AP Published photo of dying soldier

met

What do you guys think? Should the AP have published the photo of a mortally wounded combat soldier or respected the family's wishes?

Here's a link to the article and photo should you choose to view it.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/04/2053049.aspx?GT1=43001

Sam

I don't need to vote or concern myself what others want to rationalize.

There is right and there is wrong. If you don't know the difference I can't help you.

In a total vacuum I see nothing wrong with publishing photos that convey the realities of the world, but to publish after the family not only asked but begged not publish the photo is beyond wrong.

I am unclear what roll the photographer played in this. Was she doing work for hire or did she retain the copyright to these images?

Ether case if she is embedded in the future and the troops find out about this, she will be made to feel uncomfortable to say the least.

You wonder why the military is wary of journalists. I wouldn't want to an embedded AP journalist now.

The individual photographers, and journalist may not deserve this but the AP management who do are busy hiding behind mommies skirt aren't going to put their own fat bottoms at risk.

Sam

met

I also believe that it should not have been published. But then the next question is, should she have taken the photo in the first place? How is this different than the published video of the Iranian woman that was shot? Is there a difference because of the family's wishes?

coldclimb

I'm of the opinion that my opinion doesn't have to matter to the rest of the world, so I generally try not to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't have done.

That said, thanks for posting this, the photos are gripping and the controversy an interesting one. The way I see it, they had every right to publish the photos. The photographer shot them, they belong to the news service, there's nothing to stop them.

Would I have published them? No. Especially not after the family asked not to, but even before then I'd keep them private. I see people die sometimes, and while the photos one can take in such situations are some of the most intensely moving photos a photographer could ever take, it's a rather private affair and I totally understand a family being devastated that they would be published.

But when *I* die, take the pictures! I hope it's something spectacular!

Awais Yaqub

Nah i don't think such photo should be aired. It is not possible for someone to see his/her loved one dieing....

It also effects health of viewers. Some days back me and many of my friends reported unusual behavior of heart. And we learned it is due to over dose of media reports and graphic images of bomb attacks etc happening near to us...

Today i don't bother about NEWS and my heart is beating in perfect tone. Media creates hype with images to earn profits. They cannot and never solved an issue so i don't support them.

This is my current experience... don't know what i will say after 2 or 3 years.

Tina Manley

I think the family's wishes should influence the final decision to publish the photo, but I also think the family should know that the publication of the photo will contribute to the public's knowledge of what happens in war. The photographer should have taken the photo, definitely. There is never an excuse or reason for censorship.

Tina


www.tinamanley.com

happysmileylady

Does the AP have the right to publish the photo? Of course, they own it.

SHOULD the AP have published the photos? Not when the family says not to...it's just rude. It's like when someone posts pics on facebook. If they took the pics, they have the right to post them whereever. But if one of their friends IN one of the photos requests that it not be posted, that request should be honored.

Having said that, I did look at the photo. And while I completely understand not wanting a photo of your child dying being plastered on the news...it is not 100% clear what or who is in the photo. The face of the injured man is blurred and the injury is hidden by the soldiers working on him.

In addition, I am not so comfortable with the entire concept of embedded photographers and videographers. One one hand, I do believe it's important to document the events, for the sake of history, to learn from the events (both in terms evidence and in terms of learning from our past.) However, what I am uncomfortable with is placing photograhers and videographers in danger, and therefore, IMO, IN THE WAY, so that newspapers can be sold or ratings raised. Particularly in a situation where an attack is actually happening. I wouldn't want my loved one to have to be worrying about the unarmed citizen who is doing nothing but pressing a shutter when bullets are flying. The only people I would want there are those that can actually help.

michswiss

First, thanks for posting the link. I've been reading up on this this morning and I think it is a very important discussion. Here is a link to the photographer's narrated slideshow of the engagement. Many additional contextual photos as well as interesting comments on trying to photograph in low-light combat conditions.

