NYT Complaint: Not Enough Photos Of Mutilated American Soldiers in This War

[darrels joy]

NYT Complaint: Not Enough Photos Of Mutilated American Soldiers in This War


By Warner Todd Huston (Bio | Archive)
July 26, 2008 - 05:18 ET


** Now With Update... A Soldier Speaks **
The New York Times is miffed. They aren't happy that there has been a dearth of news photos showing dead American soldiers in the war in Iraq. The Times is lamenting that there have been "4,000 U.S. Combat Deaths, and Just a Handful of Images," so more carnage and death is their druthers. Well, more American dead, anyway. They aren't interested in the dead of the enemy, to be sure.

Using the story of photog Zoriah Miller who had his embed status removed when he publicized photos of dead U.S. Marines after a suicide bombing, the Times reveals their pique over the fact that not enough dead Americans have been peddled to the American public. The Times denounces the military for protecting the troops and their families saying, "after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers."

Complaining for opponents of the war that the lack of casualty photos has created a a situation where the "public portrayal of the war is being sanitized," the Times wonders if the homefront is being badly served because we here are not seeing the "human cost of a war that polls consistently show is unpopular with Americans."


How the Times can imagine that the anti-war set aren't getting their opinions out to the public is anyone's guess. And how the Times can imagine that the "human cost of war" is being "sanitized" is also a puzzlement. After all, for the last four years and until recently we had been daily treated to the media's recital of the American body count, letting us know just how many Americans had died. Again, the body count of the enemy didn't interest them at all.




Of course, the story of photographer Miller seems compelling... at least to the Times. His photos showed the after math and success of a suicide bombing and this is precisely why the military didn't want his photos shown to the world.

“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.

The story details the story of several photographers that have been disembedded by the military brass after publishing photos of dead U.S. soldiers and reports that many embedded journalists are being kept from areas of battle is revealed.

The New York Times illustrates their story with photos of dead American soldiers from D-Day during WWII as if to say that it was always allowed to show dead soldiers in previous wars, as if these are somehow new restrictions. First of all, that isn't true. But secondly, we are in a different era, a time when a fire fight can happen and mere minutes later photos of the aftermath can be beamed across the world to TV and news outlets.

This nearly instant reporting leaves little time for the public to assimilate facts about any battle, much less give family members the opportunity to find out about the fate of their loved ones through proper, more respectful channels.

But, I guess the media have little use for respect.

The military responded to the Times' carping with some solid points.

Military officials stressed that the embed regulations provided only a framework. “There is leeway for commanders to make judgment calls, which is part of what commanders do,” said Col. Steve Boylan, the public affairs officer for Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq. For many in the military, a legal or philosophical debate over press freedom misses the point. Capt. Esteban T. Vickers of the First Regimental Combat Team, who knew two of the marines killed at Garma, said photos of his dead comrades, displayed on the Internet for all to see, desecrated their memory and their sacrifice.

“Mr. Miller’s complete lack of respect to these marines, their friends, and families is shameful,” Captain Vickers said. “How do we explain to their children or families these disturbing pictures just days after it happened?”

Now, the Times quotes photographer Miller as being "surprised" that his images of dead American solders raised any ruckus. He callously just chalked their deaths up to something that "happens every day," and blew off any criticism. But there is one more aspect of this that explains why the military blanches at allowing the media to exploit the deaths of our soldiers.

Have you seen any stories about Iraq's Sgt. York? How about the Iraq war version of Audie Murphy? In fact, how often do you see any story that reports on the heroism of one of our soldiers in Iraq? The media hasn't wasted much of its precious ink on what they must consider such trivialities. But, they'd certainly love to see the mutilated corpses of our troops splashed across their pages and TV screens!

So, since the news isn't balanced and the soldiers are treated by the media as victims and used solely to promulgate their anti-war and anti-Bush themes, is it any surprise that the military won't let them use graphic photos of our troops' deaths, too?

It sure isn't to me.

** UPDATE **
I have been contacted by Capt Esteban Vickers, one of the officers quoted in the New York Times story, and he asked me to pass along the full text of the letter he sent the Times' reporter on this issue.

Jul 8, 2008, at 12:44 AM, Vickers Capt Esteban T (CF RCT1 S-1 PAO)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Mike,

The moment I saw these photos, my first thoughts were of the Marines' families. These pictures posted, before they had a chance to bury their loved ones, before they could have a memorial service, before they had an opportunity to grieve.

