Defying the wishes of a dead Marine’s father and the Secretary of Defense, the AP published photographs of the young mans last moments:
The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.
The photo shows Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Maine, who was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, according to The AP…
(Gates wrote) “I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
As for me, I think young LCpl Bernard and his family had given enough. But, you know: There was money to be made from their suffering and sacrifice.
Probably a no-brainer, for the AP.
Shithouse effort by the AP on this one, just shithouse….
Money, and it served the AP political agenda.
The antipathy and loathing of the men and women of the Armed Forces for the media by is magnified by actions like this. That particular imbed would be advised not to show up again in the vicinity of that Marine unit. That bottom feeder wouldn’t be permitted anywhere near any of my units. Nor would anyone else from AP. It is called taking care of your soldiers’ welfare and their families.
I read part of the self-serving hypocritical response from the sh!tbag in charge at AP. Gates needs to yank every credential from every “reporter” and send them packing. This was as morally reprehensible as I can possibly imagine. My heart goes out to the family of the fallen warrior, and pray the Lord eases their pain. I also hope they get a damn good lawyer and give those asses at AP a good reason to think twice about doing something as amoral like this again.
John Bernard reiterated his viewpoint in a telephone call to the AP on Wednesday. ‘We understand Mr. Bernard’s anguish. We believe this image is part of the history of this war.
The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice,’ said AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski.
These assholes quite clearly don’t understand the anguish of this young hero’s family. They only understand their own pernicious sense of self-righteousness and their firm belief that they – and only they – know what is good for the country and this man’s family.
I’d use other words to describe them – but they would be redundant in the same sentence as journalist. And I do try to be a lady sometimes.
God Bless you Kris for your civility. Ditto your position on the AP. They have exposed themselves for what they are: bottom feeders of the worst order. How about some other descriptives: hag fish, maggot, loathsome, despicable, scurrilous, repugnant, scab, shameless, vile, contemptible, execrable and odious, just to mention a few.
Per Rev. Wright: Goddam Associated Press.
Kris … I agree with you 110% about this. When I read the story in The Houston Chronicle this morning, I wept for the family and for that brave young man. I think the mainstream media’s unrelenting hostility to the military arises from a collective guilt, that they themselves are not brave enough or strong enough to do the deeds and ‘stay the course’ as our military heroes do.
Pernicious envy is an ugly thing.
Marianne
Pretty much despicable. That is being civilized as it gets. Secretary Gates should bar the AP from the Pentagon, including the parking lot. I’m with Byron on yanking their credentials and throwing them in jail for trespassing on Federal Property.
As for the family, the AP’s CEO should personally apologize to them on national TV and then pull the photo from all outlets.
AP? MSM? Typical…
The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.
My guess would be that judgement and common decency are not required subjects in journalism school.
We understand Mr. Bernard’s anguish.
How presumptive. Do you really, sir? Have you had someone close to you killed serving their country and then seen a picture of their last moments on earth splashed across the media AFTER HAVING ASKED THAT IT NOT BE DONE?
No? Then on what basis do you say you understand Mr. Bernard’s anguish?
RonF/
I’ll tell you on what basis, ‘ole buddy. It’s the EXACT SAME mentality I related here once before when Phil Graham was still a Senator (R-TX) and he was holding hearings on govt-run child-care, and one witness defending the program against the charge that no-one can take care of children like the child’s own parents or relatives said: “I can assure you that I love your children as human beings just as much as you do, Sen. Graham.” To which old Phil, to his ever-lasting glory, replied: “Oh yeah? Then what are their names?”
It’s the brazen effrontery of it all, RonF.
They REALLY DO think they know as well as you how you feel, being superior beings and all, more highly educated and having such good intentions–that stuff. And besides, some things are just more important in the greater scheme of things are they not? What is one parent’s anguish as compared to the greater good if the war-machine can be stopped? Isn’t that what the great V.I. Lenin said? “To make an omelet…
Tree, rope, journalist. Some assembly required.
After all the complaints broadcast on every MSM outlet alleging that the DoD is rating or grading embedded reporters, an AP embedded photographer does this. And AP publishes it. Notice the double standard anyone?
War is not a half hour news broadcast or dramatic CSI program where the good guys always win. People need to see what is really happening to our troups. Sad as this is, if it were my son or daughter, I’d want the world to see how he was killed, in a senseless brutal war.
