SWJ Poll: Was the AP out of line with the LCpl Bernard photograph?

The Associated Press recently published a photograph of LCpl Joshua Bernard as he lay fatally wounded in Aghanistan, in defiance of the family’s wishes.

There have been a number of opinions published on whether they were out of line, in their rights, just doing their jobs, etc. What say you? Why?

For background info, start here, here, and here. Plenty of links to follow from there.

Noted – the poll question as stated here sort of poisons the well, as does our blog entry titled “Secretary Gates is Spot On.” At a personal level, we do not feel that publishing the photo was right, are already on record, and aren’t backtracking. But we accept that there are other opinions, nuances at the societal and policy level, etc. And would like to hear them…

----
P.S. I closed the thread AP and the Death of a Marine in the Media, Information, & Cyber Warriors forum. There's some substance there, please take a look, and carry on the conversation here.

I'm not entirely happy with the decision, but it is within their rights.

I was stopped by this comment on another forum -

Quote:

---

if it was a wounded afghan soldier, wounded afghan civilian, wounded iraqi civilian, or wounded anybody except for an american soldier would this even be an issue?
and if not then whats the difference?

---

Makes you think ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cavguy

I'm not entirely happy with the decision, but it is within their rights.

I was stopped by this comment on another forum -



Makes you think ...

---

Yes, I read that comment on AM too, and also have been reflecting on the issues involved as a consequence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWCAdmin

in defiance of the family’s wishes

---

There are a great many things that the news reports on, in defiance of a family's wishes. While I agree that the AP should consider the family's wishes in their decision-making, it cannot control that decision-making, lest no family wish to have anything negative or troubling or intellectually challenging published.


My gut feeling is that the central cause for this 'debate' is a continuation of the adversarial relationship between many members of the military (and their supporters), and the news media. Given that many military-oriented folks in this country continue to see the media as an adversary responsible for the "loss" of the Vietnam War, it's almost as though they'll seize upon any excuse to blast the media, regardless of how (il)legitimate.


Unfortunately, the repeated "crying wolf" about the evil news media has resulted in some serious and legitimate debates/issues being sidelined and dismissed and lumped in the rest of the unnecessary criticism. I think there's a very serious discussion to be had about the NYT scuttling coverage of their kidnapped reporters in the name of "safety". That debate won't happen in the detail it should, because too many pro-media participants will (wrongly) ignore that discussion because they're already in a pattern of ignoring many other attempts to criticize the media.


Given than many of those attempts - like the 'outrage' over the photo of our departed Marine hero - were ill-advised and unnecessary, it's hard to blame them for shrugging off those attempts to engage in a substantive debate.

Out of line.
The key phrase is "in defiance of the family's wishes. I would argue that for the legal purposes of the media, soldiers are private rather than public persons, and have certain protections that this image violated. It would be a really good thing if the media would start according soldiers the respect and privacy that they do for civilians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BayonetBrant

Given than many of those attempts - like the 'outrage' over the photo of our departed Marine hero - were ill-advised and unnecessary, it's hard to blame them for shrugging off those attempts to engage in a substantive debate.

---

I strongly disagree with this idea. The media likes to put itself up as the impartial guardian of truth and knowledge, but have proved very resistant over the years to any examination of their standards. This predates the current 'outrage' by many years...going back to the Civil War if not before.

Any institution with the power that the media holds should expect criticism, warranted or otherwise, and should be prepared to respond constructively to that criticism...not just shrug it off as unwarranted or whatever. Freedom of the press is a great freedom, but there should be responsibilities with that freedom and not just a blank check to do whatever they wish.

Actually, Van, I'd like to see the media extend the same respect and privacy standards they use for each other to the rest of us. But somehow I don't see that happening....

I'd have no complaint, not one -- as Cav guy points out, bodies are bodies and wounded guys are wounded guys.

BUT they talked to the family and the family asked them not to publish the picture. They would not have interviewed the family, I suspect, had they not intended to make a splash, in any event, once the Family asked them to not publish the picture they may have been legal but they were ethically wrong for all the reasons Van and Steve Blair cite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BayonetBrant

... it cannot control that decision-making, lest no family wish to have anything negative or troubling or intellectually challenging published.

---

While I do not dispute that logic on your part, I think the history of the media with regard to the treatment of their own or 'innocent' civilians versus others and particularly the armed force and more particularly serving enlisted swine intrudes on your point.

