Who links to me?
I am still beyond anger at a recently published photo from New York Times Photographer Joao Silva of a Mahdi Militia sniper about to fire on American Soldiers.
Only by coincidence searching Memeorandum for other topics of the day did I come across this post by Glenn Greenwald. I felt compelled to ask him a question. Again I am stunned.
Here is my question:
Would you stand there and watch a terrorist shoot at Americans and take a picture?
Here was his answer:
Personally, I would not, because I’m not a jouranlist. But if I were a photographer assigned to that region and to cover the insurgency, of course I would. I’d want Americans to see the reality of the forces we are fighting, rather than suppressing their images.
Photographers should take pictures of all newsworthy events - good and bad. They’re journalists, not propagandists. I want to read about what the insurgents are doing and I want to see them doing it. That’s how people who want to know about the world thing, and it’s what journalists are supposed to do.
What good would possibly come from ignoring the insurgency and pretending that it didn’t exist? That’s what the Bush administration did for the last three years and look where it brought us.
I will address Mr. Greenwald’s nonsensical answer only by saying that it is beyond comprehension. How far removed do you have to be to become detached and unconcerned of the outcome of the event?
Would any of you stand silently and take a picture of a person preparing to shoot your mother, or brother, or child? How about your uncle?
How about the President of the United States, or a Senator? How about a General commanding American forces in a battle?
Would you as an American allow this to happen? Furthermore personally profit from it? Either financially or by gaining praise from your fellow feckless, unconscionable, amoral peers?
Without question Mr. Silva is all the above and more.
You tell me what is the proper degree of separation to make it journalistically ethical to stand by and watch someone murder another American?
I told Mr. Greenwald that I would answer the same question after he replied.
Personally if I were a journalist and happened to be in this position I would attempt to alert American forces to his position if possible or attempt to kill the sniper depending on the circumstances of the situation.
When they are in harms way no matter which President sent them there we all should view fellow American soldiers as our family, as our brothers, as our sons, and people who assist, or even stand idly by and allow them to be killed when they have an opportunity to change the outcome of events as our enemy.
**
One last important note, one of Mr. Greenwald’s commenters points out the photographer Mr. Silva is not an American citizen but a contractor for the NYT. While this means he isn’t a traitor, it certainly means he is no friend of any American. It certainly does not absolve the NYT.
Earlier this morning I emailed a link to this image to my friend The Gun Toting Liberal and later Mr. Greenwalds reply to my question. I reprint his email to me here with is permission:
Perhaps I fell as I do because of my status as an OIF Veteran, but I cannot even fathom an American standing by, watching an enemy murder an American soldier without trying to stop it, much less attempting to capitalize on it. It’s too bad the photographer survived this “session”. When I saw the picture, I immediately had a mental immage of the terrorist swinging the gun around to aim it at the photographer. Too bad that isn’t how it went down, in my opinion.
One of the reason’s GTL is on my blogroll.
Blue Crab Boulevard has something to say about Glenn’s reply.
Linking PostsWhich, I think shows the emptiness of the moral equivalency that people like Mr. Greenwald espouse. Here’s a shocker for you, Mr. Greenwald, I have a very personal stake in this matter. Not a theoretical stance, not a smartass, smarmy, self-righteous “position” on it. A personal stake. It could have been my son on the other end of that sniper’s sights. Want to try to lecture me about what I am and am not willing to do? Want to make book on it?
Personally if I were a journalist and happened to be in this position I would attempt to alert American forces to his position if possible or attempt to kill the sniper depending on the circumstances of the situation.
What I really don’t understand about people like you is you are always talking so tough from your house - calling on this photographer to risk his life even further and kill someone who is standing there holding a rifle. And yet you don’t do that yourself. If you think the photographer should be roaming around Iraq killing insurgents, seriously - why aren’t you doing that yourself?
What right do you have to demand that this photographer risk his life in a way that you obviously won’t do yourself?
Comment by Glenn Greenwald � July 16, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
I appreciate the link and the kind words, my friend. As for Mr. Greenwald, why must lefty bloggers always toe the party line? Surely this would outrage most liberals, at least the ones *I* associate with who traditionally vote Democrat, so why doesn’t anybody in the liberal bloggosphere share the outrage?
Fact is, there are lots of liberals in the military, and that photograph just as likely portrays the sniping of liberal troops as it does conservative troops; ever consider that notion, Sir?
Comment by Gun Toting Liberal � July 16, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Do you know anything about photography? I assume not because that ’shot’ is obviously staged. Yes, photographers take pictures of people engaged in some particular act, just the way they did it. The picture does not show the target of the sniper.
But the picture does show the identity of the shiper which should be of great aid in his capture. The photographer is actually a hero.
