Oh, I know thoughtful people can disagree about what courage is. Some people think it’s standing in your field with a pitchfork waiting for the bad guys to break through the outer lines. Like that’s going to happen.
Some folks think it’s being offensively rude to a head of state.
The New York Times, a paper that has ostentatiously avoided labelling any merely military effort as courageous – you may search their archives in vain for stories about Mark Mitchell , Stephen Bass, Britt Slabinski, John Chapman, Jason Cunningham, Louis Fonseca, Justin Lehew, Brian Chontosh, Joseph Perez, Paul Smith, Scott Montoya, Marcos Martinez, Brent Morel, Willie Copeland, Donald Hollenbaugh, Anthony Viggiani , Bradley Kasal, James Coffman, Jarrett Kraft or Jeremiah Workman – has finally found something worthy of exaltation:
An embedded photojournalist, taking pictures of the conflict. With a catch! You see, the journalist in question is embedded with Moqtada Sadr’s Mahdi army, and the picture in question is one of their snipers taking aim against US forces.
Quoth NYT “Assitant Managing Editor for Photography” Michelle McNally:
“Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.”
Allow me to differ, Ms. McNally – Incredible courage is not sniping from a slum in Najaf, where in any case the Bagdhad-based Mahdi Army were brutal and unwelcome guests. Incredible courage is trying to make life better for those living in Najaf slums – it’s building hospitals, and water treatment plants and power plants while being sniped at by unemployed and easily excitable goons, under the sway of a murderous thug.
Incredible courage could have been found on the other end of that sniper scope, young men and women a long way from home in hideous conditions trying to create a freer – say it: more liberal society than that which the Sadrist militia would prefer to impose.
“Right there” with the Mahdi army is not courageous, so much as enabling. There’s an information operations campaign ongoing – an attempt to frame the debate – in the course of which the New York Times, has, at last, chosen sides.
Which, located where they are, does I suppose take a certain kind of courage.
Forgive me if I don’t celebrate it with them though.
And the main stream media still can’t figure out why journalists are occasionally accidently killed and wounded in Iraq by U.S. Forces.
One wonders if Ms. McNally has ANY idea how much blood there is in a human body. Add the smell of cordite, voided bowels, the sickly sweet hint of early stages of decomposition; or the rare roast beef whiff of a partially-charred corpse.
Maybe NYT photos should come with a “scratch & sniff” patch on the back for that extra frisson of “authenticity” the enabling MSM lusts after.
Her advice to aspiring photographers:
“Don’t let technical issues come between you and a great picture; make it second nature. Recognize the role of aesthetics in storytelling. And shoot, shoot and shoot some more.”
Monsters, however nuanced and refined, are still just that. She buys and sells human souls.
Gifts Given and Refused…
And that’s what got to me about it. How many hundreds of thousands of veterans of wars do we have among us who know exactly what Captain J is describing?…
Ms. McNally is one of those “X-ray women” Tom Wolfe writes about in “Bonfire of the Vanities”.
The newspaper- NYT. The enemy.
B2
[...] Similar comments at LGF and Protein Wisdom. Similar comments relating this to the Ethics in America panel include Neptunus Lex and Tim Blair. [...]
CAPT Lex,
Honestly that’s one of the most digusting captions I’ve ever seen.
My hatred for the NYT is now permanent.
- recently commissioned ENS, USN.
DAMN
THIS PISSES ME OFF.
BIG TIME.
WTF WERE THEY THINKING? INCREDIBLE COURAGE… MY SWEET ASS!
You look in a porno mag. and what are you going to see? You read the NYT and what are you going to read? This sort of stuff is no longer interesting, but should merely be material of criminal prosecutions IMHO.
Can we not stop citing, referencing or otherwise calling attention to this newspaper that is really no more than than a regional rag with a limited audience? Once it was a sort of standard of excellence, but that is certainly no longer the case. I would put the WaPo and LA Times on that list, but the LA Times was always a hick paper.
On the M. McNally “Talk to the Newsroom” site (yes, I ventured in – rest assured I was wearing a full HazMat suit…) I found a question regarding photo manipulation in the digital age. Her response, in part, was: “We have a very definitive policy regarding manipulation. For news pictures it is unacceptable. Our ethics guidelines make this very clear…”
OK, so they won’t manipulate pictures on the altar of ethics, but they’ll sure as hell change, reword and redesign a STORY to fit their agenda.
Ethics & courage … my a$$.
