Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,943 posts)
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 01:54 AM Apr 2012

Pentagon Sought to Stop Paper From Using Photos

Source: NY Times

The grisly photographs of American soldiers posing with the body parts of Afghan insurgents during a 2010 deployment in Afghanistan were the source of a dispute between The Los Angeles Times and the Pentagon lasting weeks.

Two of the 18 photographs given to the paper were published Wednesday by The Times over fierce objections by military officials who said that the photographs could incite violence. The officials had asked The Times not to publish any of the photographs, a fact that the defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, reiterated on Wednesday as the images spread across the Internet.

(...)

But the newspaper’s editors said that the photographs were newsworthy. “We considered this very carefully,” the newspaper’s editor, Davan Maharaj, said in a Web chat with readers. “At the end of the day, our job is to publish information that our readers need to make informed decisions. We have a particular duty to report vigorously and impartially on all aspects of the American mission in Afghanistan. On balance, in this case, we felt that the public interest here was served by publishing a limited, but representative sample of these photos, along with a story explaining the circumstances under which they were taken.”

The article was by David Zucchino, a longtime war correspondent for the paper, who got an unsolicited e-mail two months ago from a soldier in the 82nd Airborne Division. The soldier said that he had “some information” that might interest Mr. Zucchino. The information included the photographs. Mr. Zucchino later met three times with the soldier, to whom The Times granted anonymity. “He said he was very, very concerned about what he said was a breakdown in security, discipline and professionalism,” Mr. Zucchino said.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/world/asia/pentagon-asked-newspaper-not-to-publish-photos.html

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pentagon Sought to Stop Paper From Using Photos (Original Post) alp227 Apr 2012 OP
Nice to see editorial backbone. The problem here is not the The Times publishing a few tame... Poll_Blind Apr 2012 #1
There's a reason you generally don't want your soldiers desecrating coalition_unwilling Apr 2012 #2
how many marshall gaines Apr 2012 #13
Technology is amplifying what likely was already happening in any armed conflict jeanmarc Apr 2012 #3
Gee whiz. They sure object to showing war for what it is lunatica Apr 2012 #4
Excellent post Carolina Apr 2012 #5
"That's not who we are" gratuitous Apr 2012 #7
It fucking well is who they are. bemildred Apr 2012 #8
Photagraphs may stop the anger if it inhibbits the abuse ... marble falls Apr 2012 #6
A photograph can NEVER incite violence. The act photographed - perhaps. saras Apr 2012 #9
Comic strips on the other hand. . . 4th law of robotics Apr 2012 #11
the photographs could incite violence. AlbertCat Apr 2012 #10
People who commit crimes OnyxCollie Apr 2012 #12

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)
1. Nice to see editorial backbone. The problem here is not the The Times publishing a few tame...
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 02:30 AM
Apr 2012

...examples of the material they have, it's U.S. troops who are gleefully willing to go on record in display of their lack of professionalism and, possibly, humanity.

That's the problem.

PB

 

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)
2. There's a reason you generally don't want your soldiers desecrating
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 03:11 AM
Apr 2012

the corpses of their enemies, quaint and obsolete codicils like Geneva notwithstanding.

It's so that your enemy won't desecrate the corpses of your soldiers.

Same thing goes for torture.

Duh!

 

marshall gaines

(347 posts)
13. how many
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 01:23 PM
Apr 2012

It's war!!! It has NEVER been a civilized undertaking. It changes a person forever. How many of our soldiers have been desecrated? War down through the ages has been a bloody and cruel experience. Until we the people eradicate war, this is the way it shall be. Exactly coalition. Spot on.

jeanmarc

(1,685 posts)
3. Technology is amplifying what likely was already happening in any armed conflict
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 06:48 AM
Apr 2012

These soldiers have cell phones with cameras on them. So they are recording atrocities at record rates and the pictures get out.

I'm surprised they haven't banned cell phones from all the armed forces in combat. This would allow them to keep their war less dirty and guilt-provoking.