Comment by nuf said � July 16, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
I agree with the person who said we should not expect the reporter to risk his life. I believe a bigger question is, WHAT THE HELL WAS HE DOING THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE? We have embedded reporters which is a complete joke. Are we now embeddening(is this a word) them with the enemy? Where did this assignment take place? Did the insurgents involved have an address? All this defies common sense. The reporter is guilty of treason for “aiding the enemy” by not reporting this the first chance he got. Maybe he didn’t want to help the US. If the US was using snipers to pick off terrorists, I’m sure this clown would have reported the information much sooner. You go ugly man. It would be a choice each of us could make. I for one would have smashed the bitch with my camera if no other snipers were present. The entire premise does not pass the smell test.
Comment by The Dude � July 16, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
that should be identity of the sniper
Comment by nuf said � July 16, 2006 @ 12:46 pm
Comment by nuf said � July 16, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
The plain fact that this photographer was in the same room as the terrorist should alert us to something. How did he get there? Is there a sign up sheet for journos that request photographers for tag along terrorism? I think not.
Comment by The Dude � July 16, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
I went back to the LGF site and found the photos were from 2003, 2004 and 2005. Can’t place this exact photo. This NYT photographer was working with the enemy. Didn’t the NYT think it was important enough to release this information ASAP?
Comment by The Dude � July 16, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Dude said “I for one would have smashed the bitch with my camera if no other snipers were present. The entire premise does not pass the smell test.”
Dude, think about it, he took the bastards picture! Do you think the army has a copy?
And I can tell you that was a staged shot. Pretty scummy, yes, but it only exposed what (and who) our troops are facing.
You want to help our guys not get blasted? Bring them home.
Comment by nuf said � July 16, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
I am not in the cut and run mode,EVER! This is a staged shot. Fine. Why was he there with the insurgent in the first place? He was probably gathering more intel for Murtha and Co.
Comment by The Dude � July 16, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Cut and run! No way. The libs will not even think of defending themselves until the bank is run by terrorists and they are losing their own wealth.
Why would we bring our troops home? Is this a joke question? Why eat when you are only going to shit anyway.
Posed photo by the NYT. Holding it for the Murtha crowd are we!
Comment by The Dude � July 16, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
I don’t know if you know this, but Mr Silva is not an american.
Comment by actus � July 16, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
The Emptiness Of Moral Equivalency…
My friend Rick from The Real Ugly American has a post up that shows what is so wrong and so very empty on the left. He took quite a lot of exception to the "incredible courage" of the photographer who "heroically" too…
Trackback by Blue Crab Boulevard � July 16, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
[…] The Real Ugly American is dialoguing with a proponant of moral-equivalency who seems to feel that journalists belong to “the world,” which is something Ernie Pyle, GK Chesterton and even Morrow or Mencken might wonder about. […]
Pingback by The Anchoress » When terrorists trust you… � July 16, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
Silva may not be an American, but he works for an American-owned newspaper, and the paper clearly approves of what he does and is helping to promote his book.
Comment by Liz � July 16, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
You are absolutely right Liz. The NYT is also attempting to profit from it.
As I told Mr. Greenwald either this photo is real or it is staged (as another commenter has claimed). If it is the former the Mr. Silva is complicit in the killing of Americans, if it is the latter he is serving willfully as a propogandist for the terrorists. There is no other journalist value to the photo.
Mr. Silva and the NYT need to be held to account for it. That includes canceling your subscribtion to this vile newspaper as The Anchoress’ husband just did.
Comment by The Ugly American � July 16, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
I agree. It doesn’t matter where this photographer is from. He got into a room with terrorists. Was he kidnapped? No. He was selling the photos to the NYT. First chance the NYT got(lastest was 2005) they should have notified our military leaders. Did someone have direct contact with the pic taker? Did they mail this guy a check? Who knows. The photo is probably staged but for what purpose? Give it to Murtha and the tin foil hat crowd.
Comment by The Dude � July 16, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
I agree. It doesn’t matter where this photographer is from. He got into a room with terrorists. Was he kidnapped? No. He was selling the photos to the NYT. First chance the NYT got(lastest was 2005) they should have notified our military leaders. Did someone have direct contact with the pic taker? Did they mail this guy a check? Who knows. The photo is probably staged but for what purpose? Give it to Murtha and the tin foil hat crowd. They will find a way to use it to hurt our troops.
Comment by The Dude � July 16, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
“Silva may not be an American, but he works for an American-owned newspaper, and the paper clearly approves of what he does and is helping to promote his book.”
So we don’t have the case of an american standing by while a sniper is shooting. We have the case of an american half a world away deciding to print a photo of a sniper shooting.
“There is no other journalist value to the photo.”
Its a good thing we have a first amendment.
Comment by actus � July 16, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
Which is why my post was concerning Glenn’s answer to my hypothetical question. Not Mr. Silva who is despicable in his own right.
In fact despite Glenn’s answer I have serious doubts he would behave as he claims.
Comment by The Ugly American � July 16, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
“Not Mr. Silva who is despicable in his own right.”
You said he was ‘all the above and more’ which included an being american and ‘allowing this to happen.’