Press suppression is bad, even if it seems wrong and tasteless. Think about it.
Nice of you to take on Bernard Sr.’s duties to protect the honor of his son. I’m sure he’ll be relieved. Think about it.
“In a senseless brutal war”… Um ok, once you’re done with the platitudes, maybe you’ll understand the ire those who have served, put their lives on the line, sacrificed their loved ones, and do not want the death of that warrior hero to become the banner of a philosophy supported by the press agency and not a position taken by the subject of the photo or the family members thereof.
War is brutal… congratulations on that conclusion. Ask, 99% of those visiting Lex’s pages if they disagree with that. As for senseless… outside of the philosophical debate, if any war makes sense, I would like you to explain how the War in Afghanistan does not have cause, purpose, and a desired outcome, which cannot be said about many other wars fought in our history.
I’m curious, if your loved one were say, grossly disfigured in a warehouse fire, and subsequently died from the wounds, would you celebrate the photography and publishing of the image because the editor of the publication thought fire was brutal? Hot? Evil? The fault of GHWB? Senseless?
There are other ways to prove your point, than to go against the expressed disapproval of a loved one!
In the long run, who’s hurt if you do not publish this image? Yet still publish the article?
It was not necessary, other than to satisfy the voyeuristic nature of narcissistic ideologues.
John C./
But it’s the “other than” bit that’s the all-important overriding factor here, isn’t it? Bastards….
Indeed it is… to them.
John C./
But my point is that it’s worse than that. It’s just not that it is to them–their ideological blinders are such that they HONESTLY BELIEVE that that’s the way WE should see it too–and that it’s their sworn duty to make us see the error of our ways. Or as a Brit who calls himself “PersonFromPorlock” once said of such a mind-set (which applies with even greater force to Obama and his minions): “They are determined to march us to redemption at bayonet point.”
Mr. Carmichael,
I served 20 years in the U.S. Navy, so don’t lecture me about what it is like to serve. I have lost a dear friend in Iraq, so don’t lecture me about sacrifices. I will never follow the path of least resistance, and be led by arm chair commanders who get their self rightous views from Fox news, like yourself.
Reality sucks, just like my name says. War is not a 5 minute segment on the evening news, real people are getting killed, and it’s not a dramatic scene with nice closing credits and a hero’s goodbye. It’s blood and guts, and there are no winners.
Thank you for that textbook display of preening certitude and assumed moral superiority.
If you put twenty years in, there were times you followed the path of least resistance, or you would not have made it to twenty. Assuming you served.
Your friend (dear or otherwise) made the sacrifice, not you.
Would say Regards, but I wouldn’t mean it.
Then when one of your loved ones dies you can give the AP permission to run the photo, and let other families decide that question for themselves.
You know, what really burns me about all of this, is that this is the same AP that refused to show Israeli casualties, but is quick to pimp out Arab casualties in staged settings, engineered by Hamads/PLO/Hezzbollah supporters hired as stringers.
This same AP, so quick to grasp the “Public Needs To Know” meme is the one that refuses to show the images from Set 11th because, you know, they might “upset” some folks.
The AP lost, quite awhile ago, whatever veneer of respectability it had left when it dropped any pretense to it’s bias against all things American.
I would hope that the Pentagon would simply strip all of the press credentials from anyone associated with the AP, and refuse to provide any support or protection for them from now on.
It used to be a joke that they were the “Associated (with terrorists) Press”. No one is laughing about that anymore.
AW1Tim/
Today Michelle Malkin reminds us this is the same AP which refused to print the Mohammad Cartoons because they were too “offensive” to the “sensibilities” of the Muslim community.
“reality,” we have thought about it. And -in case you haven’t followed this comment thread very closely- we are more than aware of what’s “really” happening to the boots on the ground. Try following Blackfive’s “Someone you should know,” posts, or John of Argghhh!!!’s “Medal of Honor” moments, or his “Fiddler’s Green” posts. Oh, yes, we well know, indeed.
“reality”‘s slant was revealed in his “senseless brutal war” crack. I would like to see even one reference to a “worthwhile humane” war…
Just in case “reality”‘s relatives are around, I’ll cite General Sherman: War is cruelty.
Irony alert: while double-checking my Sherman quote, I found another one: Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.
