The Picture -Right or Wrong
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=182859
Printed Date: 18 May 2026 at 8:51pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Picture -Right or Wrong
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: The Picture -Right or Wrong
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:14pm
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 - 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. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:18pm
| Are you serious? Why? Can our public not handle the image of a fallen american, but charred remains of the darkies is okay? There are TONS of historical war photographs showing either side after being gunned down. It's war, it's ugly, you of all people shouldn't pretend it isn't. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:24pm
|
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. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:25pm
     Just thought I would throw these out there ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:29pm
|
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. -------------
|
Posted By: carl_the_sniper
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:30pm
|
So this is a post pictures of dead people thread now? So much for a rare potentially interesting oldsoldier thread... ------------- <just say no to unnecessarily sexualized sigs> |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:33pm
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. ------------- Que pasa?
|
carl_the_sniper wrote:Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:36pm
|
CRY MOAR
------------- 
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 8:54pm
|
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.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 9:30pm
this. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 9:32pm
|
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.
------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 9:40pm
|
It is way to difficult for many here to understand the warriors ethos. No matter what war, and age, we are all still a "Band of Brothers" and to many of us who had to endure the idiocy of the press on what we do as soldiers neither have the time or patience for the press or kids who have never walked the walk.
This is a mockery, and an attempt to use a families and units loss as a political tool. Bring the war back into the American living room, and repeat the exercise so well learned by our press since Vietnam. Sit in any VFW or American Legion Hall and spout your rhetoric and see how well it is accepted by those who have seen the beast, and live with the nightmares, both the soldier and thier families. It is just strange that none of you have served, but feel qualified to say it is OK, because it is not one of your own. -------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 9:51pm
|
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? -------------
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 9:53pm
Press coverage of Vietnam was bad? I think it had quite a bit to do with ending the war.
I think it's an appropriate time to change your signature. -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 10:07pm
|
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.......... -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 10:23pm
|
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. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 10:35pm
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. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 11:11pm
|
That is the point, it has been the tradition as well as a matter of respect that the media does not publish photos of identifyable casualities without the families and DoD permission, both were ignored in this travesty. The family is PO's, the USMC as well as entire military is PO'd, and the veterans want a head on a platter for this. That is the point of this. The families wishes were ignored. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 11:16pm
|
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. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 11:28pm
 ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 06 September 2009 at 11:50pm
|
If you're going to tell me the AP is run by conservatives, you should probably go grab a dictionary first to make sure you know the definition. I'm not saying that conservative media is better. What I'm saying is that this clearly puts forward the agenda of the left. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 12:05am
If ending American deaths isn't on the conservative agenda, I fear even more greatly for our troops. -------------
|
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 12:14am
|
I don't like it.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 12:22am
If we only went to war when we knew none of our troops would die, the world would be a far worse place. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 12:27am
What are you talking about? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 1:07am
because then our troops would be everywhere -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 1:16am
| ...Sigh. |
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 1:30am
|
did he realy just say that? ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 2:09am
|
I don't like the fact that they published it, not because of any political reason, but because the father of the Marine damn near begged them not to.
------------- 
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 2:56am
First amendment, wut? You guys can't sit there and censor a war/military occupation. -------------
|
Posted By: Bounty
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 3:13am
Respecting the family should be the number one priority. How would you feel if a picture of your father/mother/brother/sister as they lay lifeless were published for the world to see? Forget politics, forget freedom of the press, if a soldiers family is asking a picture showing their deceased child not be published then dont publish the damn picture. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 3:19am
|
And the families of the other dead people whose pictures have been published? Personally, if a family member was pictured there I would probably not wish to view it. I would not bar them from publishing it, especially if it brought attention to the issue of why we're still losing American lives in that country. Not the answer you were looking for, I know, but it's honest. Also, you can't forget freedom of the press. Hell, it is listed first in the Bill of Rights. -------------
|
Posted By: Eville
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 4:08am
All I said was i didnt like it, not that they should be thrown in jail or anything. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 4:43am
I'm saying that we deploy our troops when we see a need (wrongly or rightly), and that they have, in fact, managed to stop some seriously bad people. Our troops understand that they are putting their lives on the line, why can't liberals? If the only viewpoint you can have is that the troops need to come home because otherwise they'll die, your tunnel vision isn't fixable.
