Photo of dying marine: was it right for AP to publish?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Sep 7, 2009.

  1. An attack on our soil at the WTC was not the start of the war?
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Sep 9, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Chris H Guest

    Not at all.

    9/11 was the third in a series of retaliation attacks. The first two
    were US embassies in Africa.

    They were in retaliation for previous US attacks.
    Chris H, Sep 9, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    SMS Guest

    SMS, Sep 9, 2009
  4. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Mike Guest

    The photographer took the picture, probably not thinking about the
    consequences nor knowing the soldier was dying. The decision to publish
    it however was taken in the cold light of day disregarding the feelings
    of the family.

    Surely his family should decide if his dying moments are to be literally
    splashed across newspapers before his body is in the ground and not some

    I doubt anyone needs these pictures to bring home the reality of the
    war, it strikes me as an attempt to shock the public into opposing the
    war at the expense of the soldiers family. It doesn't highlight some
    'hidden truth' at all. War = death and injury that is an inescapable
    fact. the decision to go to war or to stop should be made
    dispassionately not on the basis of a gory picture.

    What if it were the AP's chief executive Thomas Curley's wife or
    children (or other realtive) pictured dying after a car accident? Would
    he publish them because America needs to know about the death toll on
    it's roads? No he wouldn't, he'd move heaven and earth to stop their
    publication. And yet the death toll on the US roads exceeds that in
    Afganistan and Iraq by many times.

    It's a cynical sick PR stunt on a par with video footage of a laser
    guided bomb hitting it's target. There may be no law broken but that
    doesn't make it right.

    Mike, Sep 9, 2009
  5. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Chris H Guest

    Then there was the US support of genocide and mass murder in Palestine
    by the IDF.... The US involvement in Somalia. The lack of US
    involvement around Basra in 1991 onwards. There are very many reasons
    for an Islamic Militant group to want hit at the USA. Most had far
    higher civilian death tolls than 9/11.
    Chris H, Sep 9, 2009
  6. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    SMS Guest

    The problem with these recent wars is that the media is so carefully
    controlled that "the war" is not even a reality to the public without
    anyone serving in the military. It's not like Vietnam where they'd read
    the names of the dead every night, and photo-journalists were sending
    home the photos that solidified opposition to the Vietnam war. The
    politicians don't want anyone to associate wars with any deaths. Just
    hand out massive numbers of medals and move on.

    In any case, opposition or support for a war comes from whether or not
    the public believes that the mission is worth the sacrifice. When enough
    people believed the lies about Iraq's WMD's, support for the war in Iraq
    was high, though what was amusing back then was the large number of
    people that believed that Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9/11, a belief
    fostered by the pseudo-news organizations like Fox and the Washington Times.
    SMS, Sep 9, 2009
  7. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Miles Bader Guest

    Er, Shinto, Buddhism, etc, didn't originate in the middle east.

    Miles Bader, Sep 10, 2009
  8. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    frank Guest

    We have laws against assassination. Unlike the Brits. But we don't
    have a Tower of London either (though Cheney was working on it - want
    to take him?)

    Terrorist training camps is pretty much a so what. They were all over
    the place, still are. Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, probably Pakistan,
    ex Russian republics. Unless we want to go to war with the country
    housing them, not much we can do about it. Neither can the country
    that has them. Think Russians and Chechens.

    Even if we wanted to hit a terrorist training camp, and the party out
    of power in the US would have screamed bloody murder (either against
    Clinton or Bush). Consider, those guys had a mandate to scoot if they
    even thought the US was going to attack. Head to the hills, hard to
    get them unless you use a nuke.

    And if you think we're going to use a nuke on a terrorist training
    camp, well, reality is not a world you're living in.

    considering we're back in the Vietnam mode where the guys we're
    fighting have sanctuaries in a neighboring country we can't target, we
    ain't going to win. Meanwhile they can bleed us to death one poor
    grunt at a time. Mix in we have a lousy government we're trying to
    prop up without local support, this is a remake of a movie that failed
    last time.

    We went broke in Vietnam. We're going down that same path, only its
    more expensive this time around. No draftees.
    frank, Sep 10, 2009
  9. In <>, on 09/09/2009
    at 06:41 PM, "Bill Graham" <> said:

    .... And in 30 years he killed fewer Iraqui's then bush did in 5 years.

    Now what was your point son?
    Igetrightwingersangry, Sep 10, 2009
  10. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Give it up, bigot. You just hate Democrats and don't really have
    any reasons for your hatred.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  11. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    He's a black man. So is Obama.

    Of course Beck hates them.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  12. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You rightard bigots really never stop lying, do you?
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  13. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    That's a lie, of course.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  14. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Ah, the "logic" of the rightard bigot.

    Meanwhile, the facts...

    As ThinkProgress has pointed out, Fox News regularly distorts the
    truth about health care reform. Last week, Media Matters found
    that over a two day period opponents of health care reform
    outnumbered supporters by a 6-to-1 margin on Fox.

    The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy
    (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also
    reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies
    significantly according to individuals' primary source of news.
    Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely
    to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or
    watch PBS are significantly less likely.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  15. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    And who consistently misrepresent the facts.
    If, by "conservative", you mean "ideological fanatics".
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  16. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    To the rightard being "conservative" is more important than being
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  17. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You wouldn't like the BBC. They're far too objective an unbiased for
    the likes of you.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  18. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Because Bush said that OBL wasn't that important.

    If so then one wonders why Bush even ordered the invasion of Iraq.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  19. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Another fine example of the reasoning ability of the rightard.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
  20. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Another facist bigot chimes in with usual lies.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 10, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.