Lex, I don’t think that McNally was referring to the incredible courage of the “sniper” but to the incredible courage of the photojournalist. Once again, journalists appropriating adjectives more appropriate to soldiers, firefighters, police officers, etc. Courage is risking physical harm for the greater good. Embedding oneself in the Mahdi Army should increase one’s likelihood of catching some 5.56mm rounds or JDAM blast (we hope), but what greater good served by taking a picture of a punk blasting away with his Dragunov? Unless, of course, the NYT was trying to stirr up patriotic fervor here in the US with a “This is the Enemy” sort of thing … but I think not. More likely to end up on some Islamist recruiting poster.
Sniper, probably not courageous. Photojournalist, not courageous. NYT, borderline treasonous.
ugggh. Yes, it’s their right to ‘report’ alternate views, and even to publish truly offensive pictures. Yes, it’s our job to protect these rights. But you know, sometimes it’s just so damn hard to do.
I wonder how she’d feel if that were her son or daughter on the other end of that sniperscope? To this day, I will gladly sacrifice my life to protect the freedom of the greatest nation in the world. But I often wonder how many citizens of the greatest nation in the world know or care.
Damn. Just…damn.
1. How did I miss the pitchfork posts. I though I read this blog every day! There was some great theroy; then it broke down into insult.
2. Why must we break into insult?
3. Does anyone read the NYT? I do, every morning they drop it on my doorstep. It is the only daily paper I can buy that has articles long enough to explain anything. If you read the paper, you would be struck by how deeply conservative it is. The New York Times is the house organ of the establishment; the notion that the gray lady is left wing is absurd.
Ima brings up a good point. Glad to see someone who actually holds a subscription to the NYT. Bravo!
I especially enjoyed the “funny”, about how conservative NYT is.
For real news, I go to http://www.thepeoplescube.com/
It is interesting and disappointing that the overwhelming anger here is leveled at the photojournalist and the NYT, rather than the object of the photo ?
It is interesting and disappointing that the overwhelming anger here is leveled at the photojournalist and the NYT, rather than the object of the photo – the sleaze-bag terrorist.
Obviously – and as been pointed out – the “incredible courage” tribute referred to the photojournalist, not the terrorist. And as is common in most organizations, hyperbole is frequent when praising one’s own. It is to be expected. Nevertheless, while perhaps not incredible, it does take some courage to embed within an unpredictable terrorist organization, within a war zone, and put yourself in the line of fire…even if it is, our own line of our fire.
It is the job of the journalist and photojournalist to report all sides and all facets of a story. That means reporting from the good, bad, and ugly angles and sides. To report the ugly, it is often necessary to get right next to the ugly – yet not become a part of that ugly. Embedding with the enemy accomplishes that basic journalistic requirement. And of course, when embedded with the enemy, the photojournalist will photograph whom else but the enemy, no? (And who knows; maybe that photojournalist gave us some good, actionable intelligence, following his embed assignment.)
No one is ever upset at a photojournalist for his photo of a convicted killer or a child molester. But have them take a picture of a terrorist, and watch the anger spew, and the messenger be attacked. I believe the reason for this is most people will look for any excuse to skewer the NY Times… and this instance was as good as any.
BTW, the courageous photojournalist in question is not a US citizen. He is a freelance photographer on contract to the NYT. His name is Joao Silva, and he is from South Africa. His experience contains a list of dangerous places – Afghanistan, Croatia, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan – so he is obviously no shrinking violet. And as merely the messenger, he shouldn’t be shot for his photo…unless he accidentally finds himself in the line of friendly fire. And that is a real risk of the job.
Yes, he embeds with the terrorists, but God forbid any “objective” journalist embed with U.S. troops… it might affect their objectivity, dotcha know?
And as I pointed out at my site, the only thing that keeps him alive (being an “infidel” as he likely is) is his propaganda value to the terrorists. So, as long as he’s taking glaour shots of the terrorists he’s in no danger of them.
#14: the REAL problem with journalists and photo journalists who embed themselves with the enemy is that they frequently see the enemy killing OUR soldiers. I don’t particularly care that this photographer is from South Africa and has a laundry list of “accomplishments” in dangerous terroritories. He’s not courageous, because in the end he can walk away whenever he wants, and still get paid a hefty sum for his work.
And while he was possibly giving “…some good, actionable intelligence…” he may also have watched this terrorist kill an American soldier.
#17 “He?
