| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
AP's release of photo of a dying marine.
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
 |
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 12:52 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090904/pl_politico/26759
How much weight do you think a families wishes should carry when it comes to the publication of images like the one mentioned in the article?
Does anyone know if, when AP released the image, they disclosed that the family requested it not be run? If not, should they have? |
|
Jon L Hendricks, Photographer
|
Hobart | IN | USA | Posted: 1:10 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> Think of Eddie Adams and Nick Ut in Vietnam. War is tragic and ugly. And so the truth must also be the same.
This goes beyond the family's wishes. Not many families can understand what it means to show the truth no matter how hard it hurts. It's not the photograph that killed their son and their anger should be directed at the cause. |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 1:33 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> "Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting “in the strongest terms” to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision “appalling” and a breach of “common decency.”
Is there something about war that Robert Gates thinks is "common decency"?
It is good to see that AP held itself to the higher standards of journalism and news photography that we idealize and require in a free society. It is sad that the family does not see the greater good, but we should accept that in their grief. And perhaps one day they will see and take consolation in that. |
|
Grant Gartland, Photographer, Assistant
|
Bloomington | MN | USA | Posted: 1:34 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> Correct me if I am wrong (which is very possible, because I have not researched this at all), but the AP does not dictate what content runs in papers they are but a conduit to additional reporting. Each individual newspaper is responsible for choosing to use such content in their product.
If that is the case AP should have released the photo adding not only the EDS: Graphic Content, but also a note stating what the families wishes were. This lets the paper's decide whether or not to run it with all the information. |
|
Sam Adams, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 1:37 PM on 09.04.09 |
| ->> Can anyone link directly to the photo. I couldn't find it online. |
|
Travis Haughton, Photographer
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 1:41 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> Alrighty, I am not going to say where I stand on this yet. Here is a link I found to a series of photos from this. The third image is the one in question. The photographer was Julie Jacobson. From what I know, she is a Grade A photojournalist.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/
It is a tough photo to look at. Tough photo to take. OK, I will say it. If this was a grab photo and Julie had shown up later, then I say no. But, guess what, she was there, embedded with these shoulders. This was taken during a firefight. SHE WAS IN THE FIREFIGHT with only her cameras.
I think this is one of those situations where it comes down to the feelings of the photographer. She lived through it with these soldiers. I don't think this image has anything to do with making money. It is about the story 100%. She has been with these soldiers. It is her best representation of how horrible the situation in Afganistan is.
I think, in the context the Denver Post used it, it should be in the public view. There are some photos of this type which I think should not be released, but knowing the story. Yes. |
|
Tony Rawlings, Photographer
|
Orange County | CA | US | Posted: 2:06 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> When you review the sequence of Julie's photos, they tell THE story.
Perhaps we should pull out a picture here and there showing war is a happy place? And that, soldiers simply disappear, go to heaven - leaving their boots and rifles?
Did Julie tell the story? Yes
Is war a happy place?....No, according to the heroic story told by Julie. The story paints a reality picture for future parents and children who want a free (so they think) education when they enlist.
Should 'that one' photo be published? There won't ever be a right or wrong answer because we've got two sides arguing with two different philosophies. Almost similar to arguing abortion, death penalty, etc.....
At the end, God Bless the men and women serving. |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 5:30 PM on 09.04.09 |
| ->> There are very strict rules in place when you embed with the US military. One of those rules strictly prohibits the publishing of injured or killed US soldiers. Julie even states in her slideshow that she's aware of the rules and yet she violates them anyway. This may create a serious problem for future embeds in an already tough assignment to get into. I applaud her bravery and skilled photography but if in the coming months the military begins denying embeds or tightens the rules even more so then who's at fault? I did an embed with the US Marines in 07 and I have hundreds of photos that I can't ever let see the light of day. Well, actually I could but I'd never be permitted to step foot on another US military base as a journalist. Not only that there are several operators that promised to hunt me down an kill me if they ever seen their photos published. The rules are there for reasons. This particular rule protects families from learning of death and injuries in the media and not properly from the military. War is ugly and I don't wave a flag from either side of the fence. I cover it when I have an opportunity but I follow the rules of the host I am embedded with so as not to screw it up for those after me. This is my personal opinion on the matter. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 5:52 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> One of those rules strictly prohibits the publishing of injured or killed US soldiers.
