Censoring Pictures of the Dead in Iraq

By TChris, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:17:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If things are going as swimmingly in Iraq as John McCain would like us to believe, why is the military so desperate to control the visual message?

The case of a freelance photographer in Iraq who was barred from covering the Marines after he posted photos on the Internet of several of them dead has underscored what some journalists say is a growing effort by the American military to control graphic images from the war. ...
[O]pponents of the war, civil liberties advocates and journalists argue that the public portrayal of the war is being sanitized and that Americans who choose to do so have the right to see — in whatever medium — the human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans.

[more ...]

Journalists say it is now harder, or harder than in the earlier years, to accompany troops in Iraq on combat missions. Even memorial services for killed soldiers, once routinely open, are increasingly off limits. Detainees were widely photographed in the early years of the war, but the Department of Defense, citing prisoners’ rights, has recently stopped that practice as well.

Says Zoriah Miller, the photographer who has been barred from covering the Marines (and who will be "barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world" if Maj. Gen. John Kelly has his way):

“It is absolutely censorship,” Mr. Miller said. “I took pictures of something they didn’t like, and they removed me. Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don’t see a clearer definition of censorship.”

Capt. Esteban Vickers claims that pictures of dead soldiers are disrespectful. But a visual record of the war is neither respectful nor disrespectful. Pictures tell the truth in a way that words can't. If they are disturbing, that's because war is disturbing. Americans might think more about what it means to lose 4,000-plus American soldiers if they had more opportunities to see the horrific nature of the war in Iraq.

< McCain Courts the Dalai Lama | Saturday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Censoring Pictures of the Dead in Iraq | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This type of stuff has been going on for a (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:26:34 AM EST

very long time, right down to no pictures of flag draped coffins of dead service people as they arrive home...

: Nor at Arlington (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by CoralGables on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:43:37 AM EST

Not to mention no media permitted at Arlington even if it's the hometown media of the dead soldier being invited by the family.

: Yep, sure has (none / 0) (#28)
by Amiss on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:49:16 PM EST

The coverage of the Viet Nam war was vastly different, it has been my understanding that the WH is behind the censorship.

Marketing enlistment... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Mr Natural on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:13:37 AM EST

This censorship has little to do with respect.

Pentagon Recruitment Marketers realize that allowing potential recruits a glimpse of their own vulnerability and mortality is the last thing they can permit.

: Think Pat Tillman (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Dadler on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:01:36 PM EST

They had so much respect for his family, and for the truth. They want to sanitize the war, plain and simple. We are children to them, who cannot handle the ugly truth. Let them all fight and die in censored secrecy. Very righteous.

These draft-dodgers can do this... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by weltec2 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:41:06 AM EST

have done it from the beginning, dismissing our dead. This is not news actually. We've known this from the beginning. There are so many cases like Zoriah Miller's and we know the orders to shut them down come from the top... from those posturing as strong War President and Vice President... strong leaders, neither of whom has the least idea what WAR means. George "didn't want to shoot [himself] in the toe." Dick "had other priorities." We all know this. This is just unbearable... and the idea that these self-important posturers should be able to walk free after their terms is over just makes me sick.

A publication or a photographer needs to sue (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Grace on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:40:41 AM EST

As someone who deals with historic photographs on a regular basis (going back to the Civil War), it's important that these photographs are taken for the sake of historical record. The very history of photography goes back to Matthew Brady's famous photographs of dead soldiers on the battlefield during the Civil War. These are some of the most treasured photographs ever taken.

To me, this type of censorship is blocking freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and god knows what other freedoms.

War is about dying. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by downtownted on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:21:23 AM EST

The famous "Patton" speech begins

Now, I want you to remember. . .

. . .that no bastard ever won a war. . .

. . .by dying for his country.

He won it. . .

. . .by making the other poor dumb
bastard die for his country.

Modern battlefield medicine combined with the dedication and courage of the men and women providing medical support to American troops has kept the number of dead soldiers amazingly low. But the number of soldiers with devastating injuries is correspondingly high. The WAR DODGERS have been successful in their campaign to sanitize death in this war. Pictures and videos of war dead and the grieving families seem not to exist.

Let's not forget the high price paid by the disabled veterans coming back. That big story seems not to exist as well. Press complicity. Seems to be there. Hard to be sure because the many of the same corporations and their owners and leaders who support the WAR DODGERS own the media and its editors and publishers. How can people be so dumb as to buy the concept of a liberal bias in the media. Rupert Murdoch? Roger Ailes? Yeah, sure!