#17 “He’s not courageous, because in the end he can walk away whenever he wants…”
On the contrary, that is exactly what denotes his courage! To *voluntarily* stand in harm’s way when one may at any time flee, indicates some modicum of bravery above that of flight.
(And there are indeed many other equally lucrative and less dangerous venues for him to ply his craft.)
Moreover, witnessing and documenting evil does not necessarily make one, evil.
Unlike Sun Tzu’s wise words, this photojournalist had a choice of escape, and he still chose to remain.
” Throw your soldiers into positions whence there
is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight.” (Sun Tzu XI 23)
Well, I suppose we may just have to irreconcilably disagree. I just don’t think that it takes all that much courage to embed with a fascistic organization that clearly would like nothing better than to “get their message” out, and is obviously quite content using whomever might come along to help them do so.
And in terms of physical danger, once you accept that the people who would use him for their own ends – and the ends are an important part of the context here by the way, let us not forget that – do not intend to harm the journalist, then his only danger is from coalition counter-battery fire. Which, in the case of a sniper attack, is a sadly miniscule risk.
Actually Fliterman, I think your photojournalist fit in just fine with these terrorists. Best buds, really.
Scavengers recognize each other for who they are. Professional courtesy, and all that.
Addiction to danger, impulsive nihilism, destruction [or needing to be around destruction] just for it’s own sake. Just for the kicks.
These lost souls [and their enablers] cannot or will not live in a normal world, and will compulsively act to bring the normal world down. It’s really that simple, and most decent people recognize them for what they are.
Decent people really don’t give a d*mn how “accomplished” Silva or McNally claim to be. They know these two don’t have courage, because real courage is selfless. It’s all about their artistic egos and their selfish compulsion, the addict who cannot look away from the horror so they must help recreate it again and again, by obligingly image pimping for warlords everywhere.
Decent people know that “witnessing and documenting evil”, if it goes on long enough, inevitably means becoming part of the evil itself.
But I guess our betters call it Art.
I’m sure the NYT put some wedge in the S. African’s pocket for that photo, so I don’t give a rat’s ass about his passport. Sold pictures of thugs shooting at Americans for money. NYT: paid money for pictures of thugs shooting at Americans, to sell papers (highest possible motive we can impute). At best we can say both acts are amoral. BTW, am a NYT TimeSelect subscriber, pretty much since they started charging for it. The David Brooks columns are alone worth the price, and their foreign reporting, biased though it may be, is the most comprehensive available.
All of this brings to mind the old Mike Wallace / Peter Jennings panel about whether a journalist should warn American soldiers of an impending ambush known to the journalist in the course of his reporting. Jennings said he would, Wallace said wouldn’t. I saw Juan Williams (NPR now, I think) and P.J. O’Rourke at a live panel in 1993 at Tulane. Moderator posed the same hypo, Williams said, “No way. Not my job.” The crowd hissed. O’Rourke said something along the lines of abso-f_cking-lutely I would, to cheers.
Don’t see that hypo rolled out much anymore, but would like to see how the lead Iraq reporters for NYT, WaPo, LAT would respond.
I was right in the middle of writing my own post on this, after reading your post, Lex… when I got a call from my Mom letting me know my son fell out of a tree and hurt himself.
Somehow, after hearing his painful tears and cries, my outrage over the picture and caption just disappeared.
Amazing how your perspective on things like “being courageous” changes, when you’re holding your child and his freshly broken arm.
#14 filterman-
You are scratching hard for a compromise to define the word “courage” -
“Nevertheless, while perhaps not incredible, it does take some courage to embed within an unpredictable terrorist organization…yada yada yada”
That didn’t take courage – all it took was money. This guy may have credentials sticking two feet out of his pocket, but as far as I’m concerned, he can stick in his a**. Nobody cares about the messenger. Taking the photo was not “journalistic” – it was simply “opportunistic”. And the NYT’s amplification of their own self serving crap is treasonous – not the terrorist enabler taking the photo. Silva’s just looking for money. I don’t care about “shooting the messenger” – he’s not worth a bullet. The NYT is not a messenger here. They have sided – decidely – with the enemy. You may have also.
“No one is ever upset at a photojournalist for his photo of a convicted killer or a child molester.”
Are you sure this part of your comment was supposed to be in this post? What the hell do convicted killers and child molesters have to do with terrorists in wartime? Try to stay on topic.
#12…The position you assign to the NYT on the liberal/conservative scale, speaks quite loudly about your own position. Only one with a far-left perspective would label the NYT conservative.