Not only did Mr. Miller violate his embed agreement but what is most disappointing is his complete lack of respect to these Marines, their friends, and families is shameful. With the effortless accessibility of the internet how do we explain to their children or families these disturbing pictures just days after it happened?

In the Marine Corps once you become a Marine, you join an elite brotherhood. As Marines, we take the term "band of brothers" literally. Every Marine past, present and future becomes my brother. For Marines in combat, it is a bond who's strength is difficult to describe but stronger than anyone can imagine. As such, when a Marine is killed in action there is a very deep emotional tie to our fallen comrade. Furthermore, is that bond extends to their family as well. By putting these pictures on his blog, Mr. Miller showed complete disrespect to the families of these men and their fellow Marines

When the Marine Corps embeds a reporter we put a certain trust in that reporter not just in the fact that they will follow the rules and regulations they sign upon embedding, but also to have common decency and a sense of propriety. The Marine Corps prides itself on accepting and embedding any media member whether they write for a blog, national newspaper, or any other media outlet. We put certain trusts and confidences in them, and in turn we give them open access to everything we do. We treat them as one of our own; we are prepared to ensure their safety so they can tell their story.

Mr. Miller not only violated his embed agreement but more importantly he violated our trust, taking advantage of a tragic incident solely for his own self interests.

Mr. Miller claims that he posted these images and the accompanying blog to give the world a sense of the reality of war. Nobody understands the horrors of war better than those who fight it. Had Mr. Miller afforded the families of these Marines the courtesy of waiting until a more appropriate time to post his blog, or better yet ask the Marine Corps chain of command about posting the blog things may have turned out differently.

However, he failed on both accounts. He failed to have decency or respect for the families or their loved ones and exploited the safety of our service members by supporting the efforts of this attack. He undermined the trust we put in embedded reporters. He truly does not understand or simply does not appreciate the environment we operate in and the internal damage he can inflict.

We work very hard building relationships and respecting Iraqi culture. The display of not only our Marines but the Iraqi sheiks only serves to supersede that relationship. The reporter came with the Marines; the local leaders trust our integrity and this one act of posting these photographs can damage our relationship.

Respectfully sent,
Capt Esteban T. Vickers
RCT-1 PAO
Camp Fallujah, Iraq
DSN 3404-513
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

And I want to take this opportunity to thank Captain Vickers for his service.

(Photo information: Caption= "Army soldiers hand out aid at an Iraqi school in Mullah Fayad. (U.S. Army)," Pulled from the Detroit News, April 11, 2008.)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-...n-soldiers-war

[reconeil]

Apparently such typically Sicko Wartime Undermining Editors at The New York Times
must get their jollies over photos of ANY wounded Americans, even being beheaded.

What Sick Extreme Left Wing or Leftist (as known worldwide) BASTARDS!
No wonder The Times is financially going down The Tube.
As are,...wouldn't "They" do much better business at UN, Europe & Middle East, INSTEAD?

Neil

[Tab]

Is there any thing new in all this, during the Korea war there photo's of American that had bound and then shot. During WW2 there were all sorts of photo's of dead allied servicemen and even WW1 they were photographed, lets face it even the American Civil War was one of the early war to be photographed and nothing was spared to the viewer

[DeadlyDaring]

The horrors of WAR brought home to you in your comfort Zone!
Could be a hidden message!

[1CAVCCO15MED]

I'm for freedom of the press and all but I don't believe the military is obligated to increase their own risk to take along a civilian of any type. And individual soldiers are private individuals and as such have rights to privacy. We cover up the dead everywhere, not just in war. And gruesome pictures have become by definition a tool of the antiwar crowd so they can never be unbiased.

[SuperScout]

As if one didn't alrealy know, the NYT is a liberal rag, operating under the very freedoms that our warriors buy for her, all the while hating the military, hating the country, and hating anything virtuous and righteous. What you posted just proves what all thinking people have been saying and believing for decades. And anybody who supports them is a gutless wonder, working at cross-purposes with American interests.

[darrels joy]

Tab,

There were photos taken of dead & wounded ever since there has been photography. Now some want to publish the pictures before anyone is notified. Yes, this was a problem that started in Vietnam. That does not mean that we must allow it to continue.