“In fact despite Glenn’s answer I have serious doubts he would behave as he claims.”
Perhaps he could be more like a nick berg or a marla ruzika.
Comment by actus � July 16, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
[…] UPDATE: Guess who would do the same thing? […]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » New York Times Editors Tell Us Whose Side They’re On � July 16, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Personally if I were a journalist and happened to be in this position I would attempt to alert American….
And the result would be a lot of dead journalists and a world in which journalists couldn’t cover world events.
You may think that an acceptable outcome, but most of us tend to think being informed about the world is actually a good thing.
Comment by jpe � July 16, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
I was thinking more like Michael Yon or Joe Galloway.
read about them and return to comment if you like actus.
Comment by The Ugly American � July 16, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
And the result would be a lot of dead journalists and a world in which journalists couldn’t cover world events.
jpe
And the problem with that is….? Doesn’t that go with the territory? You take a camera into a war in order to make money. You don’t let the info out until a minimum of 1 year later. Who are you informing of world events? You are making MONEY. To top it off you are “posing” a photo for the likes of the NYT and the Murtha crowd. Could this be the same clown who took the photos of the Haditha non-incident?
Comment by The Dude � July 16, 2006 @ 4:31 pm
Ugly -
Let us imagine you are an unarmed photographer with no affiliation to either side of a random war. You find yourself in camera-shot range of a man with a rifle who is aiming at someone on the other side. What do you do?
Comment by Yo � July 16, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
“I was thinking more like Michael Yon or Joe Galloway.”
All sound like good models, that get different results. We’d be at a loss if we lost any of them. Good thing we have a first amendment.
“What do you do?”
Rush to a morally superior position condemming a situation you’re not in?
Comment by actus � July 16, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
The photo is reprehensible, but more likely than not it was just a pallywood type photo-op, and no pro-Iraq forces were nearby.
Who the hell is Glenn Greenway? I’ve heard his name like 5 times this week, but never before. Is he the new Kos or something?
Comment by Kevin � July 16, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
Joao Silva and NY Times Work Together To Kill Our Soldiers…
So Joao Silva and the New York Times working together to kill our American soldiers. How much more are we supposed to allow this to go on? When is something going to be done. Joao Silva’s pictorial tribute to Iraqi terrorists killing American soldiers…
Trackback by PC Free Zone � July 17, 2006 @ 12:18 am
[…] UPDATE: Much to nobody’s surprise, we learn that Lady Gwendolyn, Queen of the Douche-osphere, would’ve done the exact same thing as Joao Silva and sees nothing wrong with it. To both Lady Gwendolyn and Joao Silva, we can only echo Uncle Jimbo in saying that if you’re the kind of shitsack who’ll stand by while a terrorist shoots somebody, then you’re a terrorist too. When you further aggravate the offense by using the situation to enrich yourself, you’re a particularly vile and amoral terrorist as well. […]
Pingback by Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » “Courage” � July 17, 2006 @ 1:19 am
[…] the People of Lebanon CNN’s Coverage of the War Lebanon’s Prime Minister Speaks Out Why the Left is Ignoring the War Israel gives Syria ultimatum Who The Hell is John Kelly? American Criminal Liberties UnionNovak on the Plame Affair Syndicate The Site Site Information Who links to me? Why the Left is Ignoring the War Filed by The Ugly American on July 15th, 2006 at 16:59 under Islamofascism,Israel […]
Pingback by The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » Why the Left is Ignoring the War � July 17, 2006 @ 5:17 am
FOR WHOM?…
Over the weekend, the New York Times ran a a photo compilation titled “Memorable Photographs” by various photographers. The most shocking image was that of a sniper peering through the scope out a window at a target. The caption:
…
Trackback by Word Around the Net � July 17, 2006 @ 11:02 am
If right-wing bloggers were photo editors…
The right-wing blogosphere is all atwitter over this photo of a Shiite sniper supposedly firing towards U.S. positions in Iraq. In particular, this comment has been repeated ad infinitum: Incredible courage? Well, far be it for me to question such…
Trackback by Blogumentary � July 17, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
Ugly American-
I’ve followed this thread from Glenn’s site. As a staunch liberal (yes there is such a thing) and a believer in a free press, your rant is understandable from an emoional point of view, but intelectually shaky.
Believe or not, there are those of us who do not support either the war in Iraq or the Bush adminstration and yet we still do not wish harm to come to our forces there. Of course the Right Wing Noise Machine argues against this very possibility daily, insisting it to be incompatible, but that’s a topic for another day.
So here, as an American who wishes no harm to come to fellow Americans in Iraq, I would not want a sniper to shoot at our forces IF HE COULD BE STOPPED. This of course begs the possibility that there could be any press coverage of the insurgents (or whoever):if you insist that everyone’s actions be dictated by the side that they’re on, no Western journalist would or could cover “the other side” as they would be obligated to report/turn in any insurgent they came into contact with. And every insurgent would rightly regard every Western journalist as “the enemy” instead of a “journalist.”
