From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-08 02:04:29 -0700, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999(a)hotmail.com> said:

> In article <g5oaa5dod6i4k5nfou0ikibsemv74pdqpd(a)4ax.com>, real-address-
> in-sig(a)lineone.net says...
>
>> Came across this article about AP publishing a photo of a dying US
>> marine and the controversy surrounding it. There hasn't been much
>> news here in the UK about it but I expect that it's big news in the
>> US.
>>
>> <http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/53173,news,photograph-of-dying-marine-joshua-bernard-was-it-right-for-the-associated-press-to-publish>

I'm
>>
>> all up for showing how things are and the press have done so on
>> may occasions, but at the same time the family must be very upset. So
>> I'm in two minds about this. Storm in a tea cup? Or genuine concern
>> on showing dead or dying NATO/ISAF soldiers?
>
> I think the photographer is lucky to be alive. If you were trying to
> snap a photo of *my* dying buddy, I'd blow your head off on the spot.

Unless the photog was one of his buddies.
There have been snap happy GI's in the field since 35mm made it
relatively easy to carry a "small" camera. My father used his Argus in
New Guinea, The Phillipines and Okinawa.
I used a Yashica Electro 35 in Nam. (i still have it, and it still
works fine http://sn.im/rnzd2-un0 )
I can recall one squad which had more Nikons, Pentaxes & Kodaks than weapons.

You shouldn't be surprised at what a 19-25 year old red blooded
American boy will try to use a camera for.
Today it is even easier for a grunt to be a field photographer, and he
gets to upload files to family, friends, Facebook, or any sharing site
when he gets back from an OP.
....and I am sure AP would not turn down any shots offered.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Igetrightwingersangry on



Son, I bet you never served or saw war face to face. If you had, you
would like it so much.




In <h84dfl$225$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>, on 09/07/2009
at 08:53 PM, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> said:



>Igetrightwingersangry(a)nospan.com wrote:
>>
>> ...And if the picture was of you --> and the last memory your children
>> would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?
>>
>>
>>

>Yes, absolutely. But I would like for the people showing it to note that
>I died to prevent the atrocities perpetrated on the
>innocent 9/11 victims from happening again. Absent that,
>I would expect my family to point out to my children
>how the left wing scum had used my image for their purposes.

>Doug McDonald

From: Community Organizer on


Fred has a point: http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm


From: mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH on
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> DG wrote:
>>> If people are upset about the photo then they should blame the
>>> politicians for the war, not the photographer for the image.
>> NO! They should blame the scum people who print it against
>> the family's wishes, and the people who
>> started the war: al Qaeda and the Taliban.
>
> That's a rightard lie. It was Bush and the neocons who started the war.
>


You've got to be kidding ... Even Obama does not claim that. One of his
Czars that did sign on to a document claiming it lost his job yesterday,
and that was one of the main reasons.

The war was started by al Qaeda back in the 1990s, and restarted by
them on Sept. 11, 2001.

Doug McDonald
From: mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH on
Twibil wrote:
> On Sep 7, 9:49 pm, "steph...(a)yahoo.com" <steph...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> ...And if the picture was of you --> and the last memory your children
>>> would have of you, would it still be okay to publish it?
>> Of course I would. Since when is dying for your country something to
>> hide or be ashamed of?
>
> Not that I've died for my country yet, but as an ex infantryman thanx
> for that anyway.
>
> The wrenching photographs that have come out of wars ever since the
> camera became portable enough to make them possible have let the
> public see what war is really about, and right up until the end of
> Viet Nam such photo-journalism was simply considered to be an
> important -if risky for the photographer- part of history. (See Ken
> Burns' Civil War documentary for a striking example.)
>
> Then after Viet Nam the US military decided that it would be better if
> the US public was not allowed to see such photos, as it might
> prejudice them against supporting a future war -as the military felt
> had happened in Viet Nam.
>
> Ever since then, the military -and the rest of the US government as
> well- have frequently tried to make it difficult to take such photos,
> or to allow them to be seen by the public if they *are* taken.
>
> Call it "editing history in advance", and you won't be too far wrong.
>

But before Vietnam the press never actually **supported the enemy**
as they do now.

Doug McDonald