Joy
Just a Handful of Death: A New Low for the Despicable NYT

Posted on July 27, 2008
June 26, 2008 Marines who were killed in a suicide bomb attack during a city council meeting in Garma, Iraq, in Anbar Province. Photo by Zoriah Miller
Just a Handful of Death


Hat tip to Snooper of A Newt One.
http://www.anewtone.com/
Note: Radarsite has added bold emphasis and red commentary.
4,000 U.S. Deaths, and Just a Handful of Public Images
From the New York Times
TIM ARANGO
Published: July 26, 2008
BAGHDAD — 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.
Zoriah Miller, the photographer who took images of marines killed in a June 26 suicide attack and posted them on his Web site, was subsequently forbidden to work in Marine Corps-controlled areas of the country.

Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the Marine commander in Iraq, is now seeking to have Mr. Miller barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world. Mr. Miller has since left Iraq.[Three cheers for Gen. Kelly!]


If the conflict in Vietnam was notable for open access given to journalists — too much, many critics said, as the war played out nightly in bloody newscasts —
– the Iraq war may mark an opposite extreme: after five years and more than 4,000 American combat deaths, searches and interviews turned up fewer than a half-dozen graphic photographs of dead American soldiers. [So many dead bodies and so few pictures. What a shame.] It is a complex issue, [This is only a complex issue for the NYT and our antiwar leftist enemies. It's actually a very simple issue: it is called Patriotism. Looking out for the interests of your own country first, and being certain that whatever you are doing is in no way aiding and abetting the enemy.] with competing claims often difficult to weigh in an age of instant communication around the globe via the Internet, in which such images can add to the immediate grief of families and the anger of comrades still in the field.

While the Bush administration faced criticism for overt political manipulation in not permitting photos of flag-draped coffins ["Overt political manipulation? How about simple decency, and an unwillingness to give our enemies a cause for celebration ? Two concepts utterly alien to the anti-Americanists at the NYT.]
the issue is more emotional on the battlefield: local military commanders worry about security in publishing images of the American dead as well as an affront to the dignity of fallen comrades. Most newspapers refuse to publish such pictures as a matter of policy.
But opponents of the war, civil liberties advocates and journalists [Note how neatly these avowedly leftist groups all fit together]

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.

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.

And while publishing photos of American dead is not barred under the “embed” rules in which journalists travel with military units, the Miller case underscores what is apparently one reality of the Iraq war: that doing so, even under the rules, can result in expulsion from covering the war with the military. [Thank God!]

“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.” [If this is absolute censorship, then we need more of it. Ask yourselves -- How would FDR have handled this problem?]

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. [Excuse me, but isn't this a pretty clear definition of treason? And if it is, shouldn't our Mr. Miller be subject to some much harsher penalties than mere verbal censure and removal from embed status? ]

News organizations say that such restrictions are one factor in declining coverage of the war, [And our post-surge success on the ground would be the other] along with the danger, the high cost to financially ailing media outlets [Now I wonder if their overt anti-Americanism might just have something to do with this?] and diminished interest among Americans in following the war. By a recent count, only half a dozen Western photographers were covering a war in which 150,000 American troops are engaged.

In Mr. Miller’s case, a senior military official in Baghdad said that while his photographs were still under review, a preliminary assessment showed he had not violated ground rules established by the multinational force command. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing, emphasized that Mr. Miller was still credentialed to work in Iraq, though several military officials acknowledged that no military unit would accept him. [Maybe there is some justice in this world after all]

Michael Kamber reported from Baghdad, and Tim Arango from New York [Thank you Mr. Kamber and Mr. Arango, your check from Mr. Soros is in the mail.]

If for some unimaginable reason anyone would want to read more of this treasonous filth click here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/world/middleeast/26censor.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
——————————————————————————-
A note from Radarsite: So then who is Zoriah Miller, this courageous warrior photojournalist? this fearless champion of the world’s downtrodden victims? What, I wonder, are his political motivations? What, I wonder, are his feelings about America, about America’s soldiers? Well, let’s see, he is after all a photographer; and they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
Here is one of his riveting photos:

Now who do you suppose the bad guy is here? Who is this faceless military monster? And why is he intimidating this poor frightened little girl? What, I wonder, can the message here be?
Of course, our intrepid photographer is not without his supporters. Here are some comments from a few of them:

