down. Had we dealt with the transiton better, maybe the current disaster there would have been avoided.

Asher

 

[Nill Toulme]

Had the U.S. press (and the Democrats) not rolled over and pulled the covers up over their pointy little heads in the wake of 9/11 and the face of the administration's blustering that anyone not with them was with the terrorists, we might not be in the debacle we're in now in Iraq.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[John_Nevill]

Its ironic that the top news photos of the year always show such suffering as their lead images.

 

[Mike Bailey]

To paraphrase: "I know what is best for you, and it is me." Call it what you will, censorship, paternalistic dictatorship, but the exclusion of facts because those facts might be used in a manner not approved by someone else is very dangerous, throwing a cloak over what should be seen in a bright light.

Historically, the more totalitarian a system, whether that is a belief system or a government or what have you, the more it wants to and needs to control any media that reveals it, a lesson we seem to constantly forget, then relearn, then forget again.

 

[Joel Slack]

I seriously doubt that the American public is suffering from a dearth of negative messages from the press, where it regards the conflict in Iraq.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I'm afraid that I'm based in the UK so I wouldn't know. What might well be interesting is investigating the history of the media v governement through world conflicts and how war photography was used. It could well give an insight and context to what is happening now. Does anyone who is older than me, or has studied it have any idea how war photography was used by the media during the 2nd world war, Korea, Vietnam, etc, etc?

 

[Nill Toulme]

I seriously doubt that the American public is suffering from a dearth of negative messages from the press, where it regards the conflict in Iraq.

Too little, and way too late. Our government was essentially given a free pass to do whatever it wanted, both domestically and internationally, for the better part of four years. We will be reaping the unhappy harvest of that sowing for many years to come.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Asher Kelman]

Too little, and way too late. Our government was essentially given a free pass to do whatever it wanted, both domestically and internationally, for the better part of four years. We will be reaping the unhappy harvest of that sowing for many years to come.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I wonder wehther it is something else: something fundamental.

The public has paid for service through taxes. So as long as the electricity is on and there's gas (petrol) in the pumps for a price we think is OK and no one is blowing up supermarkets, who cares.

Most people have no idea of geography or of Kurds of the Dersim swamp area being different from Kurds in Iran or from Marsh Arabs or the Yorabu od Nigeria.

Bush was certainly in this category of knowledge.

So when a man gets elected President he has to do the job to protect all the services we take for granted. As long as he succeeds, that's too much detail to know!

Now with the untrained privileged protected citizen is suddenly exposed to interest groups and a powerful military capability to do what ever he wishes.

So is he a terrorist as he takes infantile steps?

Or is it the fundamental separation of interest and details from our minds for delegated essential services to feed protect and supply us that is the terrorist?

In any case, the failure of delivery of photographs to us breaks the feedback chain for us to reinform and redirect the govenment.

Asher

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

A terrorist is one who purposely targets civilians for a political objective, how exactly would you define Bush as that?

Do you realise just how much you belittle the crime of a real terrorist by bandying the word around at politicians? Are you really putting Bush on par with the bastards who flew planes into the twin towers? Do you realise that you are just repeating the claims of muslim interest groups across the world whose biggest problem with the US army being in the middle east is that they are the US, nothing more?

 

[Asher Kelman]

A terrorist is one who purposely targets civilians for a political objective, how exactly would you define Bush as that?

Do you realise just how much you belittle the crime of a real terrorist by bandying the word around at politicians? Are you really putting Bush on par with the bastards who flew planes into the twin towers? Do you realise that you are just repeating the claims of muslim interest groups across the world whose biggest problem with the US army being in the middle east is that they are the US, nothing more?

Ben,

I do not believe that Bush is a terrorist at all! I try to look at the underlying gaps in our society strcuture that puts into action poor responses to the horrors of the scource of terrosism all over the world fed by hatred of Christians and Jews and the wish for a Caliphate.

Not that a Caliphate would necesarily be bad for the adherants of Islam, but that's to me their own decision if that's what they indeed want. However, please give us the free choice too!

Equating Bush to those who slaughter civilians, is disgusting and ridiculous.


Asher



Original post, uncut, moved here.

 

[Nill Toulme]

It's vital not to get tangled up in inflammatory rhetoric and instead look critically at causes, effects and results. Setting aside the endlessly interesting issues of how and why we got there, there is a growing body of well-versed opinion — including substantial factions (dare we say majorities?) within our own military and intelligence leadership — that our military presence in the Middle East in general and Irag in particular has made and continues to make things worse rather than better. Maybe they're wrong, of course, but it's absolutely critical that their voices be heard — because maybe they're right.

If nothing else, surely we can all agree that it is useful, and at least potentially helpful, that these issues are finally getting the benefit of some real questions and debate, as distinguished from what we have suffered since 2003 — a blind following of the dictates of those who cast anyone who opposed them, or even questioned them, as traitors. Let the light shine in.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Asher Kelman]

The question, Nill is this: can we have the full intensity of war shown to societies that are busy with earning a living and "reality shows", fashion and fun where "politics" discussions, like sex are considered bad manners?

We segregate those who fight from those who have fun. That's how we are organized unfortunately. Now our populations in Europe and the USA are pretty uniformed of history, real horrors and the nature of fanatic totalitarian regimes. That is something distant, of forgotten school books and old man's storries and the movies.

In this context, doesn't such brutal openness degrade our stomach for war?

Yes, we need openness. But we also need an aware population who is not admiring their own and other peoples belly button!

It becomed counter productive to support for a military misson when such people have to learn reality of war.

In that case a just war can be viewed as unjustifed!

Asher

 

[Nill Toulme]

Well I say we vote Bush off the island. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Asher Kelman]

You forgot Nill,

They don't show everything that happens!

The final episode has not happenned.

As Churchill commented on the deafeat of Rommel's famous desset corp in North Africa, "This is not the end; not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginninG!"

This is almost where we are!

Asher

 

[Nill Toulme]

Ah yes, the light at the end of the tunnel...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Asher Kelman]

"Ah yes, the light at the end of the tunnel..."

Well Nill,

That's the dilemma for sure! Rescue or an oncoming train?

Asher

 

[Nill Toulme]

I think it's the light of my nice new White Lightning strobes. Now I must learn to use them! ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Asher Kelman]

Nill,

Great idea! Let's flash light in dark places!

Voila!

Pictures of dead soldiiers in the context of rebuilt, schools, girls being educated, detritus of homicide bombings; the rhetoric that drives this mania?

Asher