The photo no one would publish

[gsgary]

http://www.theatlantic.com/features...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

[bribrius]

I don't think they should have run it. Not fit for all viewers. Not to mention, like car accidents. Everyone knows people die in them, they don't need a close up of corpses. Wouldn't solve anything.

Not to say they shouldn't be published, but not mainstream.

And there would no doubt be sympathizers for the opposing army or collateral damage, which would open a entire other can of worms....
so definitely not main stream.. Realistic coverage for a "selective" audience, mixed in with all the boring pics of the platoon sitting around as well as to not misrepresent and sensationalize it. Hand out just pics of corpses isn't realistic coverage either. And too many pics of corpses, well geez have some respect for the dead man.

jmo

 

[snerd]

War is a brutal affair. The photog thinks that showing his crispy corpse should dampen the quest for war, somewhat. Sorry, that's just not realistic. A noble thought, perhaps, but not realistic.

 

[bribrius]

Agree. War is a brutal affair. The photog thinks that showing his crispy corpse should dampen the quest for war, somewhat. Sorry, that's just not realistic. A noble thought, perhaps, but not realistic.

From a strategic standpoint a photograph can be a scary thing. As it is a powerful image. Lets say they were putting photos of the collateral damage (familys, kids whatever) from our terrorist bombing campaign with the u.a.v.s in the u.s. papers or news. It could very well cause flak in Washington with some public backlash. some things, the public really is better off kept out of the loop. so in that case, lets say the u.s. stopped its terrorist hit list (which is still going on). The most likely result would be a very probable 911 again or another ground war which would create more casualties. The problem is people see what is in front of them rather than the entire "picture" of the organizations and conflicts, threats, probably re-emergence of threats, whatever undisclosed intelligence.

All they see is that photo, or photos which is powerful images. But they don't tell the whole story or the consequences of whatever actions or in actions just record that actions result. So the photographer gets this idea that he will "show people" and enlighten them some how. But the reality is the photographer probably doesn't know anything either. And as I said people see what is in front of them they don't tend to think things through from a military viewpoint.. He is taking photographs, a moment in time. He isn't privy to the war strategy or overall strategy or intelligence nor does he need to be he isn't trained to be. He just takes the photos..

so the photos hit the editors desk and get pulled. why? Because the editors know there is a line there you don't cross maybe?

say his photo wasn't pulled and lots of photos came out similar and we lowered the intensity of the air campaign from too many crispies in the nyt and the public flipping out. is that a success? Hell no. what we don't kill from the air we have to kill with boots on the ground and will have more casualties.

It is a case of someone being in a place of some power too actually effect something on some level. But is possibly dangerous or at least risky because they are overwhelmingly ignorant far as the overall situation. why I imagine governments do often regulate press, censor, or just outright control it in some countries because of the risk involved. some countries make added effort to restrict press which I don't agree, but if I was a military strategist I sure would consider it as a guy with a camera combined with politics can really cause some damage and even a mis-portrayal of events??

 

[snerd]

That was a lot of writing to say you agree with me.

 

[bribrius]

That was a lot of writing to say you agree with me.

I can somewhat type, think while I type it goes down fast, so I don't notice. However occasionally my spelling is amiss and my grammar just outright sucks. Freedom of press, regulated press, war and public influence via photography. these are all very interesting things to think about.

 

[snerd]

It would delve too much into the political realm to even hint at what our "free press" has decided "not" to report on in the last 6 years. But yes, interesting things to think about, indeed.

 

[bribrius]

It would delve too much into the political realm to even hint at what our "free press" has decided "not" to report on in the last 6 years. But yes, interesting things to think about, indeed.

perhaps.

 

[snerd]

Damn hippies!!

 

[photoguy99]

Photographs can and do change the world. I can think of several cases in which single images moved the needle on public opinion and thus contributed to changes on policy.

Wars ended, environmental regulations strengthened, etc.

Never, of course, solely because of a single image. But a single image played a substantial role, moving the needle a little more in the right direction until finally change was forced.

Of course the powers that be want editorial control. As much as their blundering committee-ness is capable of wanting anything.

 

[gsgary]

The UK government blocked Don McCullin going to the Falklands war because they were worried what his photos would show

 

[Gary A.]

The publication of Nick Ut's photo of the screaming child caught in a napalm attack, is considered by many as a turning point in U.S. public opinion, causing the majority of Americans to no longer support the war in Vietnam.

 

[Gary A.]

Conversely, Americans were growing weary of war during WWII and the funding for war was down (war bonds). The publishing of Joe Rosenthal's photograph of Marines raising of the flag on Iwo Jima, inspired the nation purchase more bonds and to renew its efforts to finish the war.

 

[Gary A.]

Studies have shown that images not only have a greater impact on people, and they are remembered much longer than the written word.

 

[Derrel]

That entiiiiiiiiiire Gulf War was a MASSIVE "bill of goods" that was sold to the America public through nightly {well,actually 24/7!!!], sanitized images of "smart bombs" being detonated on Iraqi targets. The mainstream media editors almost all felt bad that they chickened out, and squashed that images--after the fact. They admit, later on, that they were in dereliction of duty by squashing that image, and promoting the US government's "embedded journalist" line of propaganda. That was a verrrrrrrrrry weird, media-waged, unprecedented war type action for the USA. The American film "Wag The Dog" with Dustin Hoffman, appeared around that time, and it had a good message RE fake wars on TV and how to wage a faked "TV war" to win over the public by snow-jobbing them.

The Grenada invasion from earlier was not on TV. The Falklands war was not on TV. But the "Gulf War" was waged largely on CNN, and the U.S. news magazines and newspapers and CNN and the network TV channels all sanitized the entire thing. The way we wiped out 4,000 or so soldiers in full retreat, in a motorized a column, was shameful--and we never heard a word about it!!!