From this link:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26762.html
"Casualties may be covered by embedded media as long as the service member's identity and unit identification is protected from disclosure until OASD-PA has officially released the name. Photography from a respectful distance or from angles at which a casualty cannot be identified is permissible; however, no recording of ramp ceremonies or remains transfers is permitted."
Since the name had been released a week or so prior, no violation of embed rules occurred. |
|
David Manning, Photographer
|
Athens | GA | | Posted: 6:08 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> I'm a big fan of conflict photography.
Based on the controversy here, i was expecting something amazing, ala "The Bang Bang Club" type photo or something from Nick Ut or something from the Black Star guys.
I really didn't see that with this controversial photo. Irregardless of the embed rules, I'm not sure i would have moved that photo. It just wasn't tight enough. The drama and urgency of the moment seemed lacking as the subject was ridiculously tiny.
Its not a war photo that will stick out in my mind.
Now I've never done an embed, I've never been shot at overseas. I'm not intentionally criticizing how she did her job in the middle of a Taliban firefight. What i am saying is that I wouldn't have moved that photo because despite the subject matter and what it contained, it wasn't good enough IMO. |
|
Manuello Paganelli, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 6:47 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> War is sad all the way around and in very few cases there is a winner. Nothing pretty at all & touches everyone.
Truth needs to be told the very same way Robert Capa's 1936 famous photo "The Fallen Soldier" showed the world the atrocity of hatred, fighting and killing happening in Europe during the Spanish Civil war. A prelude to WW2. A place where Hitler, while supporting his Fascist friend Francisco Franco and his troops in Spain, salivated & placed in motion his appetite for uglier things to come.
Truth be told.
More 2 Come
www.ManuelloPaganelli.com |
|
Walt Middleton, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 6:48 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> I usually don't chime in is things like this since I don't do that type of photography...
Of course that I said that means I'm going to now...
I agree with David... While I don't want to criticize the photographer... That photograph is not a stand out at all. The only thing about that photo that stands out is the controversy over the publication of the image that shows albeit baddly, a Marine Dying...
So, that being said. I believe it to be in very bad tast that this image was published especially over the request from the family... |
|
Marc F. Henning, Photographer
|
Bentonville | AR | USA | Posted: 7:13 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> not every image within an essay of photos needs to be a "stand out" image. this image is a page in the story. it shows what happened. who cares if it's not "tight" enough. do we need to see the gore and horrified look on the Marine's face up close? i can think of several images throughout history that weren't "tight," yet still conveyed the scene of a significant moment in time. considering the circumstances, bullets passing over her head and shooting in low light, i think Julie did an outstanding job.
marc |
|
Matthew Bush, Photographer
|
Hattiesburg | MS | USA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> GOOD JOB AP for sticking to your guns. Good Job Julie
The image is not a Cappa or a Burrows photograph but it was a solid photo in the heat of the moment. I can bet money if you search the wire on any given day you can find a more graphic image that occured in the U.S. This is what happens when PR goes to war....
Any war where there has been cameras there has been photographs of the dead or wounded. This idea that a wounded American should not be photographed is horrendous. Why is this war different ? Is it because of political agenda ? Did the public become to sensitive to see what it cost in terms of casualties ?
Imagine what the Vietnam war would have been without shooters there.
