# The photo no one would publish



## gsgary (Dec 3, 2014)

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


----------



## bribrius (Dec 3, 2014)

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 (Dec 3, 2014)

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 (Dec 3, 2014)

snerd said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2014)

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


----------



## bribrius (Dec 3, 2014)

snerd said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2014)

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 (Dec 3, 2014)

snerd said:


> 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 (Dec 3, 2014)

Damn hippies!!


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 4, 2014)

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 (Dec 4, 2014)

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


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 4, 2014)

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. (Dec 4, 2014)

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. (Dec 4, 2014)

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


----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2014)

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!!!


----------



## gsgary (Dec 4, 2014)

Gulf war was on UK tv


----------



## snerd (Dec 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> ............ 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!!!


Hopefully, you were just as outraged at those 4000 soldiers for the atrocities they had just committed against the Kuwait people? Murder, rape, torture, and on and on and on. That's how wars are fought........... you kill your enemy before they kill you. A nasty business, it is.


----------



## runnah (Dec 4, 2014)

Lets keep this on track about photos, not politics.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> 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!*!!


served a purpose. lower u.s. casualties, lower future threat. Yeah, we kill people that is kind of the idea. I hate rense but look at the stats...US Vs Iraq - Another 'Highway Of Death' Slaughter
I mean really, we just going to let them all go home and keep the equipment? The idea is to reduce threat. Already had a chit load of detainees.  Didn't agree with desert storm (thought it could have been avoided in what led up to it) but once it kicked off the writing was pretty much on the wall. These weren't good people, they were taking hostages and out to pillage Kuwait. Light em up.

oh yeah, photos... there are tons from desert storm. just wish it wasn't such a one sided spin with them. shows how powerful a image can be suppose.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 4, 2014)

Syria next


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> ... 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!!!


I seriously doubt you would have the same opinion if you were a grunt and you and your buds were assigned to take that road. If you were in that situation, you'd buy all those air boys a beer.

BTW- I saw and read about that terrible bombardment the following day and references about that day throughout the war and aftermath. The first photo of an American dead serviceman appeared in Life in 1942, an image of soldiers floating facedown in a shallow lagoon on some forgotten island in the South Pacific.  The published image is considered groundbreaking ...







PS- Derrel, my beer remark is not made to be flippant or to marginalize the horror of that battle. I is an attempt to bring perspective to that event. War is immeasurably brutal and horrific. It is a terrible shame upon all humanity that our world political systems cannot figure out a way to avoid war.

G


----------



## bribrius (Dec 4, 2014)

runnah said:


> Lets keep this on track about photos, not politics.



Point taken. I am walking a fine line here. I am personally involved  as it is probably obvious. I was in at the tail end of it. And while not directly involved was command and control AWACS/WWMCS so, I was the one trained to flight follow and organize the strikes via communications along with eap procedures disaster preparedness etc. and have that complete strategic objective oriented point of view..
so I kind of get down to "this was my job?" I wasn't involved in the road of death though, I went active right after that. I would have went along with it though, fuk yeah. Like a duck hunt and it was what we were trained for?
Block off two ends of a road you get abandoned vehicles or a duck hunt and either/or reeks of opportunity. As said, that stuff was figured out by those higher rank than I was though I just implemented, organized and passed along.... No idea why the road of death orders were given, I suspect it was mostly to diminish the Iraqi army capability and show a sign of force with lower future threat/u.s. potential casualties in consideration.. Just a cog here but if it were me I don't think I would have let the photographer on that road at all. Look at all the bad press that came out of that..
But as a photographer, I would want those photos. so I see both sides.
strange though, as people get so upset over this type of thing but it kind of clicks in my mind "it is a dirty job but someone has to do it and this IS what we do". Not for me in years, I am long since out of that game (and I don't miss it). It only takes a few people with cameras to ruin the whole thing. LOL
hey, wtf do know. And it isn't like we are monsters here I started training for that at 18 years old.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2014)

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?


----------



## gsgary (Dec 4, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > ... 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!!!
> ...


Taken by George Strock


----------



## tirediron (Dec 4, 2014)

Okay... second and final warning for this thread!  Let's keep the discussions confined to photography and NOT personal rhetoric.


----------



## photoguy99 (Dec 4, 2014)

bribrius, you're absolutely right. You're not monsters.