I understand this doesn’t bother some people at all. They still view the war news coverage thru the WW2 filter. Our side covers our side, their side covers their side.
Fine, except we’re dealing with stateless terrorists, nationalists, and other assorted deviants. “They” don’t have their side, their media-unless you’re counting any and all Arabic media.
Anyone intent on viewing the world as a prolonged action movie won’t care-and they can spare themselves from telling me how they don’t. Point is, any coverage of who these “other guys” are is going to involve situations like photographing that sniper. The journalists involved are only going to be able to do that if they can walk away from such moments. Which means the standard of “behaving like an American first” (and you know the person who took the photo isn’t even American) doesn’t apply.
So, UA, let me ask you, how do we get coverage of a war if you’re insisting that EVERY journalist must behave as if they are fighting for our side? And, if you acknowledge the limitations of that (no coverage of the “other side”), explain the benefits of that. If the answer is “the other side is evil and must be destroyed”, we already know that. Basicaly, all I need to know about them is to hate them? I hate what is happening to my fellow Americans, but I also don’t want “their side” (Al Jazera, whatever) to be the only venue that reports on them either.
Comment by PG � July 17, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
This is the job war correspondents do. While accompanying military forces they are not neutrals, they are subject to what those forces allow them to do, not to mention that in a war between parties that observe the third Geneva Convention, war correspondents (with proper credentials) accompanying military forces who are captured by the opposing force become POWs even though they are civilians. If I were a war correspondent, I wouldn’t have been there in the first place knowing that I couldn’t keep any bargain I made with terrorists. On the other hand, the sniper’s face isn’t covered and the picture may be valuable to intelligence.
Comment by Bill H � July 17, 2006 @ 4:16 pm
PG I appreciate the sentiment and your argument. You did a much better job than Glenn did.
However I have already made my argument and you either get it or you dont.
I never said we should see no coverage of the other side. I just don’t want people who are suposed to be on our side consorting with the other side.
If you need a photographer to stand in the same room with an enemy sniper shooting at Americans make the experience real for you then you are sick individual.
As for how we could ever live without such photos, we have lived with them for the entire history of our country. You will have to explain to me exactly what value this photo brings to this country in this war.
I knew that sniper was our enemy before that photo was taken, the only thing that changed is that now I know the photographer is our enemy as well.
No I do not believe every journalist should behave as if they are fighting on our side. However I do expect journalists and news organizations who are on our side to want our side to win and behave accordingly. I do expect journalists who are on our side to help a bleeding soldier or civilian instead of taking pictures and watching him bleed to death when no one else is around.
I do expect journalists who are on our side to pick up a gun and start shooting when their friends or even they are going to be killed.
I do expect journalists who are on our side to do everything they possibly can to prevent American soldiers from being killed by our enemies.
Call me crazy but I don’t believe journalists have any higher calling than you or me. They are humans, just like you and me, they have moral responsibilities just like you and me.
They are not sacred ghouls allowed to freely roam the battlefield switching sides at will and profit from the death of others; particularly their own countrymen.
Comment by The Ugly American � July 17, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
[…] Is it fair game for a journalist to snap pictures of a terrorist attacking Americans? Greenwald versus The Real Ugly American… […]
Pingback by Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » A Little Of This… � July 17, 2006 @ 9:09 pm
Ugly American-
Thanks for the civil reply. I beg to differ-I don’t think I “don’t get it” (no one ever does of themselves), but we just have incompatible worldviews.
I don’t have a one-size-fits-all answer, but I don’t expect of journalists what you do. I think of journalists as documenters (if that word exists). They are sent into dangerous places (from South Central LA to Iraq) and document what is happening for the rest of us.
It’s easy for all of us, who are removed from the danger, to insist that while they are there they also take decisive action where necessary. “Don’t just take a photo of that sniper/insurgent-shoot them!” That’s an answer that sounds great while we argue here in the US. It’s simply not practical in the real world. By your defintions, you would turn what I feel are observers into participants who also happen to write or take pictures.
As for your comment about the photo, no, I didn’t “need” that picture of the sniper to understand or know something I didn’t before. “Need” is besides the point. When it comes to war, we all understand the basics (us vs. them). This is just part of the mosiac of the world we live in. You’ve indicated that you have greater concerns than having every corner of something illustrated, and that’s one of the areas where we differ.
I’d offer up this example though. When I see photos from the Middle East of these kids-and I mean kids, like 7,8,9-dressed up in fatigues and holding guns and machine guns…that illustrates to me clearly what a culture gap we are dealing with here. When I was their age I was playing with toy guns, if at all. The fact that these kids are being rounded up and coerced into this stuff tells me that there’s something seriously wrong in that corner of the world (and Africa too). That’s what those photos do. That was something I already “knew”, but those photos make it infinitely more real. And that’s why it’s worth it to have journalists take them. And to get those photos (or stories), journalists just have to be people who walk into another world and then walk back out-not people who help deliver justice for us.