In war people die. We photograph it it. No disrespect intended but that is the way it has been for the last century . It would be unethical of the AP not to release the image. I understand alot of shooters want to play by the rules because of the embed process but when do you draw a line ? How many images that would be burned into the minds of America were never seen because someone did not want to break the rules ? |
|
Jack Gruber, Photographer
|
Fall Church | VA | USA | Posted: 8:13 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> Nick,
You are wrong. The embed rules do not overwhelmingly keep photos of KIA from being published. You can do a simple search online and find the DoD rules for embedded journalists and it will list the guidelines. Before you jump to conclusions about what a photographer has or has not done, please get the facts straight.
jg |
|
Luke Sharrett, Student/Intern
|
Forest | VA | United States | Posted: 8:47 PM on 09.04.09 |
| ->> If the DoD responds by pulling Julie's embed, and possibly eliminates any future coverage of the Marine unit by the media, the AP's decision to release the photo may have done more harm than good in the long run. It's impossible to say at this point. Probably one of the hardest decisions an editor or photographer ever had to make. Would like to hear what the Marines have to say, them being on the front lines and all. |
|
Chet Gordon, Photographer
|
Newburgh | NY | US | Posted: 10:29 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> As a former Marine, and as difficult as this is to write, the AP did the right thing in moving Julie's images. I am sorry for my brother's loss.
Semper fi.
Chet Gordon. |
|
Adam Vogler, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Kansas City | Mo. | USA | Posted: 10:58 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> I think the last quote in the story really sums it up.
Lance Cpl. Bernard's squad mates felt that Julie's photos portrayed the "reality" of what happened. None objected the the photo of their fallen comrade.
Journalists have to do this,as terrible as it is, these photos HAVE to be made and HAVE to be shown.
What's wrong is having 24 hour coverage of dead pop stars in lieu of telling the stories of the brave men and women who are giving their lives for our country. They should be the lead story on every nightly newscast. They deserve it more than any celebrity. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:12 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> "There are very strict rules in place when you embed with the US military. One of those rules strictly prohibits the publishing of injured or killed US soldiers."
Who makes these "rules"? The US military. Why? To make sure that Americans don't really understand the human cost of war as that would worry and disgust them and, perhaps, lead to fewer wars and a shrinking military. It's an age-old situation.
"...if in the coming months the military begins denying embeds or tightens the rules even more so then who's at fault?"
The military, with its desire to suppress information that makes it look bad.
"I have hundreds of photos that I can't ever let see the light of day. Well, actually I could but I'd never be permitted to step foot on another US military base as a journalist."
Doesn't that scream "censorship" to you? |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:13 PM on 09.04.09 |
->> "...protected from disclosure until OASD-PA has officially released the name."
Once the name has been released, the restriction goes away.
--Mark |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 12:20 AM on 09.05.09 |
| ->> I think part of the issue is that (not to be a conspiracy theorist) the powers that be don't want the truth of most things that really matter, war, finances in the country, for example, to be exposed. I feel like Ms. Jacobson did exactly what she was supposed to do, and the AP did what they were supposed to do. The publication of the photo seems to be an accurate depiction of what happened... |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
McCall | ID | US | Posted: 12:57 AM on 09.05.09 |
->> > Doesn't that scream "censorship" to you?
It says to me, "Read the other posts which accurately portray the embed guidelines."
The reality of war is a very difficult thing to handle; the military is aware of this and is taking reasonable measure to prevent unnecessary damages to the families of soldiers, while at the same time providing appropriate means of media access by (a) allowing embedded media, and (b) allowing images and stories of war be publicized in a reasonable matter of time.
They may not do this in the manner that is most convenient or easiest for us, and as with all large organizations, there are internal disagreements over various policies. However, access is still being provided, and publishing is being allowed in a reasonable amount of time (remember - several days to a week is still sooner than most previous wars by a LONG way). |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 1:32 AM on 09.05.09 |
| ->> If I was an editor of a daily, I probably would not have run the photo, but there needs to be images like this around. So, people still remember we are almost eight years deep in two wars that has cost trillions of dollars and multiple thousands of lives. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:01 AM on 09.05.09 |
| ->> So if images like this need to be around, why would you have not run it? |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 9:56 AM on 09.05.09 |
->> "It says to me, "Read the other posts which accurately portray the embed guidelines."'