Fail at reading. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: JohnnyCanuck
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 9:42am
I'm interested in his opinions, yours too, you should be interested in ours instead of thinking we should have the same opinion as you.. For me, this is what I don't like about most of your threads and all of FE's. I asked my Dad (served) - he agrees with press - and my nephew, (3rd tour in Afganistan coming up) and he has no problem with it. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." ------------- Imagine there’s a picture of your favourite thing here. |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 10:36am
then
-------------
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 12:37pm
I never knew that liberals didn't join the military...
My view is that if people are dying for our leaders' decisions, the people need to be exposed to this human cost. Unfortunately, piles of dead brown people don't do enough because our society views them as less-than-human. A few words in an obituary doesn't mean anything to people these days. It sadly takes gruesome images like the picture being discussed to get people to understand what a soldier's death really is. The more people understand what it is to loose one of our own, and the more pointless that death is, the more likely it is that we'll pay more attention to the nature of a conflict before sending our people there. -------------
|
Posted By: Bounty
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 12:59pm
Ok now take into consideration that this fallen soldiers father, the man that raised that kid, was asking that the photo not be published. No one is taking rights away, no one said they dont have the right but when someone this close to the soldier is begging that the picture not be published I believe out of respect they should let it go. You may have made a different decision but this isn't your choice, I tried to get you to understand where the father is coming from but no dice. Now just learn to respect that other people feel differently and dont want pictures of their dead son circulating the world. It's all about respect. No ones losing rights here. |
Posted By: pb125
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 1:05pm
|
SOMEHOW I FEEL THIS IS OBAMA'S FAULT?
------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 1:21pm
You're wrong about people not caring about piles of brown people -- the rules that are now tying our troops hands on the use of air support and artillery in order to save brown people are getting our troops killed. No one currently in Iraq or Afghanistan didn't know what they're getting into -- every one of our servicemen and women had to sign up knowing they'd be fighting there. I'm not sure the public needs to understand what their death is like, and I'm sure that one image will not do it. I'm sure the public needs to respect those soldiers deaths, which is exactly what's not happening here. This is pure politics. I'm all for exposing Americans to the horrors of war -- make 'em serve. I think they'd be a lot more hesitant to go fight after that. Images of death and combat are not so hard to come across that the press needs to dishonor one of our soldier's family's wishes. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 1:48pm
|
Of course the press has the RIGHT to publish photos like this. That doesn't always mean they should. It used to be that the release of such material was viewed as a blow to the morale of the people on the home front. Yes, everyone knew that their troops were being killed, but to see it splashed all over the front page of a paper or flipped over and over on a news feed on the television is a little bit different. I don't care much for the decision they made to publish it, especially if the family of the fallen marine requested that they not do so. However, since much of the human element is gone out of the media, and its become a race to sell product and shore up accounts in an era where other media outlets are biting the dust left and right, I'm not surprised that they did, and I can do nothing but be saddened by their decision almost as much as I am by the content. Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to publish such things, Indeed, to say so seems to be a direct violation of what I believe in as a conservative in regards to the constitution. If we're looking for literal interpretation of said constitution and the rights that it guarantees us, calling foul on a picture because we don't care for it (for whatever reason) and stating that they should not be allowed to put that stuff up seems a mite hypocritical. I'm just arguing that being able to do something, and "Should do it" aren't the same thing, and that a little bit of discretion could go a long way. ------------- ? |
Posted By: ¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 8:52pm
I'll second that. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 11:42pm
|
Reb's mention of hypocrisy put me in mind of the reporter that was taken hostage a while back and the media decided not to report it because it might endanger the hostage. I've tried looking it up but can't remember enough about it to find it. Any help out there for that? Anyway, it seems that the right of the public to know may be dependent upon both the situation and the media outlet involved if I am remembering the situation right.
------------- 
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 11:51pm
|
It was a NYTimes reporter, I can't remember the name and I don't want to search. ------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 11:53pm
|
Thanks. I can probably find it from that. (It won't be tonight though; I'm beat.)
-------------
|
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 4:00am
|
Personally I HATE sensationalist reporting. I'd also want this guy's head on a platter if the family said NO to the pic being printed.
