AP releases photo of dying marine

[headhuntersix]

I think there's a good role for combat photography, I just think it needs to be considerate of people it serves.  It's for our understanding, including the families of those affected.  Do we really need to see the face and blood of a dying Marine to understand it?  How will the family feel about their son plastered across the net on an AP story?  The framing of it is all bad imo.  cheap.

Combat Camera is for documenting and historical purposes and there are regs governing their use. But COMCAM is ours and we don't share those pics with the media, its a whole different thing. As Hugo said, this wrong and the AP, and in particular that guy will have a hard time covering stories without US assistance.

[Purge_WTF]

  I'm a Michael Savage fan, but he pulled a similar stunt a few years back, and Colonel Dan Baggio of the Army personally e-mailed him and asked him to remove the pics.

  You have to get the family's go-ahead first. Case closed.

[Hugo Chavez]

And sadly people often live in denial or shrug off what's really going on until they see the complete undeniable picture.

that may be the case but their stupidity should not be at the expense of the dying serviceman or his/her family.  If they're so stupid and lazy that they need cue cards, well, that's not much of an argument for the publication of the material in question.

[Hugo Chavez]

Combat Camera is for documenting and historical purposes and there are regs governing their use. But COMCAM is ours and we don't share those pics with the media, its a whole different thing. As Hugo said, this wrong and the AP, and in particular that guy will have a hard time covering stories without US assistance.

stated better than I did, but what I meant to convey.

[Bindare_Dundat]

I didn't read all the posts so  idon't know if it was already touched on but would any of you be ok if the AP posted the picture of the dying soilder if the family wasn't against it?

[Dos Equis]

I didn't read all the posts so  idon't know if it was already touched on but would any of you be ok if the AP posted the picture of the dying soilder if the family wasn't against it?

I wouldn't be okay with it.  What would be the purpose?   

[Bindare_Dundat]

I wouldn't be okay with it.  What would be the purpose?   

Why wouldn't you be ok with it if the family was?

[Dos Equis]

Why wouldn't you be ok with it if the family was?

For the same reason I asked the question:  what's the point?  If the media wants to show a dying service member it's to make money or make a political point IMO.

[Bindare_Dundat]

For the same reason I asked the question:  what's the point?  If the media wants to show a dying service member it's to make money or make a political point IMO.

Why not a moral point in terms of sending men and women to die for some ever changing and sometimes shady objectives? Or sending them to die based on lies?

Don't you agree sometimes the public needs a good slap in the face with some reality to break them out of an apathetic daze or do you think people's hearts really bleed when they hear another upteen American soilders got blown to bits? Maybe I'm too cynical but I don't think people really  truely give a shit becasue they are constantly sheilded from the consequence of war that our side experiences.

[Dos Equis]

Why not a moral point in terms of sending men and women to die for some ever changing and sometimes shady objectives? Or sending them to die based on lies?

Don't you agree sometimes the public needs a good slap in the face with some reality to break them out of an apathetic daze or do you think people's hearts really bleed when they hear another upteen American soilders got blown to bits? Maybe I'm cynical but I don't think people really  truely give a shit becasue they are constantly sheilded from the consequence of war that our side experiences.

Dude I don't think for one instant that the media has a shred of morality.  You should read up on what they did to Arthur Ashe.  That's when I truly realized how ruthless the media is.  What you've described again sounds like someone trying to make a political point. 

I understand what you're saying about the "slap in the face."  People can be apathetic and at times oblivious to some things.  But I don't believe the public is unaware of the harsh reality of war.  The internet has allowed everyone to see all of the dirty details.  It allowed me to watch the decapitation of Nicholas Berg, which I watched just so I could keep in mind what kind of animals we're dealing with. 

There are plenty of other ways to get a point across to someone other than showing a dead or dying service member. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

 I think most people don't even know why we're fighting these wars anymore.  It was Osama, it was WMD's, it was Taliban, it was Al qaeda, it was terror, it was Saddam, it was to help the Afghans, it was to help Iraq's, it was for oil, it was for American interests and on and on. They are overdosed on these nicely named objectives that don't always pan out only to hear about more objectives and longer wars. If the public witnessed a more personal connection to American soilder death don't you believe the people, through their elected officials would put more preasure on all the administrations to make better choices in how they deal with future confrontations?

I hope I was able to convey what I'm thinking clearly enough, it was a long day.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Ah nevermind man,  I just relaized i'm repeating myself. lol yup, loooong day. 

[Hugo Chavez]

it's not a big deal, it's not exactly easy to pick a side where there are multiple arguments to consider.  I've had a hard time with this issue at points.  Even time is a factor, is it ok 20 years from now but not ok today.  Not long ago we allowed pictures like this from Vietnam to be posted here.  There is a multitude of considerations on an issue like this.  It's not always so easy to side 100%.  So I guess the best thing might just be to voice how you feel about this instance at this point in time.  Maybe nobody did anything wrong in this thread.  Maybe we all did. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

There is a multitude of considerations on an issue like this.  It's not always so easy to side 100%.  So I guess the best thing might just be to voice how you feel about this instance at this point in time.  Maybe nobody did anything wrong in this thread.  Maybe we all did. 

