The Picture -Right or Wrong

This is the APpicture of a mortally wounded Marine:



Was AP right or wrong in posting and printing this picture.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1211504/The-image-dying-U-S-soldier-sparked-furious-debate-Afghan-war-divided-America.html

My view is the editor in chief should go to Afghanistan and explain to this troops comrades his decesion process on this. Then go to the family and do the same, this is inexcuseable, and as a former combat troop, my faith in our media has dropped another rung.

And yes I put it up so you doubting Thomases can see for yourself what transpired, now explain why.

Edited by oldsoldier - 06 September 2009 at 8:19pm

Again proving many of you just don't get it, what the responsibilites of the press are in a time of war. Since VN the political agenda of the press has been pure sensationalism. FDR thought long and hard, then asked the families of any identified war dead before the press was allowed to print them after Tarawa.

Our correspondants in WW2, the great ones like Cronkite, understood that no picture of any dead was to be printed, nor newsreel rolled without the families being contacted for permission. FDR personally asked several families after Tarawa. Nothing was said to this family prior to the printing of the picture, that is the issue.

The pictures jmac posted are unidentified personnel from WW1, WW2, the VN pic is familiar (check the patch 173rd) and the desert picture is unknown to me.

Edited by oldsoldier - 06 September 2009 at 8:31pm

carl_the_sniper wrote: So this is a post pictures of dead people thread now? So much for a rare potentially interesting oldsoldier thread...

What is interesting about it?

I am posting to dead people because he acts like it is something that has never happened before. I felt like choosing one picture from WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietname, and the Gulf War.

I just don't see what the big deal is?

What is the difference if they are unidentifed? They are dead soldiers all the same.

There is no problem with them publishing the photo. If the picture offends you, stop looking at it. All too often we see pictures of the enemy getting blown to bits, but one of our own on the ground, wounded, that's too graphic/immoral. Grow up.

Decent, no... but they have every right to publish the picture. The fighting is costing us American lives and it's about time the public is exposed to this cost. If it takes this much controversy to start this exposure, so be it.

Not one of our own what? Human? American? Why do you feel you are better than those of us who haven't served? Van Jones was right...

This isn't the first time a dead/dying person's picture has graced the news. You're only upset because it is one of your elite servicemen, where you should really be outraged at the AP's decision to post ANY dead human. Where the hell is your morality?


Edited by High Voltage - 06 September 2009 at 9:55pm

What we consider one of our "own", from a soldiers standpoint, is one who is wounded or dying on the battlefield. This is one expierience I care to forget, I have BTDT trying to save a friend, and if it was me and my friend plastered on the news, I would personally on my return, confront the idiot who made that decesion from the safety and comfort of his office and home, and help him see the error of his ways. Now if this was your brother, cousin, uncle, father would you see the picture the same, no, and if you think you would you are lying to yourself and those here.
This controversy brings up some serious issues in the veterans community, as well as the families of those still deployed. Decency would have been asking the family first, and if "No", respect the wishes of the family, but to profit from this, is criminal.

Someone ask Evil Elvis his opinion, willing to bet his answer..........

Edited by oldsoldier - 06 September 2009 at 10:08pm

ParielIsBack wrote: If OS's point is that the family's wishes in regard to the photo of their dead son should be respected, I think he has a point.  They specifically asked that this image not be published.  The AP ignored that request.  I can see a certain level of outrage on their behalf because the press didn't respect their privacy or feelings. However, I do think that it cannot hurt the American people to see some of the "pornography of war".  The photos that celebrate the victory of our soldiers are shown ten times as often as those of our dead, and I think it's deceiving.  People need a reminder.

That is his only point and that I would agree with. I do not agree with saying it shouldn't be published for any other reason.

It's the liberal media.  When was the last time they respected anyone?  You can be pissed about it all you want, but here's the thing: they acted within the law, they acted within the moral boundaries of our society, and probably they're not going to get in trouble over it.

I don't think that justifies what they did, but I don't see anyone's complaints changing the situation.