I don't think it has fuck-all to do with the sensibilities of the family involved. It has everything to do with trying to keep from the American public the true cost of fighting a war. Soldiers get killed in war and their deaths are rarely the antiseptic kinds shown in a 1940s movie.
This, in part, is what the photographer had to say about it:
Then there’s the journalism side of things, which is what I am and why I’m here. We are allowed to report the name of the casualty as soon as next of kin has been notified. It is necessary and good to recognize those who die in times of war. But to me, a name on a piece of paper barely touches personalizing casualties. An image brings it home so much closer. An image personalizes that death and makes people see what it really means to have young men die in combat. It may be shocking to see, and while I’m not trying to force anything down anyone’s throat, I think it is necessary for people to see the good, the bad and the ugly in order to reflect upon ourselves as human beings.The New York Times evidently has mixed feelings, for they only published the photos on their web site. That's being charitable, for another view is that they were weasels who were unwilling to take a stand one way or another.
It is necessary to be bothered from time to time. It is too easy to sit at Starbuck’s far away across the sea and read about the casualty and then move on without much of another thought about it. It’s not as easy to see an image of that casualty and not think about it.
See for yourself. Can you handle the truth?
7 comments:
I grew up during the Viet Nam war and it was a ritual to watch the news every night. The media still published the news back then to a point, now there is no news, only infotainment. Yes, I can handle the truth, it is ugly but I can't GET the truth anymore.
"And that's the way it was".
Nothing will sway public opinion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (or anywhere else, for that matter) as quickly or as effectively as bringing home the horrors of war. Flag-draped coffins are one thing, blood-and-guts photos quite another.
The Newark Star-Ledger printed it, although in black-and-white you can't really see the detail.
The photographer said the guy's comrades saw the picture and didn't object to its publication.
Hiding the pictures is what governments due for the last 35-40 years. We saw the rough film from Vietnam until the government realized that this did not make more young men want to be shot and blown up. And that even people who did not risk having to serve decided that war is in fact hell.
Hiding what war looks like makes it easier for people to agree with war, no matter the reason for that war. I was going to say what war is like but I can not imagine what it is like to actually be there. It looks like hell on earth, what I can imagine is that looking only tells a small part of the story. We should be made to view not only these pictures but pictures of all the fallen. Service people pay a huge price even if they come back in one piece. Waving a flag does not support them, acknowledging their true sacrifices would be the least we can do.
I served during Vietnam. I was not sent to combat but I know many who were and have discussed first hand the brutality of warfare. It is probably the most disturbing thing anyone will have to do and it should only be done as a last resort.
We ask people to kill and be killed and wounded for us and we cringe at a photo of the results? This is disrespect of those that serve, at the highest level.
Per the full video link the family did not want the pictures shown. That should be their right but I feel it is incorrect. I think showing us what their son had to endure and what and how he gave his life is a most fitting tribute to his life.
Blood and guts on the tube helped end the war. It could here as well but it will not happen.
My point is that the same picture seen in different places is not shocking because it's such poor quality. 10-15kb. That's less than real little. I did not get to see this picture initially but I have a feeling that quickly this photo was downsized. You can't make out a damn thing except for a smudge of red.
If the real blood and guts were shown in much larger file size now that would really piss 'em off but they'd still be wrong.
This is another example of the rich and powerful trying to keep the truth from American citizens. They well know that even the limited coverage we saw during the war in 'Nam sparked and fed the anti-war protests that helped end it.
In this day and age, I'm surprised that even this one photo got as much distribution as it did. The shit hooks controlling the media and the shit hooks above them know that "out of sight, out of mind" is rule number one when manipulating the public. If the bloody results of the regular death toll in our imperialist wars were shown to the public on a daily basis, you can be assured that political heads would roll.
I say bring on the photos and film.
FDR had to force the military to publish photos of dead Marines at Tarawa, he felt, as I do that if we send these folk in harms way we need to let the regular folk and the chickenhawks see what the cost of war looks like......not antiseptic, not clean NOT heroic computer games...
real blood real consequences...
So print the pics we got a right to see what happens to our troops in harms way, oh, get out of Iraq and make the Afghans give a shit or get out of there as well
Post a Comment