| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/22/2004 07:47:32 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
Government policy states: no pictures until the caskets get delivered. They leave that up to you to decide. It's your freedom. They don't want to infringe on your right to privacy. |
The interesting thing is that this is a fairly new policy. For example it wasn't enforced under the previous Bush's government. In fact the original proposal to ban the media was made under the Clinton administration, but not enforced until the start of the current Iraq invasion.
Has your government suddenly got so sentimental and considerate of feelings then ? Or might there possibly be other motives in play ? |
maybe it's the fact that at any instant, anyone in the world can view the images via the internet, something that wasn't a problem before clinton's time. if i was a family who had lost a son or daughter i certainly wouldn't want someone photographing the coffin of my child. also as you can see by this thread, this sort of imagery only leads to politicization of a topic that should be excluded from such arguments.
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 19:51:36.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 08:17:55 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by achiral:
this sort of imagery only leads to politicization of a topic that should be excluded from such arguments. |
It is a political topic - probably about the most important political topic there is. After all, these soldiers lost their lives indirectly as a result of decisions made by politicans.
It is a political decision to ban all media coverage of the transport of the bodies back to their families. There are even well reported quotes about any war having to pass 'the Dover Test' for what the American public can stomach.
[One of many links referrencing 'the Dover Test' and Army quotes on the subject]
It is a political issue. It was a political issue in the 70's well before internet distribution of images would raise public awareness. It was a political issue when video of bodies returning to the US was played along side Bush Senior's speeches on the progress in Iraq in the 90s.
It's a political issue.
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 20:19:56.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 08:29:04 PM · #53 |
Does anyone remember when the Challenger exploded? Pictures were shot around the world in a matter of minutes and it was on the radio even faster. How about all the people jumping out of the wtc? Did anyone think of those families?
News is news. No disrespect is being shown to the families by showing the coffins because the identity of the victims are unknown. Since when did news outlets become so afraid of offending people. On your local news, do they show houses burning down or anything that could cause anyone to feel uncomfortable because they know the person that owned the house? Do they show accidents, do they publish pictures of criminals? |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 08:52:23 PM · #54 |
As I recall, George W. Bush used images of Firefighter's coffins from the WTC disaster in one of his re-election Television ads.
How is this any different?
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 20:55:23. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 09:04:54 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by achiral:
this sort of imagery only leads to politicization of a topic that should be excluded from such arguments. |
It is a political topic... |
So this was never intended as a photography discussion... |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 09:09:14 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by achiral:
this sort of imagery only leads to politicization of a topic that should be excluded from such arguments. |
It is a political topic... |
So this was never intended as a photography discussion... |
exactly why this should be in the rant forums |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 09:55:31 PM · #57 |
I'd like to thank AWeaver for contributing an active-duty-on-foreign-soil-American-soldier's perspective to this thread.
America may not be as free as we would like but, IMHO, it is one of the freest on earth. Despite all the garbage we have gone thru to get where we are now, a free and democratic Iraq is a desirable goal. If that goal is not acheived the shame falls on our political leaders, not on the troops. We are in it now, let's find an honorable way to finish the job this time so that no one can say that the lives of the soldiers in those coffins in that photo were wasted. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 09:56:07 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by achiral:
this sort of imagery only leads to politicization of a topic that should be excluded from such arguments. |
It is a political topic... |
So this was never intended as a photography discussion... |
That is quite an assumption.
Its a discussion about photography. That seems pretty self evident.
It is also about censorship to a certain extent and certainly about the use of photography for propaganda purposes.
Photography and politics aren't suddenly completely independent ideas you know. The whole discussion is about a photograph. The fact that is also political is part of that discussion. Other than trying to be reactionary, or ignoring the point - I don't quite understand the purpose of your post though.
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 21:57:43. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:20:36 PM · #59 |
deleted
Message edited by author 2004-04-22 22:21:02. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:21:01 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by laurielblack:
The photos, IMHO, could possibly help the grieving families to know that their loved ones are treated with dignity, respect, and reverence. |
People using the photos of their dead bodies to push a political agenda (as has been done here) is dignity, respect, and reverence? |
I didn't say the photos were being used to push a political agenda. I said they could possibly help the families to know that their loved ones are treated with dignity, respect, and reverence. No political agenda was expressed or implied in my comment. I simply meant that if a family member were to see the photos, it might be reasurring for them to know how and in what kind of care their loved one was transported. I kindly ask that you do not not put words in my mouth.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 10:42:01 PM · #61 |
"If my son/daughter/brother... just died there and I knew there was a possiblity that they were in one of those, I'd be pretty mad."
