Journal of the mental environment
Young men dead
Should the media publish images of dead U.S. servicemen?
- Tue, 15 Jul 2008 3:52 pm — Posted by Abdul
- | 7 comments
Over the weekend, I was reading Susan D. Moeller’s essay on “Media and Democracy”and she pointed out that one of the paramount problems with the mainstream media is that they have failed to show the human costs of war.
From September 1, 2004 to February 28, 2005, 559 American soldiers and Western allies died but not a single picture got published in the seven elite U.S. newspapers. Among these elite: New York Times, Washington Post, Time and Newsweek. During this time period, there were two significant news events: the U.S. led assault on Fallujah and the January 2005 elections in Iraq.
Times have changed. Life magazine published grim pictures of the Spanish Civil War in 1938 with these words:
Once again Life prints grim pictures of War, well knowing that once again they will dismay and outrage thousands and thousands of readers. But today’s two great continuing news events are two wars — one in China, one in Spain… Obviously Life cannot ignore not suppress these two great news events in pictures. As events, they have an authority far more potent than any editors’ policy or readers’ squeamishness. But Life could conceivably choose to show pictures of these events that make them look attractive. They are not, however, attractive events… Americans’ noble and sensible dislike of war is largely based on ignorance of what modern war really is… The love of peace has no meaning or no stamina unless it is based on a knowledge of war’s terrors… Dead men have indeed died in vain if live men refuse to look at them.. [Emphasis mine]
Photo: Alex Majoli (Courtesy of Magnum Photos)
Today its even easier to ignore war’s terrors as the U.S. officials actively try to make it hard for journalists to get the reality out of the afflicted areas. Embedded Photojournalist, Zoriah was barred for publishing photos of Marines killed in a suicide bombing last month. In his blog post, he wrote:
What I saw was abhorrently graphic, yet far too important for the world to ignore. I present images that provide an uncensored view of a terrible event, and some small measure of dignity to those who lost their lives.
You can see all images here and decide for yourself… if these images should be published? Do they, as Zoriah says, give some dignity to those who lost their lives? or are the politicians using this absence of reality to portray the illusion of victory in places like Iraq?
RELATED: New York Times has published “4,000 U.S. Deaths, and Just a Handful of Public Images” accompanied by a “Picturing Casualties” slide show.
Comments
I'm a 22 year old American. I have no personal concept or understanding of war. I have never experienced a war in my backyard, my neighbors, friends, and family being the 'civilian casualties.' To my generation, war is a video game or a strategic decision. When I watch a war movie, I feel physically ill. The horrors are tremendous. How often do people play video games portraying all the gruesomeness of war without really thinking about what it going on?
For the sake of reality, these photos need to be shared. I'm sick of people hiding behind the veil of: "these images are too graphic for people to see. They are a defilement to those pictured." The bigger tragedy is that our elected officials play a part in the creation of these images. Since this is a democracy, I play a role in the creation of these images. Not only should these images be displayed, I feel that I have a personal responsibility to view them.
The media will say how many people died but they will not name them, unless they are soldiers.
The pictures let us see for ourselves who died. Whether it be a hand of a nameless Iraqi man.
The concept of respect is bound to attract ridiculous personal opinion.
These pictures are a relic of the lives of humans, who most often go down in history as a brick in the pile of international bodies of war and disaster. A number, a 327 in 1000.
I believe that it is important to show the mass media the realities of war and its true effects. However a certain amount of desecration must be used, should we be publishing images of hands, legs, and other body parts? Probably not. However images of running, peoples reactions, and maybe some blood stains aren't that bad.
I think they should be shown - violence is a fact of life and is happening every second right outside your door. We see it in the news and in our neighborhoods - showing it reminds us that it is there and that there are people who are fighting to protect our borders regardless if we agree with the war or not, they are out there doing it.
"Young men dead
Should the media publish images of dead U.S. servicemen?"
There's women serving in the military too, ass hat.
with the way your government fucks you lm suprised there aren't as many U.S terrorists
Your post beautifully articulates what I've thought about since I helped Zoriah publish that blog post about the June 26th attack.
Post new comment