‘Nuff said…
The monster in question is Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson. Along on the mission were correspondent Alfred de Montesquiou and AP Television News cameraman Ken Teh. You might want to mark those bylines… no doubt the AP will expect them to win awards, as previous AP luminaries did for participating in the murders of Iraqi election workers and an Italian civilian hostage.
See:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26763.html
The second page of the story containes some of Jacobson’s stream-of-consciousness journal. It shows a remarkable self-absorbed narcissism even for a journalist; she follows a detailed-to-the-point-of-prurience description of Bernard’s loss of consciousness — as he exsanguinates — with this: “It was a big BOOM, and I just lay my face in the dirt and everything went quiet for about 10 seconds. It was just silence like I was wearing noise-canceling headphones or like world peace had finally descended upon the earth. The air was white with sand. Then I started feeling the rubble fall down around me. And I thought, `Is this what it’s like to be shell shocked? Am I all still here? I can’t believe I am’. …. I was fine and surprised at how calm I was….”
She’s positively wonderful: just ask her. Actually, don’t bother: she’ll tell you soon enough.
AP Television News is the outfit where the cameraman and producer urged Iraqi kids to mutilate contractor bodies in Fallujah in 2004 (you can hear them on the b-roll, in Arabic). People like that and Jacobson are the sort of thing that the AP attracts. Get the gore, whatever it takes, even if you have to instigate it yourself; and laugh about it afterwards.
An honest question: How do you think the media should go about covering combat? The milblogs I read often have complaints about how the media doesn’t show the hard and deadly job done by the troops.
I read de Montesquiou and Jacobson’s story, and look at Jacobson’s pictures and think that this is what the public should be reading — work that gives an unflinching picture of the sacrifices made on our behalf by those in uniform. And for doing so, they are damned.
How much of the anger here is because it’s the evil, liberal AP doing it, as opposed to someone who you feel is more in your ideological corner? From where I stand, it seems like any action from MSM media organization is going to be the wrong one.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with the story. The picture is the issue, especially when the family begged them not to publish it.
Tim,
I understand your honest questioning here. The basic of it is not the reflection of ourselves in trying times, it is more the philosophical premise of where to draw the line. Perhaps many in the military (or partisan supporters of the military) would not have been so offended if the family of Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, had not so explicitly requested that their dying son’s image NOT be published.
It is a question of respect, and taste, and decency. Not voyeuristic necessity. Or more than likely, an editor’s desire to sell papers (web advertising).
I’m more and more convinced that in journalistic circles, “scruples” is viewed as a disease that must be inoculated against!
Tim, since you’ve asked honestly: It wouldn’t matter whose ideological corner I was in, although I will say that I don’t believe that anyone in “my corner” – I think you might find that harder to pin down than you’d suspect – would have done such a thing. The man was dying, all he ever had or ever would have was being taken from him. The family that nurtured him from the time he’d been a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and who saw him off to fight our country’s wars in hope and fear was in mourning. It can’t have been that much to ask to preserve the least shreds of their dignity.
We’ve all seen the effects of war, some of us in photographs, others more closely. To pretend that it’s necessary to splash a young man’s face as he gasps out his last breaths across the nation’s newspapers is not journalism. It’s pornography.
ABSOLUTELY LEX!!! Pornography
Color me cynical, but when a person starts out with “An honest question..”, I rather doubt it actually is.
I’ll be the guy to wade into the what most would say is crazy territory with my answer: The media should cover wars as objectively as possible (i.e. don’t flat out lie), but with a definite bias towards, if nothing else, the morale of the man on the ground doing the fighting and as if, as a component of our society, they actually have a vested interest in winning. Clausewitz goes in depth on the necessary trinity of government, military and population and how all three need to be “on the same page” in order to win a war at the strategic level, and that one of the best ways to defeat an enemy is to break this iron triangle. You’d be a fool if you don’t think that driving public opinion against the war is a major element of radical Islam’s asymmetric strategy, and that it hasn’t already been successfully employed against us in the past. Killing the enemy should get above the fold coverage, be painted in a positive light, and have more space dedicated to it. Allied losses should be behind/after stories of victories and progress, be somber and respectful in tone (which this example is clearly beyond the pale on), be concise, lavish praise and heroism on the deceased, and end with a reminder that death and hardship are a necessary price for a worthy cause and that those of us sacrificing less than the ultimate should be cognizant of how minor our personal discomforts (if any) have been. While full disclosure is not necessary, honesty is and you *can* go too far with rah-rah-rah bias of course. But it’s not hard to compare the coverage of WWII (which was heavily censored for well laid out and generally understood reasons) with Mr. Cronkite shamelessly ripping defeat from the jaws of victory and handing the decimated VC a stunning success in the homes of American voters that they never won on the battlefield. In this type of war how it is covered in the media is just as important as how it is fought on the ground, and the massive sacrifices of our forces risking their lives in a hot, nasty corner of the world sadly can be jeopardized by the lazy penstroke of journalist safe and comfortable in his office.