If my son was in one of those coffins I would want to whole world to see him. He is a nineteen year old marine on his second deployment to Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
04/22/2004 11:16:59 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by louddog:
People using the photos of their dead bodies to push a political agenda (as has been done here) is dignity, respect, and reverence? |
I thought we were discussing a photo of flag-draped coffins, not a photo of dead bodies, there is a difference. But if you want to advance your political agenda dead bodies may serve your purpose better.
Denying press access to Dover didn't advance Bush's political agenda? Gimme a beak. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 11:43:51 PM · #63 |
One thing that seems to have slipped by everyone's attention is the fact that our nation's dead are delivered during nightime hours only, in the middle of the night, on a darkened airfield. It's almost as if someone were ashamed of them. There seems to me to two sides to this: on one hand it is done out of respect for the families, on the other hand, the Government doesn't want photos of our dead circulating because it reminds people not directly involved that this is a real war with real people being killed every day.
In the past, presidents have shown respect by greeting the arrival of our nations slain. Some have saluted and some have even wept. Bush and Co. want none of it.
I've seen these pics and others on the net, and I thank God that we respect those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I am glad to see they their remains are treated with respect and dignity, instead of just being shipped home in a body bag.
Should the woman have lost her job? If it was against company policy and she knew it, then yes.
Did she do the right thing. Yes. Why?, because we are discussing it. We are talking about it.
Her photos have made the war more "real" for people.
War is a very dirty business, and we need to see all aspects of it "warts and all".
Burgy. |
|
|
|
04/22/2004 11:59:14 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by achiral:
this sort of imagery only leads to politicization of a topic that should be excluded from such arguments. |
It is a political topic - probably about the most important political topic there is. After all, these soldiers lost their lives indirectly as a result of decisions made by politicans.
It is a political decision to ban all media coverage of the transport of the bodies back to their families. There are even well reported quotes about any war having to pass 'the Dover Test' for what the American public can stomach.
[One of many links referrencing 'the Dover Test' and Army quotes on the subject]
It is a political issue. It was a political issue in the 70's well before internet distribution of images would raise public awareness. It was a political issue when video of bodies returning to the US was played along side Bush Senior's speeches on the progress in Iraq in the 90s.
It's a political issue. |
i totally agree, but why do we need pictures? are you assuming most people are ignorant of the casualties in iraq? there should be some standard for this type of photography. you seem to be saying that using photos of coffins somehow advances some political opinion, and i have a problem with that. just doesn't seem right. i guess i just have too much faith in people to be smarter than this
Message edited by author 2004-04-23 00:08:11.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 12:08:15 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by Quadrajet:
As I recall, George W. Bush used images of Firefighter's coffins from the WTC disaster in one of his re-election Television ads.
How is this any different? |
good question. |
|
|
|
04/23/2004 12:12:24 AM · #66 |
another thing to think about. say kerry gets selected in november. what's going to be different about this order to not show coffins? you think kerry wants to have that shown either? it's not a republican or democrat thing we're talking about.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 12:19:49 AM · #67 |
I'm not American and tend to view the US presence cynically.
However, the photos did move me. I was touched and reminded of the human side of war, whichever side.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 02:05:59 AM · #68 |
As one who grew up in the Vietnam era this thread makes for an interesting read. What's remarkable is the overwhelming belief that because something has been this way for five or so years, it must have been this way forever. When you note some of the ages, you soon realize that five years ago, for some acne was the their major challenge. For them five years ago was forever.
The pictures recently released via the Freedom of Information request were of flag draped coffins. The photographs are quite moving; but not so moving as seeing images of men being shipped home in body bags.
Time has moved on, and we have moved with. But it has not always been the way it is today. |
|
|
|
04/23/2004 04:06:23 AM · #69 |
The pictures are very well taken. the only thing I am confused about is why on earth did she hand over rights to her friend, the friend got an agent, and they agreed to press should pay $1400. per 1 time each use of exposure.......
If this is not allowed then how come they were able to get the picture out, and the news is showing other photos too!
This is too confusing me ....
Either you can or you cant publish photos of are dead war heros....
They were never clear about it and never enforced it,
and maybe the photographer was wrong because of her job top secret like an oath if you are working for a judge......so she violated her job not the law or policy...cause if she did violate the policy then the press is violating it too.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 06:56:09 AM · #70 |
|
|
|
04/23/2004 07:52:37 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by tolovemoon:
cause if she did violate the policy then the press is violating it too. |
The press are going against the government policy. If you look at the articles they claim the government shouldn't have a right to tell them what they can or cannot publish.