It's better that the pictures do get out because war makes people at least temporarily insane (as you can see in the pics) and can damage people for life. It also is very murderous and while our news networks like to scrub this sort of thing away (bad for ratings; or corporate sponsors don't want to see it), we might be in less wars if we stopped thinking about how smart the bombs are and looked at the bloody carnage.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
4. Gee whiz. They sure object to showing war for what it is
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 06:59 AM
Apr 2012

And then everyone jumps in to say that war is not like that at all. Why it's a noble and patriotic and glamorous thing. They sing its praises and wrap it in the flag and and talk about how noble the American soldier is and claim incidences like this are just a strange and unexplainable aberration done by a 'few bad apples'.

This is what war is. Panetta can sit behind his desk and pretend he's doing something worthy and patriotic and grand, but he isn't. He's doing war. And so is our government.

It would be nice if everyone stopped pretending otherwise. There is nothing noble about war. Nothing. This is the shit that happens in war. The difference now is that this shit is caught on camera.

Carolina

(6,960 posts)
5. Excellent post
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 07:22 AM
Apr 2012

and so true.

I would sadly suspect this to be the norm of how "those" people are treated by many of our glorious soldiers and the rah-rah, flag waving chickenhawks need to see it, see war for what it really is.

It was the grisly pictures and pointlessness of war beamed into televisions by real journalists in the Vietnam era that helped end that war.

Panetta is an ass. We need more and more and more such images. Maybe those coupled with our dwindling treasury because of wasteful, destructive, useless war will wake some of the idiots in this country up.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
7. "That's not who we are"
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 09:05 AM
Apr 2012

I heard a clip yesterday of Panetta mouthing that crapulousness. Dear Leon, yeah, that's exactly who we are. That's what war does to us. That's what war does to everyone involved. You fall into a swimming pool, you come out dripping wet. You go to war, the troops will commit atrocities, especially when you're using an undermanned force, sending people back four, five, and six times, there is no mission, no objective, and no end in sight.

Going to war used to be a sober undertaking. The United States has launched its last two invasions for nothing, against countries that were no threat to us, and we even cut taxes. Republican fantasy economics aside, it's impossible to run supply lines halfway around the world, maintain two occupations, and wantonly murder "militant" and civilian alike, and not ruin the country.

The dirty fucking hippies were right. Again. End this shit. Now. Violence and war are not working, they won't work, they will never work.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
8. It fucking well is who they are.
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 09:46 AM
Apr 2012

You can read a bit of history and find the exact same shit going on 100 years ago, 200 years ago.

marble falls

(56,029 posts)
6. Photagraphs may stop the anger if it inhibbits the abuse ...
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 08:42 AM
Apr 2012

Publishing the photos causes the backlash but creating grisly tableaus and photoing them doesn't?

 

saras

(6,670 posts)
9. A photograph can NEVER incite violence. The act photographed - perhaps.
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 10:49 AM
Apr 2012

But the act photographed isn't the responsibility of the photographer, nor is any reaction to it.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
10. the photographs could incite violence.
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 11:03 AM
Apr 2012

Oh Jesus H Christ! The PHOTOGRAPHS can't incite violence.

The ACTIONS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS do that! It's not pixels that are the problem.



I say print 'em all. Remember what having Vietnam on the TV every night did? We simply have to stop pretending we're not at war here at home when we ARE at war.
Instead of amendments defining marriage, how about one that states if we are fighting (not "at war"... but fighting) anywhere, then we must acknowledge it here at home with a draft and rationing. That might put a damper on things. Since I was born (1956) we have not fought to "defend" America. We have been playing offense. We don't have a Dept of Defense. We have a Dept of offense.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
12. People who commit crimes
Thu Apr 19, 2012, 12:44 PM
Apr 2012

really dislike when they are exposed.

When will the staff of the LA Times join Bradley Manning?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Pentagon Sought to Stop P...