Oh, lex … I so agree. It is pornography, from minds so convinced of their own virtue and wonderfulness that they have to tell us ignorant others how to react. As an observer of news reports of every war since World War II, I see this as an arrogant, ignorant display of the growing inability of the so-called press to tell an honest, compassionate story *as one equal to another.* It’s condescension in its most poisonous form.
The great war correspondents of the past, like Ernie Pyle and Edward Murrow would be appalled. They assumed that we were their equals in compassion and understanding. These people don’t.
Marianne
The great war correspondents of the past, like Ernie Pyle and Edward Murrow would be appalled. They assumed that we were their equals in compassion and understanding. These people don’t.
Oh wow… that’s brilliant, Marianne. I alluded to that in a post I did on this (saying that those who would argue that a picture is needed to help us see “the truth” of war are actually lacking in empathy and humanity), but didn’t I see the flip side of it (what they think of us) that you express so well. I’m going to quote you over on my blog, if you don’t mind.
And today’s Ernie Pyle, or at least IMO the closest we have to EP, is Michael Yon. Yon, like Pyle, would never dishonor the G.I. or their family.
Taking nothing away from Mr. Murrow, but I am not aware that he ever did any combat reporting. From a war zone (primarily London), but not on the front lines IIRC.
I agree that this photo should probably not have been published. I agree that the parent’s wishes should have been heeded.
But if the photo is “pornography”, then war is also pornography.
Further, I do not agree that , “we’ve all seen the effects of war.”
Indeed, the horrors of war have long been glossed over by most all warring nations in history. Civilian populations have long been shielded, less their sensitivities are offended and their support for war wanes.
For those who have not witnessed personally the horrors, there are many images of the horror and effects of war available…ones that most people have never seen and do not even want to see. But should they see? Or keep a blind eye toward a most vital and important subject?
I could link to some terrible horrors of war images, but I will stick only with this more ‘tame’ one.
I have to disagree, Fliterman. The true horror of war is not the suffering of the dying/dead, but of those who live on–both on the battlefield and the homefront. The effects of war much more long-lasting than mangled bodies.
And a comment about the image you linked, Fliterman. The difference between that and the photo in question is that no individual is identifiable in the linked image.
I’m probably wading into dangerous waters here (the subject of porn), but to say that “war is porn” is too reductive. I think that part of what makes porn “porn” is that the act is separated from its “natural” context of two people of complexity and depth who desire and enjoy each other. In a sense, that picture is just as reductive because by itself it is separate from the complexity and depth of the human being it is portraying–it doesn’t show how/wy he came to be in that position, his motivations, his personal identity, etc. The context of the photo’s publication with a piece of journalism that told the Marine’s story mitigates it somewhat, in that context, but the picture will live on and soon be separated from that context to become nothing more than porn again.
Perhaps the same thing could be said of any picture (reductive). But that’s all the more reason not to take someone’s last moments on earth and freeze them in a picture that trivializes and “porn-ifies” their life. And the fact that the reporter stated that picture was about her agenda makes it even more egregious.
My problem lies in the decision to publish the photo, particularly after the family explicitly asked them not to. Journalists have taken photos of dead and dying military personnel since cameras first went to war; if they shirked from taking those pictures they wouldn’t be doing their duty as journalists to record all the events they witness for posterity. The story the pictures were a part of even addressed this, with the photographer discussing how the Marine squad she was with reacted when she showed them all the pictures she had taken (they didn’t string her up from the nearest tree). There’s a time and a place for everything…that was the proper time and place for that picture to be shown. The pages of newspapers nationwide…not so much. I agree with Tim that this story and pictures are exactly what we should all be reading…right up until the family requests that a picture of their dying loved one not be shown.
