The photo no one would publish

[terri]

This is the kind of thread that belongs in the Subscriber's section - which is by and large unmoderated since it's out of the public eye.

The images displayed here aren't technically in copyright violation as long as the photographer's name is listed in the post and no one is trying to claim it as their own. Still, as everyone knows, we'd prefer you link to them and not post them openly, just to keep it straight.

Also: you've all been warned twice to cease and desist with the political commentary on the open forum. It's also turning personal for some of you. For those who want to have these discussions and are TPF Supporters, please feel free to take it to your own forum where you can rant in private. Otherwise this thread is in danger of going bye-bye.

 

[bribrius]

The earlier media of the 60's did no such thing, Derrel. Cronkite so slanted the war to show it as already lost, even AFTER we kicked some serious ass during the TET offensive and we had them on the run! I hate war and killing just as much as the next person, but to believe that the liberal media had, and has, no "agenda", is to be willfully ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro

Ahhh, cries of "the liberal media"...so I know where you're coming from. Sorry, but the US media during Vietnam showed plenty of dead bodies, and bloody GI's, every night! We saw deplorable things on TV and in magazines, throughout the entire Vietnam war because the media took it upon themselves to report, daily, at a very low level what was happening in the war. But the Gulf War was basically given a sort of gloss-over, and shown mostly "from the air". It lacked a lot of still photo coverage, which VIetnam had tons of. Loads of photos of Vietnam were in all types of media, but the Gulf War was mainly done by videos, shared by outlets. We were not shown much of the Gulf War, except long shots on video; columns of smoke rising from wrecks and burning oil plants, from miles away. That is the main difference; I could care less about Walter Cronkite and CBS TV's coverage of Vietnam--the war was also shown on ABC and NBC, and also in four major news weekly magazines, and thousands of newspapers, and people got to actually see the horrors of war.

That was the difference in the Gulf War; one, single dead guy who was part of a retreating column that we wiped out...we were not shown that...the photographer himself admits that the military minders with him wanted to control him. Basically, the article details a news photographer, and some big-name editors, who were caught in a new way to censor war coverage. The Gulf War was the first war brought to Americans is real-time by CNN. It was very strange how it was covered. In a word, the whole experience was orchestrated, a fake, a TV production mostly.

The old free press, fourth estate coverage and the soldier-level coverage was absent in the Gulf War. I have zero memories of any significant still photos out of the Gulf War, even though I susbscribed to the west coast's oldest, daily newspaper at that time.

this is a tough one. Like I said I see both sides. My first reaction is some things the public is better shielded from, and it keeps the politics and drama out of the way of the objective. The task at hand takes precedence over the photographing of it. My second is freedom of the press, and the right to information. so I am stuck in a paradox. I do think it is important to remember the photographer isn't the one taking responsibility for the casualty count and the engagement, so they clearly shouldn't over rule those trying to do a job as they are a bystander in the mix. There to catch or report the story not get in the way, they aren't responsible or liable for the bottom line of that story.

And I hate to state the obvious, but if you are running a bombing campaign you might have special forces on the ground for intel and target sighting but generally putting a photographer on the ground amidst air attacks for stills is kind of like leading him to his own suicide and throwing him under the bus. And it give one more person that as to be figured as a potential in the way casualty to worry about. A experienced war photographer would know how t embed and perhaps not be a liability, but I have no clue how they decide who gets sent for a photographer. Kind of like the one that died recently. I mean, if they get themselves into a situation where they are going to end up dead following a story should we have to be responsible for that and babysit them when they put themselves in that position? I can see why restricting them in certain cases is for the good of all involved including themselves? I think in the article it was stated he wasn't suppose to leave the vehicle. Probably because of the liability to himself and all around him? How many should they be allowed to put at risk to get that photo?

I mean a photographer puts himself in harms way, captured and executed, shot, whatever people then give back lash over that when it could be his own doing? I don't know though, never even met a war photographer just thinking out loud if that image is worth it. Other instances I could see how it could be outright censorship without cause too so I see both sides.