(I know portraits of soliders/militants is not immediately equivalent to a sniper pointing a gun at American soliders, but once you accept the concept of someone who documents such things you understand how you get there, I think)
PG
Comment by PG � July 18, 2006 @ 10:22 am
(I know portraits of soliders/militants is not immediately equivalent to a sniper pointing a gun at American soliders, but once you accept the concept of someone who documents such things you understand how you get there, I think)
It is not a walk it is a leap across a giant chasm.
We have a different world view and it looks as if nothing will convince either of us. You for some reason view journalists as neutral disinterested parties.
I do not. I believe they are humans first. They are citizens of their country first. Picking up a camera, or pad and paper does not give you entrance to a special class unbound by basic moral standards.
As Dennis Prager says I prefer clarity to agreement. If I have mischaracterized your argument in anyway please correct me.
Comment by The Ugly American � July 18, 2006 @ 5:41 pm
It’s easy for all of us, who are removed from the danger, to insist that while they are there they also take decisive action where necessary. “Don’t just take a photo of that sniper/insurgent-shoot them!†That’s an answer that sounds great while we argue here in the US. It’s simply not practical in the real world. By your defintions, you would turn what I feel are observers into participants who also happen to write or take pictures.
I’ll attempt to be civil in this. I personally feel that it’s quite easy for me, who is not removed from the danger, to not just take decisive action where necessary, but to do everything within one’s power to remove themselves from such a situation. The easiest way of doing that, is to not involve yourself with insurgency in the first place. I’m not saying for the photographer to shoot the insurgent, it’s already obvious that this individual didn’t take the path of a soldier. But why, in the name of anything you hold holy, would you take a picture that sends a pretty distinct message to our country, “This man may have killed your son, your husband, your brother, your wife, your daughter, your mother, or maybe your father. Take a good look at him. Because you’ll never see him again, and he’s still alive, while your loved one is dead.” Taking a picture of this terrorist who can, and probably has taken an American life, does not make Americans feel good. It does not bring closure to loved ones. All it succeeds in doing is showing the Insurgents that their story is indeed being heard, that they are making an impact loud enough that the media of the US wants to hear their story. That becomes a recruiting tool, much like when you flash picture of the US Soldiers all decked out in fascinating gear and jumping from helicopters on tv in the US.
I’d offer up this example though. When I see photos from the Middle East of these kids-and I mean kids, like 7,8,9-dressed up in fatigues and holding guns and machine guns…that illustrates to me clearly what a culture gap we are dealing with here.
I have yet to see that, and I’m almost half-way through my deployment. So based on the picture you’ve seen, and the picture of the insurgent sniper I’ve seen, I’d have to say that the media is covering the wrong portions of the war. How about the media starts taking pictures of the girls going to school, or the PRT’s constructing new court houses, schools, dams, and other self-sustaining improvements to the country? Could it be that the media still believes in the old saying “If it bleeds, it leads”? Could it be that the media is still so left-wing, that in order to undercut the Bush Administration, it still wants to show our country that our loved ones are fighting an unwinnable war? I’m afraid so. Thank you, NYT, Glenn Greenwald, and Jaoa Silva, for making me realize that I’m fighting for a 1st amendment that you’ve abused, and my brother who have died, have indeed died in vain so that you can merely take a step forward in your political agenda.
“Silva may not be an American, but he works for an American-owned newspaper, and the paper clearly approves
…….
Its a good thing we have a first amendment.
If he’s not American, then he has no use for the first amendment. And if the NYT is willing to support him and pay him for pictures of insurgency and their capabilities of taking out Americans, then the NYT is aiding a known terrorist organization. I consider that treason.
Comment by PFC Deployed � July 18, 2006 @ 6:18 pm
The Toddler-Threatening, Sniper-Watching Community…
And the spiral downwards towards terminal madness continues among the liberal elite: I am still beyond anger at a recently published photo from New York Times Photographer Joao Silva of a Mahdi Militia sniper about to fire on American Soldiers…….
Trackback by Confederate Yankee � July 19, 2006 @ 9:25 am
I didn’t expect to keep this thread going, but I didn’t expect to get a response from someone in Iraq (am I correct?) either.
Quickly-
-those photos of the kids dressed as militants, these are not specific to Iraq. In fact I’m thinking of photos I saw at least over a decade ago. Simply an example.
-the “media” is so patently and obviously NOT left wing, not liberal, and is so obviously towing the Bush Adminstration/neo-con line so often, I find the idea that they ARE incredlous. But this would take another 1000 missives between me and everyone here.