Our modern propaganda machines (and I include all nations and all conflicts of the last, say, 75 years here - I'm not making a statement about any nation, government, army, or anything here) have developed methods for converting ordinary people - both soldiers and civilians - into monsters.

Photographs play a large role in this, because they feel real. It's so easy to take a picture of some death and destruction, and slap a caption on it 'blah blah done by <the bad guys>' and people will believe it. They're seeing it, literally, with their own eyes. Press organizations and governments across the world have been caught over and over and over dragging out photos from the wrong wars, the wrong continents, the wrong sides, and slapping captions on them.

Why?

Because it *works*. The Bosnians can be made to hate the Serbs. The Americans can be made to hate the Japanese. The Germans can be made to hate the Jews. And on and on.

Photos aren't the only tool in the box, but they're an important one.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 4, 2014)

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?


----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2014)

This is the second time this photo has been brought up on this forum--it was "here" before, not that long ago. What the photo going unpublished really shows is the HUGE disservice that the US military and the US media's collaboration brought to the supposed "fourth estate" (journalism and the free press). By allowing US military personnel to serve as "minders" for journalists and photographers, the way totalitarian states do, to keep the media away from the ghettos, gulags, slums, and other horrors, the United States media and its so-called fourth estate FAILED the American public. By going "embedded", and covering the war on the terms set forth by the US military, the Gulf War, and later wars, such as Afghanistan and Iraq under Bush then Obama, what the public got from "the fourth estate" was basically an incomplete, and many would say, highly distorted, sanitized version of the coverage that should have/could have/would have shaped public opinion about the events going on in these conflicts.

Nick Utt's photo of Viewtnamese kids fleeing a village after a US-military napalm strike on their village has been brought up and displayed earlier in this thread *[in a blatant copyright violation, by the way*]; now THAT was the kind of war photograph that turned the tide against the village-burning, VC-interrogating, and all the uglines of the Vietnam war. I also would say the Edie Adams' shot of the Vietnamese general splattering the brains out of a suspected Viet Cong spy with the snub-nosed revolver was another critical VIetnam war photo that WAS published and that the public was allowed to see--it was not deliberately squashed by editors. He won a Pulitzer prize for that photo.

Basically, in the 1960's under traditional Unites States media, the mass media (TV networks, magazines, newspapers) fulfilled its role as watchdog and reporter of the good, the indifferent, and the truly ugly stuff that war is made of. By the time of the Gulf War, and with the embedded journalist idea and skimpy budgets for freelancers, basically the Unites States' mass media outlets passed of verrrrrrrry weak, whimpy, sanitized coverage of the Gulf War. The American public never really did see much; the overriding narrative was, "we will soften them up via airstrikes", and "look at this smart bomb destroying this building!". No blood, no guts, no land mine photos, no dead guys....the ENTIRE Gulf War lacked a single meaningful image that stands out in the minds of anybody today.

THERE IS a reason the photographer, and the editors that kill-filed this shot are expressing regret now. They know they screwed up, and they know they made excuses. This photo was not published because United States media outlets had absolutely no balls.


----------



## snerd (Dec 4, 2014)

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


----------



## Derrel (Dec 4, 2014)

snerd said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## terri (Dec 4, 2014)

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 (Dec 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> snerd said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Dec 4, 2014)

terri said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2014)

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 (Dec 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> terri said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Dec 4, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> 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 (Dec 4, 2014)

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 (Dec 4, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> 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. (Dec 4, 2014)

Derrel said:


> 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. (Dec 4, 2014)

snerd said:


> 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. (Dec 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> 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. (Dec 4, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> 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. (Dec 4, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> 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. (Dec 4, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > snerd said:
> ...


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. (Dec 4, 2014)

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


----------



## snerd (Dec 4, 2014)

My good side said do not post here. My curious/bad side was wondering if we had really been abandoned along with the new site. Nothing like posting a conservative viewpoint to get heads exploding! To my great relief, our wonderful Mods are still around! I'll sleep much safer tonight!


----------



## Bluegrasser (Jan 7, 2015)

I know soldiers from several different wars..... Scenes like this is why they refuse to ever talk about their time abroad.


----------



## Bluegrasser (Jan 7, 2015)

Thanks for sharing btw


----------