As a daughter of a retired Airforce Officer, I have great respect and was proud of my father service for our country. The AP states they publish though pictures to show what’s going on over there. We all know what’s going on over there,we know what’s war is about. The ugliness of it we see on internet,newspaper and TV.It was not necessary to publish those pictures,I have not seen nor will I. I will respect the wishes of the family and not view them. There’s not one American who has not been affected by this conflict.All those soldiers are my sister,brothers,sons, and daughters. When one losses a love one we all lose,for who knows if that person was not our next great inventor,teacher,doctor,peace diplomat or leader. Who will be next target of the press,will they show a cop being shot in the face,how about a woman being raped. They did not respect the wishes of a family for their son, why would they respect anything else.
Where are the great and respected newspeople? They are all dead now.
The media has been carefully avoiding showing the face of Jaycee Dugan (the kidnapped
woman recently recovered from her captor), to protect her privacy, so it can be responsible–but for a “respected” news agency to explicitly disregard the family’s wishes is disgusting, and yes, politically motivated.
As the murder of the young Iranian woman captured on the camera phone and broadcast globally graphically demonstrated, we have seen recently both the power of these kinds of images in mobilizing political action as well as the way that the new media and its democratization has stripped all of us of privacy at the worst of moments. I worry that the fear of being scooped by a cell phone or digital camera in the hands of any citizen is going to cause news organizations to engage in more of this kind of dehumanizing documentation rather than less.
Tim/
And aside from the moral and ethical dimensions of it all (which most here are exploring/emphasizing) lets admit of the politics of it all also in terms of affecting the national will. We were two years into the war in WWII before the Govt would allow a picture of a dead GI to be shown so worried was the Govt about such things degrading the commitment of the American people to sustain the fight–and this was the “good war” that everyone supported, right?
Almost all historians, journalists, pundits, etc., are in general agreement that one of the driving factors with public discontent with the war effort in Vietnam was seeing it on TV in their living rooms every night. Let’s not kid ourselves. Journalists are WELL AWARE of the power of visual imagery. And most in the media–top management to bottom–are to be found on the left side of the political spectrum in their sympathies by almost every metric ever devised to measure such things. This decision is all of a seamless anti-war picture–it reeks of antipathy towards all things military and an attempt to turn people’s stomachs and suck the wind out of the sails of any support that exists for our efforts in Af, despite the crocodile tears and hand-wringing disingenuous pronouncements now being proffered in defense of this reprehensible decision.
And the decision to publish has the added merit of being good for a fast disappearing financial bottom-line. Never anything to sneeze about. We only have look no further than the example of AT&T keeping the trans-Atlantic telephone cables open to Germany in WWII until FDR threatened to publicly expose them if they didn’t shut them down to see the pull profits have on corporate decision-making.
They hit the daily-double on this deal: Shove the knife in the military’s gut, twist it, and make a profit in doing so to boot.
I think that Tim raises some good points but let’s start with why the policy is what it is. TPTB recognize that photo journalism of the battlefield can be a second front in the prosecution of war by other means and they acted early to ban or strongly limit its application against the American Center of Gravity in these wars. I am surprised and grateful that it has held as long as it has. I never expected it to last. Why wouldn’t it last?
Let’s look at those embedded journalists and photographers. These are men and women raised on the stories of their heroes. Some of those were journalists like Ernie Pyle and Joe Galloway. Others, not so much. I think all of these journalists thoroughly understand the power of the image or the images drawn from the proper words. Look at the “sacrifices” they make to get those images and stories. Some of them die or are wounded in that pursuit and all of them are weighed down by the body armor, professional equipment, water, etc plus they endure the crushing heat. Such people are only doing what they are doing because they crave the fame and fortune that comes with capturing the reality of war. What can I say? There is merit in their attempts.
None of us want that reality to be used again by the progressives to deny those that fight the fruits of their victory. We really don’t want another Vietnam which saw the forces in the field win every battle during Tet only to have the idiot press portray it as a loss. We in the military learned our lesson but it was only the most foolish optimism to think that the press learned anything from that engagement.
All these young journalists thirst to be the new Cronkite and speak truth to power and the only option they have is to make sure that their images, both word and photographic, damage the U.S. military and the government. There’s simply no way around this fundamental fracture.