Let me clarify, because I think that this is the argument:just because the media does not report the news exactly as you would see fit does not make it “left wing” (let at least one liberal tell you it ain’t so). Not being what you want it to be does not make it what I want. Simply, as evidence would show, it is LESS conservative than you as opposed to “liberal.” Which leads me to-
-as an American citizen sitting back home, far away from it all, I am one of those not swayed by the “good news not being covered” point. It’s not that there isn’t positive news to come out of Iraq:it’s the equivalencies. To use generic examples, Iraqi citizens being rounded up and slaughtered in sectarian violence is more bad than girls going to school is good. If the news is only going to give 5 minutes or so to covering Iraq, a 50/50 split of those 2 stories, that’s an imbalance.
-this talk of the NY Times (and other media) being guilty of “treason”-this is our incompatible worldview in play again. I except the media to cover the news, not cheerlead, not make sure we feel a certain way about it. I’m not scratching my head over the success of FOX News, which does this to a T. I get the fact that many people (like my relatives) like this, the news “shaped” for them. Certainly makes it easier to digest.
However, that smells much like propaganda to me. Not because it might care who lives or dies in a war, but because it seems the terms of debate coming from the Right are either you see it and report it their way or you’re not just wrong, not just different, but treasonous. History tells me (perhaps not you) that the side most often making these sorts of arguments is not the most democratic or freedom-loving side.
-a final point, because I feel I haven’t been clear enough on this, and I’m talking to someone who is in harm’s way. I’m not so detacthed as to not care if a sniper gets away with shooting an American. Of course I don’t want him to do so or get away or the rest of it.
How does one reconcile that with journalists covering a war-this war, any war-where they may continually be in a posistion where they are witnessing/capturing such things? The answer from here is clear and I understand it. As I’ve said, I don’t agree with it.
All sorts of things I don’t want to see have been filmed and photographed. Taking away things captured by the perpetrators, I’ve absolved the person documenting these things from being resposible. Ugly American doesn’t agree with that, perhaps you don’t. My worldview says it’s too easy to browbeat those capturing it. I feel I live in a world with much harder choices. I want snipers stopped and caught, I get the NY Times showing me a picture of one (taken, again, by someone who is not American). How do I get both with this? I don’t, and can’t.
Again, I think this whole thing is a proxy for those who are not seeing their exact worldview covered by the non-FOX media. Hence it’s not just you’re not WITH us, it goes right to you’re actively AGAINST us. With this photo providing a flashpoint.
Take care over there. Whenever some petty greivances start getting to me, I tell myself “Shut up. You’re not in Iraq.”
PG (sorry about the sp:can’t use spellcheck here)
-
Comment by PG � July 19, 2006 @ 4:04 pm
PG again I appreciate you taking the time to post as it has been a civil discussion and hopefully we all learn something from it.
I won’t address your whole media bias argument as I feel it is a distraction.
Do you feel there is any line a journalist or photographer can cross?
That is why I included my original questions. If you could answer them I would sincerely appreciate it. Again because I think it will help clarify your position maybe even in your own mind.
Take the war scenario completely out of it. Does he have a higher calling to journalism than saving a civilian?
Do you think a journalist would be morally justified in standing silently and taking a picture of someone preparing to shoot your mother, or brother, or child? How about your uncle?
How about the President of the United States, or a Senator?
If this sniper was looking through the cross hairs at the President of the United States do you think he has a higher duty to “get the photograph” or stop the assasination of the president?
If a soldier is bleeding to death in the field and a journalist is the only one there who can save his life. Should he take a picture of the dying man and allow him to die? Or should he put his camera down and save that mans life?
If you don’t see where I am going, the point is where is the line?
At what point do you think a journalist stops being a human being?
at what point do you think they stop being a citizen of their country and become removed from any obligation of human decency, or the society they live in?
Keep in mind Glenn answered he would do exactly the same thing as this photographer. Mr. Silva isn’t an American and he certainly is aligned with our enemy. But Glenn Greenwald is, and in his own words he feels no obligation to his fellow countrymens safety.
This is a basic moral question. How do you answer it?
Comment by The Ugly American � July 19, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
[…] Blogs For A Free Iraq 24 Steps to Liberty Iraq The Model Treasure of Baghdad Recent Posts This is going to leave a Mark Blogrolls Best 7.19.06 Damn the War The President Touched Angela Merkel! Richard Cohen Offers someThreatens Wider War Syndicate The Site Site Information Who links to me? This is going to leave a Mark Filed by The Ugly American on July 20th, 2006 at 07:55 under Blogs Bloggers andBlogging […]
Pingback by The Real Ugly American.com » Blog Archive » This is going to leave a Mark � July 20, 2006 @ 8:26 am
UA-
I will attempt to answer your question, though I can not come up, as I’ve said before, with a one-size-fits-all response, something that would give someone instruction to whatever situation one would encounter.
But let me at least define the field of play.
I originally wrote (but then erased) how I would not want a journalist simply to observe (as an example) those who carried out 9/11 BEFORE that day, simply in the name of perserving an inside look of what would be a great story. Not that such a thing is or was readily possible, but the working definition I would have is that the “observer” status stops when you are privy to something that is ABOUT to happen and that CAN be prevented. 9/11, a sniper taking aim at the President, these would fall under this category. While it certainly would be news to document the President being shot, anyone who COULD stop it, or could tell others to stop it, should do so. (Our argument then would move to whether they could or not in a given situation).