Quote:

---

Given that many military-oriented folks in this country continue to see the media as an adversary responsible for the "loss" of the Vietnam War, it's almost as though they'll seize upon any excuse to blast the media, regardless of how (il)legitimate.

---

I probably know and talk to as many or more Viet Nam veterans as anyone and that perception is not held by any that I know or talk to regularly nor do I recall it being expressed by many if any -- I do recall it being expressed occasionally by 'conservative' persons and far more frequently in a pejorative sense by 'progressive' persons. Most all of whom on both sides did not get to go to the Great SEA war Games. In short, media defenders seem to me to hold that view but i don't find many who were there who think that way -- most of us know that the Army tried to fight a land war in Europe in SE Asia and if there's any ire or resentment, it is directed at that failure or at politicians. Most of us even give the draft resisters slack. :D

Quote:

---

I think there's a very serious discussion ... already in a pattern of ignoring many other attempts to criticize the media.

---

That's a natural reaction. Of course, there's also the possibility that ego is involved and a "we're doing god's work and therefor don't have to answer questions from the hoi polloi" mentalitiy is involved. The real truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Quote:

---

Given than many of those attempts - like the 'outrage' over the photo of our departed Marine hero - were ill-advised and unnecessary, it's hard to blame them for shrugging off those attempts to engage in a substantive debate.

---

I'm not sure the kid was a 'hero.' He was a Marine, so was I but I wasn't and am not a hero. Few Marines I know or knew were heroes. Maybe Walt H. with his Navy Cross off Guadal, not many if any others. Nor am I outraged over publication of the photo -- I just think it was in poor taste based on the expressed wish of the family. Some folks undoubtedly were outraged but that's more an ideological battle than an actual media responsibility issue...

I also question AP's judgment that it was 'newsworthy' just as I often question the very ridiculous statement that "the American people have a right to know." I have had personal interface with various news organs on several occasions on three Continents in two wars and a live fire FTX. I have consistently been misquoted, had remarks taken out of context and seen the final story resemble nothing that happened on the ground. My son in Desert Storm and with three current tours has seen the same thing.

All that is to suggest the the stuff about Viet Nam and blame is a red herring on the part of the media IMO -- the disconnect and the lack of substantive and corrective debate is, I believe more due to arrogance (on both sides), ego (ditto) and lies (on both sides). Regardless, it is not new. A quote from one William T. Sherman:

Quote:

---

I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are.

---

In fairness, I think the long standing antipathy comes from the fact that the media truly believes they can change minds and attitudes but that have been unable to affect this fact, also from Sherman:

Quote:

---

Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.

---

They've tried to eliminate and fix it and just cannot. They probably just ought to get out of social work and into pure reportage...

I had this conversation with my father a few days ago. He said that if it were me that was shown killed in action, he would want the photo released so that the American people would be reminded that the nation is at war and has been for years. I didn't expect that answer...

I do think that it's unfortunate that the photo was released against the wishes of the family and the SecDef. I figured that professional courtesy existed between the government/citizens and media...I should have known better. I'm surprised we haven't had a situation like this occur earlier.

I guess there is a fine line between freedom of the press and common decency. I guess that's one of the sacrifices we make for living in a free country. This is tough call, regardless.

I do like the point that Cav guy brought up. Would we even be talking about this if it were an Afghan or Iraqi Soldier?

William T Sherman, author of this?

Newspaper correspondents with an army, as a rule, are mischievous. They are the world's gossips, pick up and retail the camp scandal, and gradually drift to the headquarters of some general, who finds it easier to make reputation at home than with his own corps or division. They are also tempted to prophesy events and state facts which, to an enemy, reveal a purpose in time to guard against it. Moreover, they are always bound to see facts colored by the partisan or political character of their own patrons, and thus bring army officers into the political controversies of the day, which are always mischievous and wrong. Yet, so greedy are the people at large for war news, that it is doubtful whether any army commander can exclude all reporters, without bringing down on himself a clamor that may imperil his own safety. Time and moderation must bring a just solution to this modern difficulty.