 

[bribrius]

This is the kind of thread that belongs in the Subscriber's section - which is by and large unmoderated since it's out of the public eye.

The images displayed here aren't technically in copyright violation as long as the photographer's name is listed in the post and no one is trying to claim it as their own. Still, as everyone knows, we'd prefer you link to them and not post them openly, just to keep it straight.

Also: you've all been warned twice to cease and desist with the political commentary on the open forum. It's also turning personal for some of you. For those who want to have these discussions and are TPF Supporters, please feel free to take it to your own forum where you can rant in private. Otherwise this thread is in danger of going bye-bye.

sorry terri, if I diverted. I do believe we are back to talking about documentary photography though without any politics.

 

[photoguy99]

There's an excellent point from bribrius.

Photographers enjoy a LOT less immunity in modern conflicts than in earlier ones. Not to say they were safe, by any means, but as non-combatants they had a much better shot at survival when things went pear-shaped.

Things are different now. Embedding them, and similar strategies, have a positive effect as well as a negative one.

 

[terri]

This is the kind of thread that belongs in the Subscriber's section - which is by and large unmoderated since it's out of the public eye.

The images displayed here aren't technically in copyright violation as long as the photographer's name is listed in the post and no one is trying to claim it as their own. Still, as everyone knows, we'd prefer you link to them and not post them openly, just to keep it straight.

Also: you've all been warned twice to cease and desist with the political commentary on the open forum. It's also turning personal for some of you. For those who want to have these discussions and are TPF Supporters, please feel free to take it to your own forum where you can rant in private. Otherwise this thread is in danger of going bye-bye.

sorry terri, if I diverted. I do believe we are back to talking about documentary photography though without any politics.

Keep that up and the thread will be fine. As long as no one is getting huffy and we can keep on topic, we've no reason to intervene. Just note that this thread has been reported 3 times already, which is why we're sailing by!

 

[bribrius]

There's an excellent point from bribrius.

Photographers enjoy a LOT less immunity in modern conflicts than in earlier ones. Not to say they were safe, by any means, but as non-combatants they had a much better shot at survival when things went pear-shaped.

Things are different now. Embedding them, and similar strategies, have a positive effect as well as a negative one.

kind of. If he got out of the vehicle to take the photo and stepped on a landmine or got shot/put others at risk there would be a investigation on why he was allowed out of the vehicle and a much different story would unfold. By all rights from reading the article it wasn't his photo to start with as he wasn't supposed to be allowed out of the vehicle for obvious reasons? Did I read that right?

 

[photoguy99]

Oh, I'm just talking generally. In the old days a PJ could sure get shot or blown up or whatever, but soldiers often/usually/sometimes tried to not kill too many non-combatants. In this modern era it's just not so any more. If you look like one of the other guys, you're fair game, even if you're waving a camera around. At least, more often than you used to be.

And that definitely goes both ways.

 

[bribrius]

Oh, I'm just talking generally. In the old days a PJ could sure get shot or blown up or whatever, but soldiers often/usually/sometimes tried to not kill too many non-combatants. In this modern era it's just not so any more. If you look like one of the other guys, you're fair game, even if you're waving a camera around. At least, more often than you used to be.

And that definitely goes both ways.

no doubt. you may be right.
almost seems like photographers have been thrown in the pool of government contractors as they kept getting picked up to, even if they were fairly unrelated to that actual combat. As you said fair game. Or even more so sought out to be used as a pawn "hey look! we captured a photographer!" there is a good chance respect for the non combatant press nolonger exists and they are looked at as easy prey. i seem to remember a red cross being blown up, some debate of if its okay to blow up a mosque if combatants are hiding in it, and numerous executions of people not directly involved in the actual combat. And of course the u.s with the collateral damage debate vs. going door to door which nearly mimics vietnam. It is all very "messy". I don't know if it has always been that way and maybe just more of it is in the news and internet now? Or if the lines have been blurred even more since like the Vietnam conflict?