Likewise, the case with the solider in the field. To specify, if this were a case where 1) absolutely no one else was around 2) the enemy wasn’t around and 3) the photographer’s life was not in danger, then the photographer would be obligated to help the solider. There would be no news value in getting a photograph of that solider bleeding to death, compared to actually helping said solider live instead.
Some may take issue with my having to put 3 conditions onto the situation. This is where it gets tricky. One has to note the gap between what we want (soliders helped, bad guys caught and punished, etc.) and what the world offers us.
First of all, we may tell ourselves (let alone others) all the time how we would do the right thing if we had to, but how often are most of us confronted with such situations? Compared to a reporter or photographer in a war zone? We are then not only expecting these documenters to risk their lives just by going into a war zone, but to do so almost as much as our soliders by being Moral Actors at every turn.
Again, I’d like to know that whenever journalists are confronted by such dilemas that they would always make the choice that made me feel better, but then what does it cost me (or you)? If they did what you would want of them, and then were killed, what would you tell their spouse/family? Can you absolve them if, as observers and not combatants, they refused some heroic action to insure they could see their loved ones again?
Again, these are people put in that position more often than you or I, I believe. So this would not be a one-time dodge of their humanity as much as a survival skill.
War is a field of action, a bit like covering a sporting event. A strained analogy, but just like those covering it are not expected to make a play or help an injured player, those in a war zone as journalists are not expected (by me) to become participants. Plenty of real and fictional examples are around that demonstrate in tight circumstances the labels fall away and it’s all hands on deck, or everyone for themselves. Especially since IEDs and car bombs don’t discriminate between who’s a solider or not.
But I hesitate more than you to rain outrage or disgust on journalists, sitting here half a world away from the carnage and at least a universe away from a place where the US/modern/Western sensibility does not rule. It’s too easy.
PG
Comment by PG � July 24, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
I apologize that this took a while for me to respond, but internet access is not readily available out in my present location.
PG~
I fear that you and I are looking at 2 very different sides of the very same coin. Let me see if I can shed some light on the edge of this coin. You speak of your definition of an observer. According to you, you stop being an observer when “you are privy to something that is ABOUT to happen and that CAN be prevented”. Reporters have this self-proclaimed ability to dig up a story. This implies to me that the better the journalist, the deeper they can dig, so they should know where their story will take them. They should already be aware that if they’re going to follow around a member of the Taliban or whatever organization they’re with, trying to get the “inside” story, that at some point they will be confronted with the hard truth: They kill Americans, and this is how. It doesn’t take a Doctorate in Journalism to figure that out. It took an Infantryman with an Associates in General Studies about 30 seconds to figure that out.
Likewise, the case with the solider in the field. To specify, if this were a case where 1) absolutely no one else was around 2) the enemy wasn’t around and 3) the photographer’s life was not in danger, then the photographer would be obligated to help the solider. There would be no news value in getting a photograph of that solider bleeding to death, compared to actually helping said solider live instead.
What I get out of that is that the journalist who took the picture that got this started felt that there was news value in a photograph of a “soldier being shot” compared to actually helping said soldier live instead. That could have been accomplished simply by not going on a photo-shoot “date” with the enemy. Now I put “soldier being shot” in parentheses because we still don’t know for sure whether the photo was posed for or if he was indeed doing “his job”. Personally, I feel that according to your definition of observer, the photographer stopped being an observer the moment the sniper picked up the rifle.
First of all, we may tell ourselves (let alone others) all the time how we would do the right thing if we had to, but how often are most of us confronted with such situations? Compared to a reporter or photographer in a war zone? We are then not only expecting these documenters to risk their lives just by going into a war zone, but to do so almost as much as our soliders by being Moral Actors at every turn.
I have never expected a reporter to be a “moral actor”…I know better. To compare any media individual with a soldier in a war zone is simply ridiculous. We shoot our enemies with real bullets. Not cameras. Where is the “Moral Acting” in that? I - as a citizen of the United States, not a soldier for it - want to see the enemies of my country brought to justice..not see photos of them doing what they do best..murder. I - as a soldier for the United States - wants to see the enemies of my country brought to justice..not see photos of them doing what they do best..murder. You really expect me to believe that journalists, of any form, are attempting to be moral actors? I beg you to re-evaluate your assessment of journalism.