From his memoirs, which are available freely online, as they are well past the age requirement for public domain. :)

As are Grant's. Here's his description of the surrender of Vicksburg:

It was a glorious sight to officers and soldiers on the line where these white flags were visible, and the news soon spread to all parts of the command. The troops felt that their long and weary marches, hard fighting, ceaseless watching by night and day, in a hot climate, exposure to all sorts of weather, to diseases and, worst of all, to the gibes of many Northern papers that came to them saying all their suffering was in vain, that Vicksburg would never be taken, were at last at an end and the Union sure to be saved.

Their decision to publish the photo was completely within their rights, and wholly reprehensible and deserving of the strongest condemnation. They knowingly hurt people when they didn't have to and had been asked not to.
They should be shamed, though I think their moral certitude makes them invulnerable to that.

As far as an Afghan or Iraqi soldier, we should exhibit the same decency, maybe we don't but we should. The big thing is the man was dying and a family request. Wounded and recovered, is one thing. Obscured or long shots of the dead are another, like in the Lima helo photos from VN.

This case was unique and they did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons; one of which was a smug arrogance that us flyover people needed to be educated to the realities of war. There are tens and twenties of millions of us who are well acquainted with life and death through life's experience. We know what life is and we know how easy it is to lose it. We don't need to be taught by those who consider themselves our betters, especially at the price of hurting people who shouldn't have been.

Freedom of the press and decency are two different things and one doesn't insure the other, whatever we may wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyhawk

Time and moderation must bring a just solution to this modern difficulty.

---

Even a good general can't win 'em all. Been a fair amount of time; the difficulty is little improved... :D

The Media still needs to stop with the Social Work attitude.

Maybe a bit blunt ... he was a serviceman (thereby part of the instrument of state) and could be considered 'public property' becasue of that (it's the same reason we're held to higher standards). While I'm not a fan of the idea of publishing anyone's photo after death, the argument as already posted (if it was our oppos ors partners) is compelling ... it does set a very strong precedent.
What peeves me more than this is when journos invade the privacy of the families involved ie publishing photos of a fallen soldier's kids when the family has explicitly asked for their privacy to be respected. I can justify for someone in uniform -- I can't for associated families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

I do like the point that Cav guy brought up. Would we even be talking about this if it were an Afghan or Iraqi Soldier?

---

I like that point, too. Why isn't it an issue when the photo of a dead Afghan or Iraqi Soldier is published? Are they no less human? I can't say that I can recall photos of any published recently - though it would not surprise me if they had been. This is simply the photo that most of us heard about - and when we heard the details behind the decision to publish (the fact that this was a deliberate decision even after the SECDEF's plea and the family's wishes), that made it all the more inexcusable.

a slightly different question:

What was gained by publishing the photo and by whom? Publishing the picture with the dying Marine's recognizable face and his name added nothing to the horror of war that AP wished to bring home to its audience. It gave only pain to a family that did not deserve any more pain. It earned AP a verbal reprimand from the most respected SECDEF in my lifetime. It stirred up controversy not about the war or govt policy toward the war, but about the propriety of AP publishing such a photo under these circumstances. All in all, bad taste, wrong headed, stupid, and counterproductive - and, the worst insult to a news org, not even newsworthy.

I guess I can answer the poll now and say, "Absolutely."

JohnT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carl

Their decision to publish the photo was completely within their rights, and wholly reprehensible and deserving of the strongest condemnation. They knowingly hurt people when they didn't have to and had been asked not to.
They should be shamed, though I think their moral certitude makes them invulnerable to that.

As far as an Afghan or Iraqi soldier, we should exhibit the same decency, maybe we don't but we should. The big thing is the man was dying and a family request. Wounded and recovered, is one thing. Obscured or long shots of the dead are another, like in the Lima helo photos from VN.

This case was unique and they did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons; one of which was a smug arrogance that us flyover people needed to be educated to the realities of war. There are tens and twenties of millions of us who are well acquainted with life and death through life's experience. We know what life is and we know how easy it is to lose it. We don't need to be taught by those who consider themselves our betters, especially at the price of hurting people who shouldn't have been.

Freedom of the press and decency are two different things and one doesn't insure the other, whatever we may wish.

---

Double-ditto-complete-agreement. There is a BIG difference between what the law allows me to do and what I ought to do. I will go beyond this post to say that I have never seen right and wrong as being things defined by law of man. Right and wrong and legal/illegal often overlap, but they are not necessarily the same. Publishing the photo was legal, but disgusting. Had the family not asked them not to do so, I would have a different opinion.