But that would be for ANY picture the family said no to, not only to soldiers families. Sensationalist reporting makes me want to beat people. The other day they reported the cops standing guard over prisoners while armed with SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLES!!!!!!!!!1111 one one! Seriously. The ONE time you can throw out the term automatic weapon correctly, you screw it up trying to make it sound impressive. Dorks. KBK |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 8:57am
|
I don't agree to the picture being posted against the wishes of the family. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Glassjaw
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 12:02pm
This. ------------- |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 12:35pm
|
I figure I should probably weigh in on this. My thoughts are as follows: Let me explain to start with the technical side of things, what this means. The AP is not a publication. It didn't really "publish" these photos. The AP is a wire service. It provides content - from articles to photos - for other publications to use, mainly publications who cannot afford to keep staff members in all parts of the world at all times. So to say that the AP went and plastered this photo everywhere is a falsity. All they did was make it available for other publications to use if they saw fit. It was really up to paid subscribers - of which my publication is one - to decide to publish the photos or not. That said... I agree with Reb on one aspect of it. I think that the Associated Press has the complete right to push the photo if they feel the need. And I think that this is a very important right. This talk of wanting to prevent them legally from pushing photos like this need to be thought about very carefully. The media are very easily hurt by such chilling effects. Freedom is a crucial aspect to having a proper media, and having a proper media is the the key to an informed society. If we tell them they cannot push this photo, where does that end? What's to stop us from telling them they cannot push something else if we are offended by it? However, I do think that the AP showed a lack of restraint by pushing the photo. If I was in charge, would I have given the OK to push that photo? Probably not, no. I'm also not going to choose to put it in my publication. With having the sort of freedom that the media needs to have comes a sense of ethical obligation. If the family asked not to have the picture pushed, then it the AP needs to respect the wishes of the family. However, one thing that has been brought up that I think needs addressed specifically is this concept of "keeping up morale." It's not the job of the media to keep up morale. That's the job of the people who command young men and women to go into battle. The job of the media is to inform. Nothing more. |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 12:44pm
darkies?? ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 5:30pm
They were worried that reporting it would give the people holding him a reason to think he'd be worth executing. I don't think that's an unfounded idea. I'm not sure exactly how it parallels this one though -- I don't see this putting anyone's life in danger.
Apparently that's what they call non-whites in Canada. Who knew? :whenwillthetippmannforumaddadodgy?: ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 7:14pm
But the public has a right to know. -------------
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 8:07pm
|
A person who believes in the Constitution, I can not condone any kind of government meddling into Media and how information is spread. Now having said that I do believe that the Media as an protected entity should strive to hold a Moral Compass and determine where their freedoms are not abused nor used to cause harm. The Sad thing is as the printed media dies out and they find themselves eager to make sakes and attract attention this will become all too common occurrence.
Since the father practically begged them not to run the Image of his Son, dying. I believe that they should had not published it. I am sure there are hundreds of other pictures from that Operation probably some that doesn't depict the moments of someone's death. I wouldn't blame the Dad if he went and punched every editing staff of that newspaper that published the photo in the face. Hell, if I saw them I'd probably do it myself. Growing up in Puerto Rico one of our newspaper El Vocero, always had pictures on the Cover of dead drug dealers and other criminals who had been killed in violent action. American news and newspapers never really show dead people unless they are under a blanket. The argument here is rooted in Human Decency, and the arrogance of the editor of that newspaper. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:15pm
Not us essentially. Not meant to be offensive or derogatory so don't look too far into it |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 9:34pm
I'm sorry, point that out to me in the BoR? "The public has the right to all information known by the news media". Nope, not seeing it. And at the expense of someone's life? I think not. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 11:52am
|
^^^ Actually, my point is that "the right to know" seems to be sufficient justification for causing one family pain (by posting their dying son) but is a secondary consideration when a member of the media is at risk. (Based on the assumption that their don't seem to be many cases of the kidnappings of non-media personnel that were not reported because of the fear it could endanger their lives.) As long as we're discussing the Bill of Rights, where in there does it say the media has a right to post the pictures of dead children over the objections of their parents? -------------
|
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 12:00pm
|
Anything darker than vanilla is OK to post, but not white people, sorry.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 3:28pm
|
Regular vanilla or french vanilla?
-------------
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 5:02pm
Where does it say the media doesn't have that right? -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 5:09pm
Again, the reason they did not publish is because it would give the people holding him a reason to kill him -- all of a sudden he would be important. They're not going to let any US soldiers go, because simply executing a US soldier makes a big enough impression. I'm not against them not reporting missing US soldiers, but given that the DoD is legally required too, I doubt it would help. I still don't see how causing one family pain and getting someone killed are on the same level. I'll remind you again that I don't think they should have published the photo. But I don't see where they broke any legal or moral codes in not publishing articles on a missing journalist.
Right there. Shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. Common decency may say that they should listen to the parents, civil law may not. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 6:52pm
-------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 7:11pm
|
Mack, to get a reaction, which succeeded.
-------------
|