I’m only gonna touch on one more paragraph, and I’m sure you know which one, but I feel I’ve already let off enough steam. Again, I apologize, as I do have strong feelings regarding this topic. I have attempted to be as civil as possible, but when one feels passionately about a topic, it tends to get the flame blazing in them. So here we go. War is nothing like a sporting event. I’m sorry, that’s not even a strained analogy. It’s ludicrous. When a football player goes down, the cameras zoom in so that when he stands up, the world can applaud. Morale goes up. When a soldier goes down, most of the time, they don’t get back up. Morale goes down when we see that. Do I expect a reporter to get off the side lines and run out to help an injured player? No, they have professionals on site to administer first aid. Do I expect a reporter in a combat zone to put down the camera and assist the medic if possible (apply a tourniquet, hand the medic equipment out of their bag as needed) when a soldier goes down? Absolutely. But that would be morale acting. And if the medic can do it all by himself and save the wounded soldier, well…that would be a story worth telling. Forget actually being a part of saving a life…he’d rather capture it on film. Sir…my bottom line that I might be hitting the dead horse with one too many times is this: War is not a sporting event. The reporters who follow the story have an obligation to do anything and everything in their power to stop any form of atrocity. And if that means abandoning a story for the sake of a soldier here or 2 soldiers there…then that’s worth more than a story of how the enemy kills their prey.
~PFC Deployed.
Comment by PFC Deployed � August 6, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
PFC-
I only have time to respond very quickly-let me just say this:
I can see how my strained analogy would not play well for someone in Iraq, or any war zone, but the reason I used it is this. The way the two ARE similar (war & sports) is that we do not expect those COVERING them to become participants. Clearly I don’t. Yes, war and sports are different in a million ways so that the comparison borders on the offensive, but in THAT way I feel they are the same. I could extend the example to “news” in general, but I wanted something more specific.
Of course soliders don’t get up whereas players do, and many other horrible things. But you and I are clearly of different worlds. I am just a consumer of information, back here in the States. It sounds as if you are in the middle of it, and any day your comadres, if not yourself, could be the “story.” That doesn’t mean I’m indifferent to what happens, not at all. But obviously I am dispassionate in a way you can never be, and therein lies part of my perspective.
I serioulsy thought about being a journalist during college and that informs my view, which I’ll try to elaborate as soon as I can. Be safe over there.
PG
Comment by PG � August 15, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
PG I really appreciate you taking so much time to participate in this discussion and do so respectfully.
I asked a question way back in the beginning “What if this photographer was taking a picture of a sniper about to shoot your mother?”
Not to confuse people who hate their mothers let me amend that question to what if it was someone you love dearly.
The only honest answer to that question is you would want and expect that photographer to take action to prevent your loved one from being killed.
I certainly would.
Every soldier in Iraq is my brother as well as yours. We owe them something we can never repay. The least we can do is expect anyone who can prevent their deaths to do so, and hold accountable those that fail to do everything in their power to help our soldiers win and most importantly come home alive and well.
You said something that is fundamentally flawed in your argument.
But obviously I am dispassionate in a way you can never be, and therein lies part of my perspective.
You can not and should not be dispassionate about American soldiers dying. It should be as important to you as someone killing your own son or brother. No matter whose son or brother they are.
As soon as you remove yourself emotionally you have no stake in the outcome of the war, no stake in the lives of people who are putting their lives on the line for you and me.
Soldiers may join the army for various reasons but they put their lives on the line for each other, and for us.
We owe them everything for that. There is no avoiding our responsibility to them. To do so is immoral.
Comment by The Ugly American � August 15, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
UA-
(and I’ve been really busy)
I think you’re confusing my being dispassionate with being disinterested.
I am not disinterested. My statement was not a reflection of my being so emotionally removed that I am unmoved by our soliders’ deaths, there or anywhere.
But I am one of the many Americans who does not know anyone personally in Iraq (or Afghanistan). While each death over there is depressing, it remains an abstraction in this sense: I’ve never had a conversation, shared a meal, or had any personal contact with anyone over there.
If I had someone even that close to me, the war and its costs would be more direct. Even if I had a distant aquaintance over there, everything for me would stop everytime I would hear a report of casualities, wondering if my friend was among them. I can only imagine how things are for those with spouses, sons, and daughters serving.
This is the result of a society where many of us are, honestly, completely disengaged from the military. So my “dispassion” is a result of our losses over there forever being an abstraction, as opposed to people in my life. But that does not mean I don’t care.
PG
Comment by PG � August 28, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
I understand and appreciate you taking the time to explain your sentiments.
My entire point is we should act as if these men who are risking their lives for us were our very own brothers, sons, and fathers.
Let that be the bar you set for what is right and wrong. If you would intervene for a family members benefit then you should do the same for a soldier, airman, marine, or sailor, nothing less.
Comment by The Ugly American � September 2, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
Hey hi
Know this is a forum debat that has been on for a while… but in regards to the photographer JOAO SILVA i wondered if anyone could clear up the fact that he represented the UN earlier this year (2oo7?)
not that im fully in touch with the political matters of the USA, and have probably only seen a few of his pictures, i am trying to gather info on him as he is a South African Photographer who is hightly admired over here.
To know the truth is gold…anyone who wishes to help me would be greatly thanked.
kindly
Nikita
Comment by Nikita � April 12, 2007 @ 3:29 am