“No one is ever upset at a photojournalist for his photo of a convicted killer or a child molester. But have them take a picture of a terrorist, and watch the anger spew, and the messenger be attacked.”
The convicted killer or child molestor are not being photographed in the act of killing an American.
“Moreover, witnessing and documenting evil does not necessarily make one, evil.”
Failing to warn the American being targeted is evil. Pure and simple. Death to an American for a Pulitzer? Some major dinero? How’s that for a novel concept eh? Piss on the families and loved ones of the American that could’ve been saved, it’s the “courage” to take the photo that counts!
I call BS Filterman. Adamantly and with full emotion. You see, I’ve watched the videos of your heroes, the muj. I’ve watched young men that I knew and loved take sniper rounds in the head. I’ve watched the responses and professionalism of my son and his squad in their reactions. Yet here you tell me the act of filming a terrorist is somehow noble and “courageous”. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least to see you tout our young Marines as “scared” and “firing wildy” after coming under sniper attack, even when the muj’s own snuff films disprove this and uphold the total professionalism of 20 something Marines. You sir are so ludicrous as to defy logic. What a twisted sense of morality it must take to look upon something like that and reap joy and wonderment from the sheer “courage” displayed. Bah! What a waste of good air! The definition of “courage” would be the unbelievably professional response on the OTHER end of that sniper rifle. Something I’m sure you would find as nothing.
Just who’s side are you on anyway? I’m sure I already know the answer to that one! And no, there is no compromise on this issue. Period!
#17 [says] ?
#17 [says] “He’s not courageous, because in the end he can walk away whenever he wants…”
fliterman Says:
“On the contrary, that is exactly what denotes his courage! To *voluntarily* stand in harm’s way when one may at any time flee, indicates some modicum of bravery above that of flight.
(And there are indeed many other equally lucrative and less dangerous venues for him to ply his craft.)”
Fliterman,
How true is your definition!
Now let us compare the courage that you admire so much with the courage of the 20 yr old PFC on the other end of that sniper rifle, who is holding his fire until he sees a valid target; who would rather be in Philadelphia, Los Angeles, or his Mom’s or girlfriend’s backyard, but who volunteered to fight for his country, whether the cause be crystal clear or murky as the depths; to place his Life on the altar of Freedom at the behest of his superiors and the citizens of the United States and wait for the High Priest of Islamic fascism and the Goddess of Chance to swing the knife or the shield.
To fight the cowardly unseen enemy, even when he wants to run and hide from their brutal, murderous, and evil acts, but his Love for his shipmates and his Courage in the face of that Evil compels him to stay. He holds his position under intense fire, or through exquisite uncertainty, to draw out his unseen enemy, possibly with his own life or wellbeing as the cost.
He holds on when there is nothing left within him, except his pride in his unit, his great personal courage, and his dedication to protecting the lives of Americans everywhere for the pay only equivalent to that received by his friends back home working a full shift at McDonalds. He holds his friends in his arms as their Life ebbs away while he grieves because of his imagined hesitation or perceived failure to act, to do more than is humanly possible, to save their lives.
And all while he works 16 hours in the Iraqi sun and freezing night, among some people who hate him because he is better than they are and better than they can ever hope to be.
He is a Man who will stand up to thugs and tyrants to defend people he doesn’t even know, American and Iraqi, and be killed or wounded without their thanks or acknowledgement; to be forgotten by those who toil and play and sleep at home, completely safe in their beds from all except an “Act of God” level insurance covered event.
And he will have more raw Courage in his little finger than any journalist who faces only the tiniest threat from insurgents as long as the journalist says and does things to help their cause, or the miniscule threat from the American military because the journalist is carrying a camera and is thus a noncombatant.
Courage, indeed. I know the difference and recognize who has it.
In spades.
Subsunk
?
“No one is ever upset at a photojournalist for his photo of a convicted killer or a child molester. But have them take a picture of a terrorist, and watch the anger spew, and the messenger be attacked.”
Just for the record, if a photographer took a picture of a child molester in the act of molesting a child and did nothing to prevent it, I would be big-time upset. In this case, the photographer did take a picture of a murder about to murder someone, and I am upset. This photographer is a sicko. It takes courage to stop someone from doing evil – not watch him do it.
[...] at LGF and Protein Wisdom. Similar comments relating this to the Ethics in America panel include Neptunus Lex and Tim Blair. Grim at MilBlogs http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2006/07/16/#006039 the [...]