I never believed that the artificial “cooperative” constraints on journalists on the battlefield as embeds would last. It is unnatural and doomed to failure since it is always driven by the lowest common denominator. If we don’t want the reality of war to get out we need to shoot journalists, not embed them and hope that they’ll prove honorable and faithful to their word. Let’s all be honest. What are the iconographic photos of the Civil War? Of Shiloh or Bloody Lane? What of WWI? When we think of WWII and Normandy what are the pictures that our memories call to the forefront of our mind’s eye? What of Tarawa and Iwo Jima? War IS all about death and destruction.
I happen to think that the image is 100% owned by the person that pushes the shutter button. In the latest 2 wars decency has prevailed to some extent on the immediate publication but if the men who died on that foreign battlefield are captured on film then those that captured their deaths were there beside them and earned the right to dispose of that film as they see fit.
War involves great sacrifice and I believe it beneficial to those that would go to war to know that it is something more than reaching a clearing at the end of the path.
My 2 cents. Your mileage may vary.
Yes there are a lot of photos of death associated with war. But I think it’s salient to point out that (at least up until recently, if not still so) the most recognized photo in the entire world was the Marines raising the flag on Mt. Suribachi taken by Joe Rosenthal.
Journalists are not on the battlefield with them, journalists are on the battlefield under the protection of “Them”. As such, those who captured their deaths earned nothing, they carried a camera, not a weapon. Show me a journalist who shields a squad from a grenade by throwing his body on it, then you will have a journalist who is on the battlefield. You can rest assured that after he takes cover, he might then try to take a picture.
People can take a trip to Arlington, it is open to the public. That is one sure way to know that war is something more than reaching a clearing at the end of the path.
McManuels at 7:30 – Ask and ye shall receive. The reporter wound up losing a hand tossing the grenade away.
Also, I don’t agree with the AP’s decision to publish the photo, but it is not the embedded photographer’s decision to do so. If she’s an AP staffer (which I’m guessing she is), she has no ultimate control over the distribution of the images.
She was there to tell the story, in pictures, of the marines she was embedded with. Her pictures tell that story, and it shows us the danger, violence and the extreme and ultimate sacrifice the marines (and all the other military members there, by extension) are making on our behalf.
The true irony here is that Lance Cpl. Bernard would probably find it his duty to defend the right of the AP to do just what they did regardless of how his family felt about it. That is his duty, to defend the rights of others. How sad that the AP would exercise this right, one that American Servicemen and Women are willing to give their lives to preserve. Unfortunately the media often does what it wants simply because they can. Personally, I think it is time for DOD to remove all the embedded AP media from the front lines. I don’t favor censoring them, simply allow them to gather the news on their own without the protection of our troops. Perhaps the next photo splashed across the front page will be a dying reporter. I wonder if the editors will honor the wishes of his or her family.
I was under the impression that the embed agreement prohibited the publication of photos of dead, dying, or seriously wounded servicemen. I was mistaken. Them embed agreement merely instructs PAOs to remind embeds of the sensitivity of reporting casualties before notification of NOK.
Having said that, I’ve written to Secretary Gates, my Congressman, and my Senators asking them to pull the accreditation of all AP personnel in the DoD.
XBradTC,
I concur. Don’t think that it will happen though.
This picture is disgusting in that L/CPL Bernard’s face and his last conscious moments are clearly shown. If AP wanted to publish the picture with the face blurred and name withheld it would be borderline printable and borderline news worthy. What about this is newsworthy other than L/CPL Bernard’s parents get to see how their child died? Clearly nothing about this story or picture is newsworthy other than perhaps a grab for a Pulitzer which is disgusting. Joe Rosenthal (an AP photographer) received his Pulitzer by taking anonymous Marines (one sailor) working together not exploiting the dead. Even the pictures of the dead Marines at Tarawa didn’t show any faces and was a poignant reminder of the sacrifice of war without exploiting any Marine and causing anymore trauma to families. This blatant grab for a Pulitzer and political statement is a torture no parents should ever endure. Whatever journalistic reputation the AP had is lost now the AP shares the same reputation as the National Inquirer. It’s a sad day for the First Amendment, journalism and a horrible day for anyone who loved L/Cpl Bernard.
uconn941/
The National Inquirer? Au contraire, THEY have standards. THEY were right about John Edwards and the MSM either WRONG or MIA, n’cest pas? A sad day for society when the Inquirer is seen to have become more reliable and believable than the MSM.