Where would the Pattons (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by jondee on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:01:39 PM EST

(and the Bush, Cheney and McSames), be without "poor, dumb, bastards"?

Probobly mugging little old ladies at 3 A.M.


: Maybe not (none / 0) (#27)
by downtownted on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:21:47 PM EST

LOL are tough. They fight back. You might get hurt trying to mug a LOL. The WAR DODGERS have never shown that kind of spunk or courage where their personal safety was concerned. But I agree that they might have a Rumsfeld sic a black ops pro on a LOL.

Out of Sight (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by mmc9431 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:31:16 AM EST

Out of mind. The administration has successfully put a clamp on war news from both the Iraqi as well as US media. This has really been evident since the "surge" was implemented.

By shutting down the news, the administration has succeeded in maintaining support for the war. Public sentiment towards the war is not as negative now.

If I were a parent, I would be more outraged that our people are still being killed there but now you don't even hear about it. (Or you might find an article buried deep within the paper about it). In my opinion this shows a total disregard for their sacrifices.

Since there is no draft (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:52:09 AM EST

they have to sell enlistment. And keep people from protesting. And act like the 4000+ soldiers from the US are the only casualties. It's not just the pictures of the dead that are censored: it's the wounded, and the civilian contractors and the Iraqis.

It's all so sanitized, right down to keeping the prisoners in Cuba and elsewhere so there is no access to knowing the truth.

Truth is the biggest casualty of war and they've done a really good job on it this time around.

One wonders why this is suddenly a (none / 0) (#3)
by hairspray on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:48:22 AM EST

story when this was routine earlier during the heaviest years of our casualties. That doesn't make it less egregious, but puzzling. Maybe the reporters wanted to keep the attention on the war and the casualties and to that end I applaud. Citizens seem more concerned with gas prices than loss of life of our young and brave soldiers.

What does the status of the war (none / 0) (#4)
by Green26 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 12:59:36 AM EST

have to do with photos of the dead? Jeez, there is really no connection between how well they war is going, or not going, with photos of the dead.

Since some, like many on the left, just want to use things like photos, apparently even of the dead, to protest the war, why wouldn't the government try to restrict the use of those photos?

Publicize the number of dead, and use the number as you wish, but please don't use photos of some of our sons or daughters for either political or even journalistic reasons. People can understand the human cost of the war without seeing photos of our dead. Please show some respect.

I can agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by JavaCityPal on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:25:55 AM EST

No parent wants to see their child featured, no wife or husband want to see their spouse, no child wants to see their parent in those photos. We've asked enough of our troops, and that does cross the line.

The photo of the airplane holding area with rows and rows of flag draped coffins early in the war caused the photographer to lose her job. That photo, on the other hand, was respectful of the fallen troops and their families.


: It's called reality, my friend (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM EST

No parent wants to see their child featured, no wife or husband want to see their spouse, no child wants to see their parent in those photos. We've asked enough of our troops, and that does cross the line.
I defy you to find one photograph of war dead in all of history which led the parents to react joyously. Ditto for car wrecks, natural disasters, and the Holocaust.
History is full of stories and images that lots of people would rather not be heard and seen. Most people agree that it's for the benefit of future generations that they nevertheless be published so that even if lives were wasted, someone can at least gain some knowledge and perspective from the ordeal. I'm sorry to hear that you would rather not have that happen.

a problem.... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by p lukasiak on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:23:32 AM EST

well, because the government isn't supposed to engage in censorship?

I mean, that is a really, really, REALLY bad argument. The "spare the feelings of families" argument has some merit, but the government has no business restricting the flow of information in order to maintain support for its policies.


Jeez, I didn't get your argument before (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Grace on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 06:41:16 AM EST

until someone quoted this bit:

This is a liberal blog... You realize that?

Nonetheless, photos of the dead are part of historical record. Our government should never try to suppress this type of thing.


Wow (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:16:10 PM EST

Uh... maybe because "the left" is not an enemy of the state, and therefore the government is under no obligation -- and, furthermore, has no right -- to curtail their speech?

Have you actually read the Constitution lately? Jesus. But if, for sake of argument, this is a justified case for censorship, why shouldn't the government extend the same policy to photos of dead Iraqis? Plenty of boogeymen on The Left use those to protest the war, and they're getting away with it. Does the government want The Left to defeat America, or are they just lazy?