I do think it safe to assume a photographer is definitely considered fair game now by at least some and maybe even sought after for oddly enough more press coverage? Be great to get the inside scoop and feelings on that from a actual war correspondent in how they consider their safety may have changed.. could be another reason for the change in press coverage the "rules" have changed. I would assume a reporter covering a war wants to get out alive as well. And at the least they probably don't want to be "booted" off the assignment as then they get nothing for coverage? It really all just sucks, none of it good. Depressing thread. Have to have respect for the photographers that do this though putting themselves at risk and volunteering to look these horrors in the face.

 

[Gary A.]

Gary, you're talking out of the wrong aperture, addressing me like that. You don't know ***+ about me. Save it. Don't even reply. Your remark was flippant, and disrespectful, so you got the same kind of reply back. I do not support murder. Apparently, you do. I do not support mass murder. Why don' t you go support some gas attacks in Syria?

Short of stating this ... "I won't dignify your remarks with a response."

 

[Gary A.]

The earlier media of the 60's did no such thing, Derrel. Cronkite so slanted the war to show it as already lost, even AFTER we kicked some serious ass during the TET offensive and we had them on the run! I hate war and killing just as much as the next person, but to believe that the liberal media had, and has, no "agenda", is to be willfully ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro

The "Liberal Media" hasn't an agenda. It isn't like the "Liberal Media" has a convention every month and votes on slanting this story or that story. Same also for the "Conservative Media" ... the "Conservative Media" has as much an agenda as the "Liberal Media".

I will tell you this. I've attended de-briefing press conferences in war zones. I know of reporters who were so aware and conscience of their anti-war bias that they reported, word-for-word the government/military story/version of events, knowing that the governments version was full of BS. They did so in the name of fair and equal time.

 

[Gary A.]

I like Gary a's input on the previous page. The ability of a photograph to sway public opinion. Almost used as purposeful propaganda for whatever cause is underfoot (or to undermine it). Like the photo in relation to the war bonds. if I recollect that photo wasn't a spur of the moment thing either wasn't that later revealed to be preplanned or re-enacted or something just for the capture?

When everything is said and done ... it is the winning side which determines what message was propaganda and what is history.

 

[Gary A.]

Oh, I'm just talking generally. In the old days a PJ could sure get shot or blown up or whatever, but soldiers often/usually/sometimes tried to not kill too many non-combatants. In this modern era it's just not so any more. If you look like one of the other guys, you're fair game, even if you're waving a camera around. At least, more often than you used to be.

And that definitely goes both ways.

I dunno about that. I doubt if anything has changed.

1) All sides of a conflict desire/attempt/do control the media.*

2) As noted above, being a non-combatant in a war zone is of little actual value regarding personal safety. It is hard for me to believe that things were any different in older wars.

In Vietnam, in the field most journalists wore the basic OD field utilities of the US forces. Some journalists, especially those that had been in Vietnam for long time, had Nha Bao printed in lieu of their name tag. Nha Bao is Vietnamese for journalist. Real children of the war had Nha Bao Phap ... or French Journalist. I guess they figured it couldn't hurt.

* The Vietnam war was an exception to the general rule stated above, because the media, pretty much had free rein, going where they wanted when they wanted with little real government/military oversight or censorship. The government never wanted to see another media free-for-all as in Vietnam and cracked down in post Vietnam conflicts, i.e. Grenada, Lebanon, Bosnia, et al.

 

[Gary A.]

Oh, I'm just talking generally. In the old days a PJ could sure get shot or blown up or whatever, but soldiers often/usually/sometimes tried to not kill too many non-combatants. In this modern era it's just not so any more. If you look like one of the other guys, you're fair game, even if you're waving a camera around. At least, more often than you used to be.

And that definitely goes both ways.

I don't believe this is true at all. In the modern era, say WWII forward, most/all journalist know if they are embedded with troops, the only chance of surviving a battle or avoid imprisonment ... is if your side wins.

 

[Gary A.]