We need to see the horror of this war. So that we can leave as soon as possible. Just like Vietnam, the blood cost does not justify staying and shedding more blood, that is insane. It is costing us the blood and treasure of our nation, and it is time to leave these barbarians to themselves.
I stand corrected about the Inquirer. It is a sad day when a supermarket tabloid is more reliable and shows more decorum than the Associated Press.
After all is said about the First Amend., we need to know the truth, etc., etc., etc. I see only one valid point: Lance Cpl Bernard’s family asked that the picture not be published. Period. End of story. Respect for those whom have fallen and their families. It’s just that simple.
“Disgusting”, you say about a young Marine’s death on the battlefield.
You make me very angry.
Curtis/
I think you mis-read uconn941, look again,
He’s saying HE is disgusted over the way it was handled, not the fact of the death.
VX,
No. I think I read him correctly. He is disgusted that a young Marine who gave all of his tomorrows away was captured in the act, on film and that film was published. Uconn seems to find absolutely nothing “newsworthy” about this sacrifice and appeals to us to damn the AP for their ?
I’ve enjoyed 26 years with the Navy. My dad retired after 27 with the Army. His dad retired after 30 with the Army.
SLA Marshall and David Hackworth wrote the most intense visual imagery of a time spent with my dad’s battery in Vietnam. Our host can paint pictures with words anytime he wants to. Michael Kelly was good at that too. As I said in my original post, TPTB most fear the images of the war for very good reasons. Those that can conjure them up on the national stage are engaging the US on the second front in the GWOT and know it. They know exactly what that impact is on the US center of gravity. The foolish think that they can stop it and wish it away. Others have read the Constitution.
Curtis I find AP’s releasing of the pictures of Lance Corporal Bernard’s death disgusting not his service and sacrifice. I am grateful that he volunteered to serve our country and feel we lost a fine young man. I find the AP’s handling of releasing this picture distasteful because of many different reasons, first the amount of disrespect shown to the family by not showing the common decency to follow the parents requests not to show their sons last moments, the fact they hide behind that they have decided that their careers outweigh the long lasting affects tat releasing these pictures will have on Lance Corporal Bernard’s family and friends. That’s what I find disgusting the fact that the AP will use this young man’s death not only to further a political motive but to further someone’s career. I’m disgusted at the Associated Press over their choice for causing pain and being the news rather than common decency to help a family grieving for their child.
Uconn,
War is what it is. Nobody at all benefits by trying to hide what it is. U.S. policy with regard to embedded journalists tried very very hard to shield the U.S. from that reality. Nevertheless, that policy was not put in place in order to shield the parents of the soldiers from the reality of war. I supported/support the policy but I never thought that it would survive as long as it has. A young man was killed while he was performing his duty and that image was caught on film and published/broadcast. For me, that image is no less or more graphic than Challenger exploding after launch. I flat out refuse to believe that either image is some sort of pornography.
I despise the AP and have for decades because they are unable to articulate the “who, what, when, where, why” which is the sine qua non of real journalism. Since I’ve viewed them as despicable for so long, why would I have ever expected them to honor their word? …and if I could see that day coming, why couldn’t the F2C2 or PAO in Kabul?
I was talking to Knucklehead 2 this AM. He is begging to be on the first wave from his BN to deploy to Absurdistan, and it looks like he has succeeded. Probably will go in March. So, for me, this has gone from the abstract, the place of debating points, to the very real. Were I in the same position as the Bernard family, my rage would be palpable. And there wouldn’t be any words, any reasoning, that would convince me that denying my legitimate request for privacy, was anything other than pornography. That my son had starred, without his agreement, in AP’s snuff flick – done for the titillation of the audience, and the enrichment of the producers.
Shame on you that defend it. Share your abstract thoughts, your moral justifications, with 1st Sgt Bernard. I’m sure he understands.
There was the same furor over the pictures of the dead laying on the beach at Tarawa, or the steaming mess of SE Asia, or some other god forsaken atoll. The point is, the public needs to know what is going on, for better or worse. The AP doesn’t control where or how a newspapaer runs one of their pictures. It could be front page or stuck on the 4th page of the sports section. I fully support a transparent view of war, all the better so that hopefully they are less likely to happen.
You, support that, over the objections of a grieving father..then why don’t you go raise your hand, and swear to defend the constitution like the rest of us have..how can you possibly defend that action..