Do I need to take some shrooms before I think about this?

[pedro01]

"The Associated Press is distributing a photo of a Marine fatally wounded in battle, choosing after a period of reflection to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it."

Pretty much sums up the press doesn't it ?

That sentence clearly shows they have an agenda and used that picture to further their agenda, despite the wishes of the family.

These people are so up their own asses it's unreal.

[Hugo Chavez]

Do I need to take some shrooms before I think about this?

do you?

[Fury]

I think most people don't even know why we're fighting these wars anymore.  It was Osama, it was WMD's, it was Taliban, it was Al qaeda, it was terror, it was Saddam, it was to help the Afghans, it was to help Iraq's, it was for oil, it was for American interests and on and on. They are overdosed on these nicely named objectives that don't always pan out only to hear about more objectives and longer wars. If the public witnessed a more personal connection to American soilder death don't you believe the people, through their elected officials would put more preasure on all the administrations to make better choices in how they deal with future confrontations?

I hope I was able to convey what I'm thinking clearly enough, it was a long day.

That's all fine and dandy, minus the fact that this guy's family asked them not to publish the pictures. Your agenda and disagreement with this conflict most likely means jack shit to them and in-fact, does mean jack shit. The family's wishes should be observed before anyone's agenda or money-grubbing tactics come into play.

The AP asked this guy's family if they were OK with the pictures being published. They said no. Right there they should have canceled any plans to publish them and buried it.

In reality, your no different from those papers you hate. You want to push your agenda by publishing those pictures and seem to think it's OK to, regardless of what the family wants. Apparently the wishes of the parents of a son who died take second place to yours, despite the fact that you have no personal relationship to him and only want to use his pictures to further your anti-war agenda.

The funny thing is that I would bet on my life that anyone on this board would have said no as well had it been photos of their child dying.

[Bindare_Dundat]

That's all fine and dandy, minus the fact that this guy's family asked them not to publish the pictures. Your agenda and disagreement with this conflict most likely means jack shit to them and in-fact, does mean jack shit. The family's wishes should be observed before anyone's agenda or money-grubbing tactics come into play.

The AP asked this guy's family if they were OK with the pictures being published. They said no. Right there they should have canceled any plans to publish them and buried it.

In reality, your no different from those papers you hate. You want to push your agenda by publishing those pictures and seem to think it's OK to, regardless of what the family wants. Apparently the wishes of the parents of a son who died take second place to yours, despite the fact that you have no personal relationship to him and only want to use his pictures to further your anti-war agenda.

The funny thing is that I would bet on my life that anyone on this board would have said no as well had it been photos of their child dying.

   Beach and I  were talking about families that wouldnt have an issue with pictures of their loved one being published.

[Fury]

   Beach and I  were talking about families that wouldnt have an issue with pictures of their loved one being published.

I still don't see the point of plastering the pages of papers with the pictures of dying soldiers. Everyone knows the horrors of war. We've all seen hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures. The only reason to plaster papers and the like with the images of dying soldiers would be to further an agenda.

Then again, if you're ok with that, then you should have no problem with papers printing beheading photos and what not, right?

[Bindare_Dundat]

I still don't see the point of plastering the pages of papers with the pictures of dying soldiers. Everyone knows the horrors of war. We've all seen hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures. The only reason to plaster papers and the like with the images of dying soldiers would be to further an agenda.

Then again, if you're ok with that, then you should have no problem with papers printing beheading photos and what not, right?

If you don't see the point then theres not much else I should bother saying.

[Fury]

If you don't see the point then theres not much else I should bother saying.

Your point is pretty stupid so yeah, you probably should stop talking.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Your point is pretty stupid so yeah, you probably should stop talking.

When you're a miserable douchebag, everything seems stupid.

[Hedgehog]

i think they took it down, even though they ignored the wishes of the family in the first place

pretty sick

The media should be consequence neutral.

Eg, publishing issues should not be decided on how the public reacts.

How the big media outlets have been shamelessly promoting the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good example.

Would there still be a war over there if the journalists would report about every killed soldier, every civil person slayed?

Doubt it.

[Mons Venus]

We don't do that here....that was a US Marine. Several of us here are or where Marines and we're not posting that shit. A link would have been fine but as with the AP stoy if that was ur kid or brother etc and his picture found its way to the net or the AP before u had been notified, thats bullshit and is not only disgraceful its also a major problem for the DOD as regards the family. U don't do that to people. I hope that embeded reporter gets bounced from theater.

We agree.

[Bindare_Dundat]

The media should be consequence neutral.

Eg, publishing issues should not be decided on how the public reacts.

How the big media outlets have been shamelessly promoting the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a good example.

Would there still be a war over there if the journalists would report about every killed soldier, every civil person slayed?

Doubt it.

I agree. The deciding factor of the public's reaction to those pics will be how they feel about the case for going to war in the first place. It's no different then Vietnam, after the footage and pics came out the public  openly starting asking, "What the hell are we doing over there." I think the same thing would happen with these wars as well, but you never know, I guess it could have the opposite effect and cause the public to support the conflicts even more.