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 07:58:07 AM · #72 |
Gordon,
I don't think the government is telling them what they can or cannot publish. I think that's why ABC ran a segment this morning with these and similar photos. I think the military ruling that extends to civilian contractors is that photos can't be taken. Not that they can't be published. The contractor lost her job because she took them and that was apparently a clause in her contract. To the best of my knowledge any newsworthy outlet can license or buy pictures that already exist and show them with no repercussions from the governmnet. Now they could face a civil charge from a family whose deceased relative might or might not have been shown (don't know how in the world they would prove that but its an open legal option). I don't think the pressure is being applied at the news outlet source as that would tend to garner tons of impassioned interaction from people. I think the rules are aimed more at keeping the photos from coming into existence.
Just what I think I heard on the news segment this morning.
Kev
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 08:05:27 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
Gordon,
I don't think the government is telling them what they can or cannot publish. I think that's why ABC ran a segment this morning with these and similar photos. I think the military ruling that extends to civilian contractors is that photos can't be taken. Not that they can't be published. The contractor lost her job because she took them and that was apparently a clause in her contract. To the best of my knowledge any newsworthy outlet can license or buy pictures that already exist and show them with no repercussions from the governmnet. Now they could face a civil charge from a family whose deceased relative might or might not have been shown (don't know how in the world they would prove that but its an open legal option). I don't think the pressure is being applied at the news outlet source as that would tend to garner tons of impassioned interaction from people. I think the rules are aimed more at keeping the photos from coming into existence.
Just what I think I heard on the news segment this morning.
Kev |
I was quite careful to say that the paper was claiming that. They seem to believe that they are being restricted in what they can or should cover. Certainly they are normally denied access to take such pictures, for example - media coverage is after all what is banned here.
The editor of The Seattle Times, Mike Fancher, said he decided to publish the photograph on the front page because it was "undeniably newsworthy".
The paper's managing editor, David Boardman, told Editor and Publisher this week that "we weren't attempting to convey any sort of political message". Referring to the military ban on photographs of coffins, he said: "The Administration cannot tell us what we can and cannot publish."
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 08:10:06 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I was quite careful to say that the paper was claiming that. They seem to believe that they are being restricted in what they can or should cover. Certainly they are normally denied access to take such pictures, for example - media coverage is after all what is banned here.
The editor of The Seattle Times, Mike Fancher, said he decided to publish the photograph on the front page because it was "undeniably newsworthy".
The paper's managing editor, David Boardman, told Editor and Publisher this week that "we weren't attempting to convey any sort of political message". Referring to the military ban on photographs of coffins, he said: "The Administration cannot tell us what we can and cannot publish."
|
Gordon,
I'm not saying you misspoke. I think the person quoted (see my emphasis above) was speaking figuratively not literally. I don't think the government has any legal restrictions on what can or can't be shown of a soldier's coffin unless it jeopardizes other soldiers or civilians in a theater of operations. I think Mr Boardman was making a case that by restricting the taking of photos the government was limiting what his newspaper could report but I doubt that he or any other news agency would say that they face charges for reporting something that obviously has been picked up internationally as a news story.
Again, if anyone knows of legislation regarding a news outlet being held criminally (not civilly) liable for publishing photos I'd like to read the text myself.
Kev
|
|
|
|
04/23/2004 08:32:56 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by KevinRiggs:
Gordon,
I'm not saying you misspoke. I think the person quoted (see my emphasis above) was speaking figuratively not literally. I don't think the government has any legal restrictions on what can or can't be shown of a soldier's coffin unless it jeopardizes other soldiers or civilians in a theater of operations. I think Mr Boardman was making a case that by restricting the taking of photos the government was limiting what his newspaper could report but I doubt that he or any other news agency would say that they face charges for reporting something that obviously has been picked up internationally as a news story.
Again, if anyone knows of legislation regarding a news outlet being held criminally (not civilly) liable for publishing photos I'd like to read the text myself.
Kev |
I think though, that they would argue that they are being effectively banned from publishing photos, by the restrictions on press taking such pictures in the first place.
If you control the distribution of images, and make it impossible for anyone to make those images, then you are also by extension trying to stop publication.
In a related case, the Pentagon just got forced to release pictures under the freedom of information laws.
As reported in various outlets.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:32:39 PM EDT.