Angelo

war is hell and people need to know what's happening to our children being sent into harm's way.

embedding is nothing more than institutionalized censorship. control the information - control the outcome

here's some more reading on this matter:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/long-overdue-ap-photo-cap_b_277396.html

http://www.eandppub.com/2009/09/ap-photo-of-afghan-death-that-is-causing-controversy.html

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/behind-13/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalism

.

Sam

This is not about censorship. It is about right / wrong / honor / loss / and compassion.

Note: This does not have anything to do with anyone's personnel thoughts and beliefs with regard to this war.

The soldier acted with honor and gave everything, his life, to protect you, me and America.

His family lost a great deal, and is suffering.

The only right thing to do is honor this soldiers sacrifice and have compassion for his family.

Not publishing one photo of one dying soldier is not censorship and does not effect the story journalists and photographers are trying to tell, but it does deeply affect the family and friends of the soldier who are also casualties of the war.

Sam

Cygnus Studios

Does anyone really need to see a photo of a dead soldier to realize that war is rough?

As a vet who served in the 1st Gulf War, I don't see the point of releasing this photo. It serves NO real purpose.

It seems that some are now using this photo to demoralize the troops, and whether someone agrees with the war or not, no one should put a soldier through this. These men and women did not choose this war. They simply stood up and sacrificed more than most are willing to do.

I agree with Sam. The AP reporters and photographers will feel the result of this. It is pretty easy for soldiers to look the other way during a battle.

VayCayMom

My 20 something daughter has a degree in journalism, her motto for the press is "if it bleeds , it leads". However that was not HER motto. She spent a lot of time learning about ETHICS and responsiblity in the media, but she does not see much of either in today's media.

michswiss

This is not a black and white issue. Photojournalist in a war setting are faced to ethical and moral situations every day. I assume they see themselves there to record facts as available to them. This photographer did so. She shared her thoughts and experience about this event in her slide-show narrative. She also directly addressed the response to the images by his mates. I doubt this will impact the perception of embedded photographers by soldiers. There's too much history of war photography to say otherwise.

Personally, I don't see this particular set of images as gratuitous or that disturbing, including the scene with the wounded soldier. He didn't die there. He died several hours later on an operating table as a result of the wounds he incurred, specifically a blood clot in his heart. If anything, I see the image as honoring the soldier and his mates as they responded to the situation with grace and professionalism and honor while under extreme duress.

As it stands, I would say the most painful of the images are the ones where he is still vital and alive while the viewer / parents know these are his last moments. But those are the ones that wouldn't otherwise have had any restriction on publishing.

I have had enough contact with unexpected death within my immediate family to appreciate the emotions. I've also experienced death and traumatic events involving others, including today. The immediacy of the experience is irrational. These images in the public domain will not change the private grief the family must have and/or be experiencing. If anything, I feel the images will strengthen the support network around the grieved as well as inform the public of the sacrifice being made.

InsuredDisaster

I see a double standard. Nobody complains when dead taliban fighters hit the news. Nobody cares when there's some dead, brown nobody in some third world slum that gets photographed. But yes, people seem to object quite a bit when you publish a photo of a dying US soldier. Why the double standard? Us vs Them? We don't know them? They are worth less than us?

As far as war photos go, I've seen some pretty gruesome ones from The Civil war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam and pretty much every war since the invention of cameras capable of photographing them. No public outcry from the US at the sight of burned up, blown up, shot up enemy and civilians that I can see.


So I don't see the the general public has ANY right to complain about this latest in a series of gruesome war photos. You want to see some photos, you want to see dead enemy, dead civilians, and the rest of the carnage of war, well, I guess they finally found something that you object to.

I think I agree with Michswiss that this is history and as such, shouldn't necessarily be covered up.

My problem is that it is my understanding that the photographer asked the family who said no, then published it anyway. I think if you are going to ask, then you'd better be prepared to hear, and honor the answer you receive. So yes, I think that on these grounds, the photographer should have published it.

I can understand that the family certain doesn't want to see this, and they are probably worried that this will become some huge rallying moment for protestors or what have you.

So I do not object to seeing such a photo, until I hear that the photog asked, was denied, then published it anyway.