Pity you. "Embed guidelines" = censorship. |
|
Michael Durisseau, Photographer, Assistant
|
Santa Fe/Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 11:34 AM on 09.05.09 |
->> +1 on Mr. Colburn's comment...there's too much censorship already...the truth needs to come out.
Mr. Dowling, I'm curious, too, about why you wouldn't run it, but it needs to be out there... |
|
Chris La Putt, Photographer
|
Jersey City | NJ | USA | Posted: 10:18 PM on 09.05.09 |
->> The decision shouldn't have gone to AP but to the photographer. I would have removed it had I shot it.
Personally, I think the image doesn't help much from the series. It's better than nothing and had I shot someone's dying moment and submitted it, it better be a powerful image.
I think it detracts from the quality of shots before and after the series. You don't need to display a blurry shot of a soldier dying to convey an image that war sucks. A year from now this shot will only be remembered by the family of the man who was killed and the controversy it created but not the war. |
|
Chris Stanfield, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 10:26 PM on 09.05.09 |
->> "A year from now this shot will only be remembered by the family of the man who was killed and the controversy it created but not the war."
Powerful words, indeed. |
|
Preston Mack, Photographer
|
Orlando | FL | USA | Posted: 10:30 PM on 09.05.09 |
->> War is hell.
This is reality.
The people of this country need to see the truth, not some sanitized version of it. |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 5:01 AM on 09.06.09 |
| ->> Jack Gruber, first off I checked your site to make sure that you knew what you were talking about and not just spouting off from the armchair Generals lounge. You have some fantastic photos going on there and I am duly impressed. Secondly, I DO KNOW exactly what I am talking about. and I am talking about exactly what was said to me and many other journalist that embeded with our unit.. While the DoD has loosely written rules and some confusing at times and even a bit contradicting rules, once in country I and several other journalist were told that we would NOT be able to transmit injured, dying or deceased Marines PERIOD If we do we would be forced to leave immediately and not to return. We were told that once the family was made aware and if they felt it was apropriate we could then submit. As for the photos I have that I cannot show... NO it is not censorship. These photos are of active operators in country and it would be extremely dangerous for them and quite possibly their families for me to publish their photos. I was given clearance to take the photos and if I wanted to publish them tomorrow I could. BUT, out of respect for the men that kept me safe and the same men that took me where ever I wanted ot go with NO limits I respectfully keep those photos out of the public eye. Censorship...? No Respect... Yes. |
|
Ed Coombs, Photographer
|
Available upon | NY | | Posted: 8:54 AM on 09.06.09 |
->> >> As a former Marine, and as difficult as this is to write, the AP did the right thing in moving Julie's images. I am sorry for my brother's loss.
Semper fi.
Chet Gordon.
Ed Coombs (I was 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines, Charlie Co. ) |
|
Scott Serio, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Colora | MD | USA | Posted: 9:38 AM on 09.06.09 |
->> There is a lot of assuming going on here. Not that great a photo? Detracts from the story? Shouldn't transmit it?
Why do the detractors think this was her only image? Maybe this is the only one she could stomach to transmit?
There are some quotes that come to mind about walking a mile and other stuff, and the best one, which I have never been able to find again and I must paraphrase is from Hemingway - "It is one thing to talk about bullfighting, it is an altogether different thing to be in the bullring."
If anyone can find that quote, they get bonus points. It is appropriate. We are all just talking about bullfighting. She was in the ring. |
|
Michael Fischer, Photographer
|
Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 10:37 AM on 09.06.09 |
->> Truth.. Manu hit it on the head. Truth.
That's the job. That's why we have rules regarding manipulation. It's what being a journalist is about.
Truth. In a world where the truth is feared so often by those who will answer for what the truth represents, how can there be any discussion about protecting it on a photojournalism forum?
