AP Photographer Julie Jacobson's Dying Marine Photo

[Oxide Blu]

This creates just too many questions; the least of which is "why?" -- why did the AP photographer, Julie Jacobson take the photos when she (her words) "didn't think I could use them because of the rules" embedded journalists are required to follow. Yet, she took the photos anyway, thinking she was violating her agreement with the US Dept of Defense.

Then there is the controversy of AP publishing an image of a mortally wounded marine, and the emotional influence that has on his family vs the the AP's desire to publish the image.

Anyone that wants to view the images can see them here : http://www.ap.org/fallen_marine/

 

[johnastovall]

The only "why" I see here is why the calls for censorship. It is well we are constantly reminded what a horrible and bloody business war is.

 

[Bob]

Mathew Brady I think set the precedent.
-bob

 

[stephengilbert]

I think the decision whether to use (or even take) such a photo is largely one of balancing taste, and respect for the fallen, with the importance of the need for the message it sends.

What I find troubling is the whole notion of embedded journalists and photographers: that there appear to be rules about what they can say or show that go beyond what are needed to protect the troops. I don't think the government should be telling journalists (or anyone else) what they can say without a compelling need to do so.

 

[Bob]

Stephen,
While I agree with you, there will always be those who argue based on respect, or good taste what should or should not have been shot. Those folks have just as much right to gripe as a photographer has a right to shoot.
-bob

 

[glenerrolrd]

My opinion is that this one wasn t even close and the image should never have been published. Why do you need rules ..if the press would just have some level of decency. A family lost a son and they asked that the photo not be published out of respect for him. Nothing else should be considered . Gates response said exactly how I feel. The last memory that family has of their son will be the picture.

Probably not a good topic for the forum..unless you want to add in politics and religion.

 

[colyn]

The only "why" I see here is why the calls for censorship. It is well we are constantly reminded what a horrible and bloody business war is.

I have to agree with John..

WE should be reminded of the horrors of war every day.

 

[Don Libby]

My viewpoint is based solely from the point of a combat vet and not a parent of a fallen hero...

No way should we be posting an image of dead/wounded military personal where the family expressed a desire that it not be shown. Period. This shows an utter disrespect not only to the family members but the military in general and both deserve a great deal of respect; much more than what is generally shown.

You may or may not agree with the current war or even the concept of war itself however the need of respecting those who serve to allow you to express your thought/feelings must be thought of first.

Do we need a constant reminder of the horrors of war every day? Open your eyes and hearts to those around you. The next time you see a car being driven displaying a Purple Heart, Bronze Star, Silver Star or better yet Medial of Honor or POW license tag think of what that person went through to guarantee your freedoms. When was the last time you actually thanked a person in uniform? These brave men and women know the true horrors of war; many of them relive them on a nightly basis.

The photographer stepped over the line as did the news agency that printed it.

This just shows there's too little respect.

These are my thoughts

Don

 

[johnastovall]

I can think of no greater respect than showing the fallen dead, who gave that last full measure of devotion. He wasn't there for his family. He was there for all of us and we need to see the true price being paid for that.

 

[Dave_Anderson]

I don't know the full rules for embedded journalists, but I imagine that a blanket release is part of it -- sort of an assumed model release, if you will.

Whatever the legalese around it, it seems that the ultimate decision was with the AP and the editors.

IMHO it's a tough call between the wishes of the family and the representation of the truth(war is hell).

IMHO there are too many bloodthirsty calls for war and too little acknowledgment of what it really means for those put in harm's way. We talk about respecting the sacrifices made but don't want to look at those same sacrifices? After all, nothing good can come of people seriously thinking about what it really means to send our young off to war, right?

 

[glenerrolrd]

This will be my last post on this as I know it fruitless to argue politics or religion . The point is .....this is a family decision not for some "*** hole " editor at the AP to decide. My opinion as well as all others doesn t matter . His father.... a retired Marine First Sgt. was asked and he said "please don t publish this picture" it will further hurt our family.

It would be a different story entirely if the family said ''Print it we want people to know" but they didn t !

Both the photographer and the AP new exactly what they were doing..becoming famous at the further expense of the soldiers family.

The tragedy is that the story isn t about the soldier at all.....its a question of what they should be publishing ..so its picked up by every paper including the New York Times .

That family has an excellent case for legal action..the last case went to the Supreme Court ...in this case the family asked before they published it. I hope they don t pursue anything as it will likely tear them up in the process.

Sorry if I am taking out my outrage over this story on a simple posting and I know everyone has the best intentions in posting different points of view.

I am going back to picking on leica is an easier subject.

 

[Dave_Anderson]

Roger, I completely understand your POV. I do agree that the father's wishes should have been honored. I was simply pointing out that unfortunately there appears to be no mechanism to enforce that, and making a broader point that absent any such objections by the family we should not hide from the reality. Hopefully that's clearer now.

 

[colyn]

What I find interesting about this discussion is that many here object to this photo being published But Robert Capa's photo of a man being shot in war is OK to publish as is other photos of injured and/or dead troops..

 

[Dave_Anderson]

I personally don't object. The father objected, and I think it's unfortunate that he was ignored. AFAIK there is no law against what the journalist did -- obviously the decision was subject to much scrutiny and I doubt it would have happened if there was a law against it.

On the one hand, maybe the parent's wishes should carry more weight -- OTOH the last thing we need is another Terry Schiavo fiasco!

 

[Oxide Blu]

... The point is .....this is a family decision not for some "*** hole " editor at the AP to decide.

I don't see it that way. I see it as a media decision -- reporting on an event. The soldier was an adult, made a commitment, made a contract with his employer (the US govt), and knew what he was doing.

I think it is our responsibility, as consumers of the reporting, to contact the AP and express our discontent about their choice of images to publish. The AP is in business to make money, has an obligation to shareholders, isn't going to pursue an avenue that will result is reduced profits.

That family has an excellent case for legal action...

I don't think so. Unless the soldier suffered damages from being defamed by the image, he's an adult, he's a govt employee on the job as a govt employee. Yup, you can photograph govt employees doing whatever burning up your tax dollars -- and you don't need anyone's permission to do it (tho there are restrictions about taking pix in same facilities, e.g. courthouses, military bases, etc). The DoD had embedded photographer agree to limit some coverage. Non-embedded photographers have no restricts -- tho I suppose they may also have a rather limited life expectancy.



My problem is all of this is the photographer, Julie Jacobson. Why did she take photos/images that she thought she could not use/show because they violated the agreement she entered into with the Dept of Defense?!? Just something about that isn't sitting right with me. :thumbdown: