In the Los Angeles Times, James Rainey wrote the article “Portraits of War: Unseen Pictures, Untold Stories.” This article questions whether the photo of Travis Babbitt should have been publicized, and why some people feel it is necessary.
Travis Babbitt was killed while on patrol in Baghdad, and the photo was released before his funeral. His mother, Kathy Hernandez, wishes the newspapers had at least waited until after her son’s funeral, but she understands why they would want people to see it: “I do think it’s an important thing, for people to see what goes on over there, it throws reality more in your face. And sometimes we can’t help reality.”
But, the real question remains, do people really need to see such gruesome visuals of war? Some people argue that the pictures hurt morale and intrude on the most intimate moments of human suffering. While, many journalists believe it is their duty, their job, to show truth, to provide an unsanitized portrait of war.
So why have the photographs of the American dead been so few? It is hard for the photographers to be at the right place at the right time, meaning that when action occurs there is a major chance the photographer will not be there. When they are present at the right time, photographers often find themselves thwarted by their military handlers. In one instance, troops jumped in front of a photographer, to prevent the photographer from taking pictures of the dead and wounded as they were being transferred to a hospital.
And, sometimes, the photographer will use their own judgment and withhold pictures themselves. A Virginia newspaper photographer was close to the action, when right before Christmas a mess hall near Mosul was bombed, killing 22 people. He took many pictures of the dead and dying servicemen that were sent around the world, but withheld some pictures of a soldier who died by his side, believing them to be too personal and gruesome.
There are certain requirements a picture must meet before it can ever go to print. Photographers working with the U.S. military agree not to use pictures of the dead and wounded if faces can be recognized and the family must also be notified beforehand. Paul Fusco, a veteran photographer, said he was convinced that controls on war coverage come straight from the White House and helped support an unjustified war, a way of getting people to support the war.
Photographers show bravery and skills and they work to produce an insider’s view of the war for us. War photographers go through long hours of boredom, put themselves in dangerous situations, for 20 minutes of action, a few photos. Many soldiers respect the photographers for standing beside them through firefights and mortar barrages, but those bonds can quickly fly out the window when things go wrong. Tyler Hicks of the New York Times and Carolyn Cole of Los Angeles accompanied the Army during the insurgent stronghold of Najaf. They experienced many life-threatening events next to the soldiers, but the respect they gained from the soldiers disappeared when they tried to take pictures of dead and wounded soldiers being taken to the field hospital. Cole understood the soldiers’ high emotions, but she resented them blocking her camera and getting in the way of her job.
“They were happy to have us along when we could show them fighting the battle, show the courageous side of them,” Cole said. “Then suddenly the tables turned. They didn’t want anything shown of their grief and what was happening on the negative side, which is equally important.”
Photographers argue that people need to see all sides of the war: “I feel we still aren’t seeing the kind of pictures we need to see to tell the American people about this war and the costs of war,” said Steve Stroud, deputy director of photography at the Los Angeles Time.
We often see more pictures of Iraqi spilled blood. We are seeing more pictures of the enemy than our own soldiers, our brothers, fathers, sons, and friends. The New York Time ran 55 photos of Iraqis dead or wounded in six months, while only 10 of its own U.S. causalities. The Los Angeles Time ran 41 photos of Iraqi causalities and 10 American wounded. This is partly due to the fact that there have been more Iraqi casualties, but American editors fear the resentment they often get for publishing pictures of the dead of wounded American soldiers. Even American photographers become resentful to the idea that the public may not see their work. “These pictures are going unseen because editors don’t print them,” Hondros said. “And they don’t print them because readers don’t want to see them.”
There is evidence to subject that the public’s view may fluctuate. In a survey taken by the Associated Press, 2,461 regular newspaper readers were questioned and 59% percent said they would have published the Babbitt photo themselves.
Should something like that be published on the front page of the Durango Herald? Is it ok for Los Angeles Times, a paper distributed nation-wide, to show this picture, but not the Durango Herald, a local newspaper? Most people who read newspapers are of a mature age to be able to handle a picture that may be offensive to some.
War movies often show more repulsing pictures than the pictures photographers deliver to us through the news. But, just as movies have rating, likewise, newspapers should be monitored. A child is not likely to pick up The Los Angeles Times to read cartoons, whereas they would The Durango Herald. The Los Angeles Times targets an older, more mature, audience; thus, it is appropriate they that can show the reality of war.
Put a half naked girl by a car, and thats sure to catch someone eyes. But, what does men's cologne have to see with a naked women (pictured above)? What does a boy peeing on the wall have to do with Nike, a sports brand? It has nothing to do with the product all. They don't care if it is linked to their product, as long as they get you to stop and look.