Truth. It's just that simple. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 11:34 AM on 09.06.09 |
->> Anybody know if Julie is still with the unit? If not, was it just time to go home, or did she get run out?
I've only been in that region once (Iraq), and based on my experience with the unit I covered, there is no way in hell they would have let me stay as an embed had I'd moved a photo like that. That said, I'm glad AP did move it. |
|
Jack Gruber, Photographer
|
Fall Church | VA | USA | Posted: 12:08 PM on 09.06.09 |
->> Nick,
Actually, again, and not to beat this into the ground, the DoD has a pretty exact embedding terms and agreement letter to embed with any unit active Army, Marine or Special Forces. As a journalist restricted to the rules of the embed, it is the responsibility of the journalist to know what they have signed and are liable for in case questions arise. In Julie's case, there is nothing in this instance that has violated the agreement. Not knowing the facts about this instance is what I was making a point about. Julie has not violated any part of the embed agreement.
Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag concerning the DoD rules of embedding. Dozens of news organizations, including the company I work for, signed the embedding rules before the start of the Iraq War while other outlets decided they couldn't work and abide by the DoD rules and opted out of embedding. Many of those organizations are now signing and embedding. If everyone would have agreed not to sign in 2003 due to some of the limitations, maybe things would be different now but I doubt it.
I understand from your post that you were told what you could do or not do as an embedded photographer. Unfortunately, I think you were working off some verbal information not entirely correct. I don't know if you personally signed the embedding agreement but normally that is the case and the document is one of those documents you sign to embed.
That said, sometimes, battalion commanders on the ground don't care about the document and if you happen to violate something they believe is off limits, you could be removed from an embed. Yes, this happens frequently. Usually, the embed termination is brought on by a photographer doing something fully allowable in the embed guidelines but somehow against the wishes of the commander. In most cases, the commander will just say they have lost respect for the journalist and cannot work with them any longer and will terminate the embed.
The guidelines do express the fact about not identifying by name or photo of Special Forces folks. Maybe those are the operators you mentioned. I don't know who you were embedded with but if it was either the 1st or 2nd MSOB, then yeah, maybe these guys are reluctant under their guidelines to be visually recorded.
Nothing has really changed in the wording for years except for more precise wording on SOF. The wording about injured and KIA is about the same as it was in 2003 at the start of the DoD embedding plan.
I personally, have been embedded with Special Forces OAD's and have never had a problem with working with them in order to make photographs in Afghanistan. Numerous times, I have been allowed access to things that I know cannot be photographed under the DoD rules of embedding. Yes, you do not want to burn any bridges or put others into a bad spot by using their lack of knowledge in order to photograph something which is off limits. By working with these individuals, I usually have had a pretty productive embed even with the limitations.
Each embed letter specifically details what you can and can't do while reporting. It is very exact in the wording on pretty much everything. True, photographing wounded or dead while embedded in a company on the ground may cause problems in the heat of the moment with soldiers or marines not giving a rat's ass about what is established as allowable by the DoD. But Julie, it seems, has the trust and respect from the members of the Marine company she is embedded. She is doing her job. Any journalist, if embedded with any military unit, should know what they can do without crossing the line and work to best tell the story they are sent their to report.
My post was not an attack on you. I was just pointing out that you actually are misinformed about "the very strict rules" you were making a point about. Those rules are quite clearly spelled out in the agreements we sign to embed.
From the embed rules:
10. Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties provided the following conditions are adhered to:
a. Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent. If the service member later becomes a KIA, Rule 10(b) applies.
b. DOD will release names of KIAs. In respect for family members, names or images clearly identifying individuals “killed in action” will not be released prior to notification of next of kin and in accordance with current legislation. Names of KIAs may be released after the DOD
announcement has been made – journalists may check the Defenselink.mil Web site for those
announcements. |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 1:36 PM on 09.06.09 |
->> I think her series of images is first rate. The controversial one appears to be a quick grab....but nonetheless is a telling part of her story. The fact her comrades in arms had no problem with it.....tells me all I need to hear. Well done Julie, with a tough assignment and a nice execution of it.