Your images work so well. One thing I would love you to photograph in an ideal world: The impeachment and sentencing of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, Paul Wolfowitz and team for international war crimes. Those pictures would make a fitting end to your middle east series. Keep doing your thing, you are making a difference.” Dan
“All Wars are very bad and nobody wins…your photographs are very impressive. Congratulations!” Engin
“A photograph is like a symbol for all the frightening aspects of a disastrous war that brings so much suffering to so many innocent people on both sides. Great, valuable, artful, high class photography that shows the true face of what is going on in Iraq after the “Holy Mission” was declared completed so long time ago. I bow in respect of your great work.” Helmut Schadt

Of course he has other supporters too, more organized and influential supporters, like Global Voices For Justice.org. And just who are Global Voices For Justice.org.? Read on:

GVFJ stands by Zoriah in his fight for a free press http://www.globalvoicesforjustice.org/content/view/111/117/
Mission /Vision: Our mission is to make the voices of today’s independent
thinkers widely accessible to contribute toward a more diverse social discourse. we strive to be a resource of information enabling average people to defend themselves against corporate and governmental powers that might otherwise exploit or ignore them. It is our belief that all human beings desire peace, and when given the tools will move in that direction. Laying the groundwork for meaningful dialogue promotes peaceful solutions to conflicts.To that end, GVFJ collaborates with other independent media organizations and journalists. We document current affairs and social issues as well as art, culture, and ideas that directly impact your life. Our topics include the current crisis in relations with Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, media reform, racism, election issues, prison reform,
environmental issues, U.S. imperialism, and more.

GVFJ Advisory Board Marjorie Cohn President National Lawyer’s Guild, Professor Thomas Jefferson School of Law
author,
Rules Of Disengagement: The Politics And Honor Of Military Dissent (PoliPoint Press, forthcoming winter 2009) (co-authored with Kathleen Gilberd)
Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law (PoliPointPress, 2007)
Here’s what our CIA has to say about The National Lawyers Guild:

The National Lawyers Guild(NLG) was organized in 1936 by a caucus of Communist Party, U.S.A.(CPUSA) lawyers assisted by the International Labor Defense, an American agency of the Comintern(Communist International). The NLG remains an active affiliate of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers(IADL), an international Communist front which operated under the control of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The International Department took over the old Comintern that was disbanded by Stalin during World War II.
A study prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency at the direction of the House Intelligence Committee in 1978, reported that the IADL:
“has been one of the most useful Communist front organizations at the service of the Soviet Communist Party….In the 31 years of the IADL’s existence, it has so consistently demonstrated its support of Moscow’s foreign policy objectives and is so tied in with other front organizations and the Communist press that it is difficult for it to pretend that its judgments are fair or relevant to basic legal tenets.” http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1777/nlg.htm

And remember folks, dissent is part of the American tradition, and patriotism comes in all forms:

God Bless America
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/...espicable-nyt/

[DeadlyDaring]

If the media and Press Journalists etc want to cover the war stories while our servicemen/woman die ...then they (media and Press Journalists etc) , should be made to look after themselves.

Just say "You want to cover the WAR ...YOUR ON YOUR OWN"

Then watch 'em run & hide

The Military should not be burdened with the responsibility of the press, while trying to look after themselves ...Maybe that way the war might finnish sooner if you know what I mean

[Tab]

Personally speaking I am all in favour on leaving the journalist well behind the front lines, most of them haven't a clue about what is happening and all they can see are the bodies. If you kill to many of the enemy regardless of your casualties then you are heartless and are going over the top, if you get the hammering then it becuase your troops are useless and we should have been there, what ever happens your are on a loser. On the first Gulf War and the Falklands war journalist were kept well away from the front.

[reconeil]

"Gulf War & Falklands" BOTH GREAT POINTS!!!
Bet-chu that if journalists were allowed to roam around at will then
in BOTH places, BOTH wars would have taken much longer to resolve?

There most certainly could never have been that Great Wipe-out on that:
"Highway of Death" for Iraqis scooting home with their Kuwaiti Booty,...
if many International Journalists were thought going along for the ride.

America's quite stupidly absurd oxymoron and/or Political-Correctiness
(Amazingly EVEN DURING WARTIME!!!), just would never have permitted
such Greatly Needed & Warranted Enemy Killing & Destruction,...
much like now.

Neil