On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Afghan President Hamid Karzai today condemned photos of U.S. soldiers posing with bodies of suspected insurgents, describing those images as "inhumane and provocative."
These images were published by the Los Angeles Times. And they knew that they would be incendiary, as evidenced by the fact that they waited 72 hours so that the U.S. military could beef up security at bases and published them over the strenuous objections of the U.S military. As the New York Times reports:
Two of the 18 photographs given to the paper were published Wednesday by The Times over fierce objections by military officials who said that the photographs could incite violence. The officials had asked The Times not to publish any of the photographs, a fact that the defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, reiterated on Wednesday as the images spread across the Internet.
“The reason for that is those kinds of photos are used by the enemy to incite violence, and lives have been lost as the result of the publication of similar photos,” Mr. Panetta said at a news conference.
But the newspaper’s editors said that the photographs were newsworthy. “We considered this very carefully,” the newspaper’s editor, Davan Maharaj, said in a Web chat with readers. “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions.
OK, so the military didn't want the photos published because they could be used to incite violence and lead to loss of life.
And the newspaper's editors counter that these images are newsworthy. After all, at the end of the day, their job is to publish information that the readers need to make informed decisions, right?
And you certainly couldn't say they're inconsistent. No, you couldn't. As proof, let me go find the link to when the Los Angeles Times ran the Danish cartoon images.
Hmm, this is weird. I can't seem to find any link to that. Wait, what's this? The Los Angeles Times specifically refused to air such images out of respect for sensibilities?
Well isn't that interesting.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
I thought that the Geneva Conventions prohibit the publication of photos of dead soldiers.
Does that only apply if the pictures are published by the government?
Mar '12
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
What confuses me is the general response of horror among the media at these images. As far as I can tell, these are photos of soldiers posing with body parts of suicide bombers. Grisly, yes. Gross, yes. Disrespectful? Suicide bombers have to little respect for their bodies that they blow them up in service of a large goal. I think at that point, posthumous respect is a bit much to ask.
Dec '11
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
I think people should read more military history and set expectations accordingly and not rely on unrealistic canards.
I recommend:
http://www.amazon.com/War-As-I-Knew-It/dp/0395735297
http://www.amazon.com/Recon-Scout-Story-World-War/dp/0345446933/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1334843307
Especially the second.
Dec '11
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Rule #1 - No video or photographic evidence of anything.
Jul '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
These pics were from a number of years ago I understand. Therefore, their "publication" was ONLY meant to inflame - here, there, everywhere. They could just as well have talked about it without the pics. But then, that wouldn't have been so "inflamatory", now would it.
I guess I tire over the hypocrisy of extolling the "greatest generation" - that did these things and more in the process of actually winning - while decrying our current soldiers who have been serving in a lot more of a hellhole for a LOT longer and never presented a strategy of how TO win. Combat is NOT tiddlywinks or Bingo. Applying the standards of West Palm Beach or Lake Forest or Bridgehampton to Laskar Gah or Najaf is simply silly. When you hate the military, and indeed, all forms of self defense, this is the kind of behavior you get. Perhaps what we need is for a battalion of soldiers to riot over these pics and destroy the LA Times, beheading and mounting the heads of all the editors on pikes outside the ruins of the building. To "raise awareness" of the plight of soldiers. ;-)
May '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
The breakdown comes from the taking of the images in the first place. That is where the blame lies in my opinion. It represents a breakdown in discipline in the field and if the military wants to prevent their publication and unnecessary loss of life that's where they need to address the problem.
And yes, the LA Times is inconsistent and biased, but sanitizing war for the civilian population does nothing to help the Republic. War is hell and it's perfectly healthy to remind readers (and voters) of that fact. Just like I don't want government lying to be about the conseuqneces of our domestic policy choices, neither do I want government lying to me about the consequences of our foreign policy choices.
For what it's worth, it seems to be as though the LA Times struck a reasonable middle ground in giving the military a heads-up.
Jan '11
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Informed decisions? About Afghanistan, and whether we should stay there? OK, it's a stretch, but heck, let's grant the premise for the sake of argument.
How do these pictures "inform" our decision? They don't. They place an image of the dehumanization of war in our minds, and the editors hope that our natural aversion will drive the decision. They want the decision driven, not by rationality, nor by strategy, nor by our objectives ... they want to trump all that by provoking our emotional aversion to violence.
What does that tell you about their morality? That it's based on emotion, not rationality nor strategy.
Have you noticed that whenever news-people are challenged about their decision, they always assure us that they thought about it "very carefully" ? As if we should cut them a break because they had a meeting about it? I'm so glad it wasn't a snap decision ... but it was still wrong. Who cares how hurriedly you arrived at stupidity?
"Newsworthy" is the ultimate empty defense. It's like assuring us that your opinion is true ... it sounds like you're explaining when all you're doing is asserting with different words.
Feb '12
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Again, what's the big deal about these photos?! To go along with Clare's foreign quote, a la guerre comme a la guerre! Obviously, professional grievance mongers like Hamid Karzai and Al Sharpton will condemn and express outrage - but for a normal rational person what is newsworthy in this picture?