: Hey Mr Greenjeans (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by jondee on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:25:21 PM EST

Did it ever occur to you that so many were against the war because they knew it would lead to so many dead and maimed that we're now arguing about whether to photograph or not?

No (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by scarshapedstar on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 01:40:33 PM EST

Horsesh*t. Even those of us who loathe this war don't have an emotional response when the number ticks from 4111 to 4112 and you know it.

Ever wonder why the Nazis tattooed numbers onto the Jews in the camps instead of their names? I'd love to hear your theory.


The media has lost interest in covering (none / 0) (#14)
by Green26 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:14:52 AM EST

the Iraqi war. The decline in coverage has come largely because the US media has pulled many of its resources from Iraq. Remaining correspondents complain they have trouble having their stories selected by the media higher-ups who make those decisions. I believe it was the NY Times which had a good article on this subject a month or so ago.

I don't understand why restricting access to taking photos of the dead is censorship.

There are plenty of photos of the fighting and the dead for historical purposes. I don't buy that argument.

Looking more closely at this NY Times article, (none / 0) (#15)
by Green26 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:30:03 AM EST

I note the following:

"The Marine Corps denied it was trying to place limits on the news media and said Mr. Miller broke embed regulations. Security is the issue, officials said.

"Specifically, Mr. Miller provided our enemy with an after-action report on the effectiveness of their attack and on the response procedures of U.S. and Iraqi forces," said Lt. Col. Chris Hughes, a Marine spokesman."

It looks like the military and on the ground commanders are the ones restricting the access. It doesn't look like the policy or its enforcement are coming from the government. This is discussed towards the end of the article. After Miller posted the photos, he had to be guarded due to a concern that other marines would harm him.

: The military IS the government. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by TChris on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST

We don't have a private military, after all ... well, putting aside Blackwater. And if you read more deeply into the linked article, it isn't at all clear that the photographer violated embed rules.

In response to a comment above, telling a news photographer what he can't photograph is censorship, just as telling a journalist what he can't write would be.

The photographer violated rules of decency (none / 0) (#17)
by Green26 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM EST

and now will pay the price. It looks like military units will refuse to take the photographer with them, even it he gets his privileges back. The photographer must have really irritated the marines.

: Rules Of Decency? (5.00 / 0) (#18)
by squeaky on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:10:51 AM EST

That is a joke. The public has a right to know what how our tax dollars are being spent. Your defense is about the same as BushCo talking points that criticizing the Iraq war is treason because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

: Perspective (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by TChris on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:23:27 AM EST

I would argue that the war is indecent, and that the photographs merely document the indecency.

I believe in debate and dissent. (none / 0) (#26)
by Green26 on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:13:30 PM EST

It's critical in a democracy. However, my son, who was in Iraq in late '06 and '07 when the insurgency was strong, says the insurgents played to the anti-war sentiment in the US and Congress and to the media. He said the soldiers could feel the insurgency pick up when there were certain report deadlines/votes coming up.

Gates and various generals have alluded to this from time to time. I believe this occurred in the late summer of '07 before Petraeus and Crocker were to make some reports/assessments. I believe it also occurred during the debate over the non-binding resolution.

There are only 4 US deaths so far (none / 0) (#29)
by Green26 on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:10:35 AM EST

this month in Iraq.

Do some of you really believe we need photos of these 4 to show how bad the war is?

Articles saying the US is winning the Iraqi war are starting to come. There's a good AP article tonight. I suspect there will be more of them in the future.

: Not everyone agrees that the US is 'winning' (none / 0) (#30)
by TChris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:33:58 AM EST

Juan Cole:

Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.

That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! ... Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me.

TChris: (none / 0) (#31)
by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:27:15 PM EST

What you did not say was the reason for the barring of the photog.

The general said the photojournalist's detailed blog commentary and graphic photos about the aftermath of a suicide bombing, had provided the enemy with a valuable after-action report of the attack blamed on Al-Qaida.
In his letter, Gen. Kelly said Miller's photo essay offered the terror group valuable intelligence about the effectiveness of their attack and the Marines' response time.

: I don't (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by TChris on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:32:14 PM EST

particularly care what lame excuse the military comes up with for censorship. It's still censorship. If Iraqis want to know about the aftermath of a bombing, they need merely walk over to the bombing site and take a look. The notion that journalists give aid and comfort to the enemy by reporting reality has long been an excuse for unjustified military censorship of journalists.