…all the better so that hopefully they are less likely to happen.
Let’s see. Afghanistan. Too bad the AP couldn’t have shown the violent Jihadis of Al Queda a photograph showing them the horrors of war. They never would have started the war in Afghanistan if they’d known the horrors of war.
Is the air pretty thin up there on that high horse? AP was just after a sensational photo. It has no redeeming social value. Lex is right. It’s pornography. But unlike porn made in The Valley, the star of this bit didn’t have a choice about its production.
If you truly believe what you’ve written, then you are too far lost to ever understand why we object.
The AP didn’t have to PUBLISH this image to begin with. It sent it out to it’s subscribers because the AP wants to undermine what this nation is doing. The AP sent this image out OVER the objections of the family. They said that people had some right to know. Yet the same AP refused to publish the Mohamed cartoons, or images of Israeli Dead, ir to even send out the images of the 9-11 destruction for fear of upsetting the “survivors” or of “inflaming public opinion”.
What a crock of pure bullsh!t.
Mathew, it’s obvious you are a graduate of the American Public School System. Your naivete, coupled with your throw away line “the steaming mess of SE Asia” proves you haven’t a clue about what happened in Vietnam, beyond what Oliver Stone and the leftists have offered.
Go away and read a bit, then come back.
Matthew, you miss a point. The beaches at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Dunkirk, Omaha Beach, need I mention the bodies stacked like cordwood and thousand-yard-stares from the Marines left in the Pusan Perimeter or the Battle of Hue? There’s video of all of it, you’d be hard-pressed to find an identifiable face in any of it, nor were there close-ups released later after confirmation the wounded had died.
The difference is one was general, we saw the bodies and we saw the carnage but it was general. This was happening to Our Boys. In the case of Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, it wasn’t general. This was happening to Our Boy. The AP and the reporter made sure of that. Against the wishes of the family.
Perhaps another way to look at it, let’s look at the Normandy landings. If you watch “Saving Private Ryan” you’re immediately slapped with the horrors of a beach landing. If you watch “The Longest Day” you get the same sense of what happened, but it’s not gratuitous. It’s less personal. When one watches film of the Iwo Jima landings likewise what came from the war shows men dying, but they’re not Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard specifically, they’re generic Marines. The nation is not made to share in the loss of a specific family, and the family is not made to share with the nation its loss against its wishes.
It is good that we should see what’s happening, in a general sense. What happens to me and mine is a private affair. If I want you to know about it, I’ll tell you.
– Max
By all means, let us restrict war and its consequences to “generic marines.”
We wouldn’t want some mother’s son hurt in the process. Our thanks and apologies to Mrs. Generic.
I guess about 20 or so years ago, I remember a particularly powerful photograph from AP, I think. The picture was of a girl starving to death, curled up on the ground w/ a vulture standing next to her. The photographer, rightfully won the Pullitzer for that powerful piece. He also offed himself a bit later as it was found out that after taking the picture, he did not take the girl to the aid station down the road. The lack of compassion has been there for awhile. If these “journalists” have equally painful nights sleeping, then I would not shed a tear. The MSM’s liberal bias has pathetically become a weapon of the enemy.
If only the “so-called” journalists, reporters and photographers would put as much effort into covering, or more accurately exposing, our inept, venal, corrupt politicians, our country would be better served.
Not as sexy I guess, and they would stop being invited to all those cool events the pols have at our expense (literally).
I was at a roast of Stephen Colbert for a fund raiser of Spina Bifida in January, I think. Dana Perino was one of the roasters and said as she pointed out their table, “I see the MSNBC gang is here. So good of Obama to give you the night off.”
Classic.
LT B/
BTW, what was the visible reaction of the MSNBC types?
Everybody laughed, even Rahm Emmanuel who was also one of the roasters. Strangely enough, the funniest of everybody was Sen Hatch. Who’d a thunk it? I couldn’t see the MSNBC table, but I’m quite certain there were no tingles up the legs over there when she spoke to them.
This is a democracy. We need to see the consequences of our policies. That’s the job of a good media. Sorry that the family had their feelings hurt, but there are more important things at stake.
Do we really need to see LCpl Bernard bleed to death to understand people die in war and that it’s bad? The Bernard family needed to be dragged through the mud for the higher principle of making people understand people die in war?? WTF . . . what planet am I on anymore . . .