If I found out that due to skill or luck of our troops suicide bombers managed to kill only themselves - and the troops had a picture to prove it, my only reaction would be "Good job, guys!"
I just realized that my post says pretty much the same as Madcap's... but it would be sad to discard it anyway! :)
Jun '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
I thought the mainstream press was all onboard with the idea that war makes all soldiers insane, depressed, and hopelessly scared. So, why are they rubbing salt into the wound they believe is there at the fault of Uncle Sam--not the soldier?
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Trace Urdan: The breakdown comes from the taking of the images in the first place. That is where the blame lies in my opinion. It represents a breakdown in discipline in the field and if the military wants to prevent their publication and unnecessary loss of life that's where they need to address the problem.
And yes, the LA Timesis inconsistent and biased, but sanitizing war for the civilian population does nothing to help the Republic.
Even though I disapprove of the photos, they don't enrage me. I understand where they're coming from. And from a news angle, I think it's justified to publish them. I'm not sure if it's their duty, as the editor said, but it's newsworthy.
But when you think about the massive loss of life, arson, rioting and misinformation that came about b/c of the Danish cartoons, failure to publish them shows fascinating hypocrisy.
Jun '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Trace Urdan: The breakdown comes from the taking of the images in the first place. That is where the blame lies in my opinion. It represents a breakdown in discipline in the field and if the military wants to prevent their publication and unnecessary loss of life that's where they need to address the problem.
And yes, the LA Timesis inconsistent and biased, but sanitizing war for the civilian population does nothing to help the Republic.
Even though I disapprove of the photos, they don't enrage me. I understand where they're coming from. And from a news angle, I think it's justified to publish them. I'm not sure if it's their duty, as the editor said, but it's newsworthy.
But when you think about the massive loss of life, arson, rioting and misinformation that came about b/c of the Danish cartoons, failure to publish them shows fascinating hypocrisy.
You can argue that the cartoons, as a clear symbol of free speech, were worth getting some innocent people killed over. But I don't see any valid argument that these photos are worth getting innocent people killed over.
Edited on April 19, 2012 at 4:48pmDec '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
This brings to mind the publishing of photograph of the caskets of returning American war dead. It was so important When GW Bush was president to publish these. Now: not so much.
Jul '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
But when you think about the massive loss of life, arson, rioting and misinformation that came about b/c of the Danish cartoons, failure to publish them shows fascinating hypocrisy. · 12 minutes ago
It shows fear.
Jun '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Isn't the LA Times sitting on a video of the president toasting a PLO leader?
May '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Trace Urdan: The breakdown comes from the taking of the images in the first place. That is where the blame lies in my opinion. It represents a breakdown in discipline in the field and if the military wants to prevent their publication and unnecessary loss of life that's where they need to address the problem.
And yes, the LA Timesis inconsistent and biased, but sanitizing war for the civilian population does nothing to help the Republic.
Even though I disapprove of the photos, they don't enrage me. I understand where they're coming from. And from a news angle, I think it's justified to publish them. I'm not sure if it's their duty, as the editor said, but it's newsworthy.
But when you think about the massive loss of life, arson, rioting and misinformation that came about b/c of the Danish cartoons, failure to publish them shows fascinating hypocrisy. · 19 minutes ago
Of course you're right -- I take your point about hypocrisy as a given.
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
That's exactly the approach taken by other media outlets. Here, for instance:
Troubling Photos of U.S. Soldiers Revive Concerns on Morale
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Jimmy Carter
Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
But when you think about the massive loss of life, arson, rioting and misinformation that came about b/c of the Danish cartoons, failure to publish them shows fascinating hypocrisy. · 12 minutes ago
It shows fear. · 6 minutes ago
And that.
May '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
etoiledunord
You can argue that the cartoons, as a clear symbol of free speech, were worth getting some innocent people killed over. But I don't see any valid argument that these photos are worth getting innocent people killed over. · 12 minutes ago
Edited 12 minutes ago
I think there is quite a lot of content in these photos to consider and I do think there was a point to publish them. It reflects on how our army operates in the field, the impact that all that time in the field has on what should otherwise be a repulsive and abhorrent, rather than humorous photo. It reflects on how the psychology of our veterans is affected by what they experience and how seriously we need to take their rehabilitation to the norms of our daily life once they return.
And again, any loss of life is at the feet of the unit commander that allowed this photo to be taken in the first place. That's the army's job, not the job of the free press.
Neither is it the Times' fault that anyone would intensify their efforts to kill us because of this photo.
Sep '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
You'll never be able to prevent 100% of the bad decisions that young soldiers make in the field of battle. No matter how much training you provide, and how much fear of consequences you instill, there will always and forever be incidents like this.
So should the LA Times have a photo journalist out in Afghanistan to provide the paper with regular reminders to be published? Why or why not? Or is it only "sanitizing war" if we refuse to publish pictures taken by soldiers? If there is a meaningful distinction I'd love to hear it.
May '10
Re: On Incendiary Images And News Judgment
Add With the Old Breed by E B Sledge to add to Guruforhire 's list