The earlier media of the 60's did no such thing, Derrel. Cronkite so slanted the war to show it as already lost, even AFTER we kicked some serious ass during the TET offensive and we had them on the run! I hate war and killing just as much as the next person, but to believe that the liberal media had, and has, no "agenda", is to be willfully ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone 6+ using Tapatalk Pro

Ahhh, cries of "the liberal media"...so I know where you're coming from. Sorry, but the US media during Vietnam showed plenty of dead bodies, and bloody GI's, every night! We saw deplorable things on TV and in magazines, throughout the entire Vietnam war because the media took it upon themselves to report, daily, at a very low level what was happening in the war. But the Gulf War was basically given a sort of gloss-over, and shown mostly "from the air". It lacked a lot of still photo coverage, which VIetnam had tons of. Loads of photos of Vietnam were in all types of media, but the Gulf War was mainly done by videos, shared by outlets. We were not shown much of the Gulf War, except long shots on video; columns of smoke rising from wrecks and burning oil plants, from miles away. That is the main difference; I could care less about Walter Cronkite and CBS TV's coverage of Vietnam--the war was also shown on ABC and NBC, and also in four major news weekly magazines, and thousands of newspapers, and people got to actually see the horrors of war.

That was the difference in the Gulf War; one, single dead guy who was part of a retreating column that we wiped out...we were not shown that...the photographer himself admits that the military minders with him wanted to control him. Basically, the article details a news photographer, and some big-name editors, who were caught in a new way to censor war coverage. The Gulf War was the first war brought to Americans is real-time by CNN. It was very strange how it was covered. In a word, the whole experience was orchestrated, a fake, a TV production mostly.

The old free press, fourth estate coverage and the soldier-level coverage was absent in the Gulf War. I have zero memories of any significant still photos out of the Gulf War, even though I susbscribed to the west coast's oldest, daily newspaper at that time.

this is a tough one. Like I said I see both sides. My first reaction is some things the public is better shielded from, and it keeps the politics and drama out of the way of the objective. The task at hand takes precedence over the photographing of it. My second is freedom of the press, and the right to information. so I am stuck in a paradox. I do think it is important to remember the photographer isn't the one taking responsibility for the casualty count and the engagement, so they clearly shouldn't over rule those trying to do a job as they are a bystander in the mix. There to catch or report the story not get in the way, they aren't responsible or liable for the bottom line of that story.

And I hate to state the obvious, but if you are running a bombing campaign you might have special forces on the ground for intel and target sighting but generally putting a photographer on the ground amidst air attacks for stills is kind of like leading him to his own suicide and throwing him under the bus. And it give one more person that as to be figured as a potential in the way casualty to worry about. A experienced war photographer would know how t embed and perhaps not be a liability, but I have no clue how they decide who gets sent for a photographer. Kind of like the one that died recently. I mean, if they get themselves into a situation where they are going to end up dead following a story should we have to be responsible for that and babysit them when they put themselves in that position? I can see why restricting them in certain cases is for the good of all involved including themselves? I think in the article it was stated he wasn't suppose to leave the vehicle. Probably because of the liability to himself and all around him? How many should they be allowed to put at risk to get that photo?

I mean a photographer puts himself in harms way, captured and executed, shot, whatever people then give back lash over that when it could be his own doing? I don't know though, never even met a war photographer just thinking out loud if that image is worth it. Other instances I could see how it could be outright censorship without cause too so I see both sides.

Reporters and Photographers all volunteer to work in a war zone. Doing so, obviously dangerous, but it can also significantly help your career, especially in the electronic media. Unlike most 9-5 jobs, journalists become journalists because it's in their blood. Journalists have the desire and need to 'report'. The bigger the story ... the bigger the report.

Prior to an operation a journalist/photojournalist will be briefed about the operation and when and where you can go in and report. But once the firing starts, you're pretty much on your own, as nobody has the time or inclination to care if a reporter/photographer get blown away or not. Seasoned war correspondents understands all this, as well as they understand they are there to report the story ... not to become the story and they need to act responsibly.

 

[Gary A.]

Derrel did make an accurate statement that the media blew it in Iraq and punted long instead of performing their job.