As to those who profess to know the rules.....its pretty easy to verify. Jack actually quotes the rule. I think Julie and AP did the right thing by moving the image. Would I run it as the editor of my local paper? By itself no...probably not, but as it is presented as part of the series...absolutely.
bb |
|
Nick Morris, Photographer
|
San Marcos | CA | United States | Posted: 2:47 PM on 09.06.09 |
| ->> Hey Jack, well said! The DoD rules are very clear yes. The fuzzy part as you know comes from the boss' in the field and those lines change with the wind and that is what I was referring to. Didn't think you were attacking... I expected someone to chime in. I'm glad it was someone who actually knew what they were talking about (no offense to anyone else here). As for the operators... MARSOC and the SEAL's Fun bunch to hang out with. You ever find yourself in San Diego look me up... beer and nachos are on me. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 7:07 PM on 09.06.09 |
| ->> Jack, thanks for the post. Excellent, Mr. Gruber is as informed as anybody doing this kind of work. |
|
Jack Gruber, Photographer
|
Fall Church | VA | USA | Posted: 4:18 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> Well, looks like the other shoe has dropped.
There is a new change in the ground rules to embed with at least U.S. forces in RC-East Afghanistan.
This item is taken from the current complete ground rules list...
15 September 2009
Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan
11. Media will not be allowed to photograph or record video of U.S. personnel killed in action. Written coverage of all killed and wounded is also prohibited unless the following conditions are adhered to:
a. Names or identifiable written/oral descriptions of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent. If the service member later becomes a KIA, Rule 10(b) applies.
b. DOD will release names of KIAs. In respect for family members, names or identifying oral/written reporting of individuals “killed in action” will not be released prior to notification of next of kin and in accordance with current legislation. Names of KIAs may be released after the DOD announcement has been made – journalists may check the Defenselink.mil Web site for those announcements.
This was the ground rule from the list date July 23, 2009 regarding the same issue.
Regional Command – East
23 July 2009
Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan
Regional
10. Media will not be prohibited from covering casualties provided the following conditions are adhered to:
a. Names, video, identifiable written/oral descriptions or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without the service member’s prior written consent. If the service member later becomes a KIA, Rule 10(b) applies.
b. DOD will release names of KIAs. In respect for family members, names or images clearly identifying individuals “killed in action” will not be released prior to notification of next of kin
Regional Command – East
23 July 2009
Bagram Air Field, Afghanistan
and in accordance with current legislation. Names of KIAs may be released after the DOD announcement has been made – journalists may check the Defenselink.mil Web site for those announcements.
The new ground rules also state a new rule: 15. Embedded journalist are required to maintain a copy of these ground rules on their person at all times during the embed. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:18 PM on 10.05.09 |
->> I wanted to throw in a couple of things. Jack is correct in all he has written. I have found the regular women and men in the military usually WANT the journalist's covering them to tell the whole story. It usually ends up that the upper brass are the problem. I've had different officers interpret the rules the way they want to. Part of being embedded is gaining some form of trust between yourself and the soldiers. Sometimes being hard headed and standing your ground (when you are right) leads to better access and respect from the soldiers. I've been assigned to a bunch of different units and never had anyone threaten to kill me if their photo was ever published. If a soldier doesn't want their photo made, it's like a lot of other things I don't shoot that soldier. This new set of rules are pretty troubling.
"Media will not be allowed to photograph or record video of U.S. personnel killed in action."
This is just another attempt to "sanitize" war. And I can tell you the troops aren't where this is coming from. It's coming from way above their pay grades. However, keeping the ground rules with you works both ways. I won an argument with a Colonel after I shot a photo he didn't like. I handed him the ground rules. He read them, uttered some choice cuss words and walked off. That can work both ways. Keep your head down Jack. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|