(Photo: Julie Jacobson / The Associated Press)
Photographs of the Iraq war play an essential role in delivering information to the American public who are very removed from the happenings of the battlefield. The images allow the public to bypass official reports of the situation abroad and arrive at their own conclusions. While, photographs are an essential tool in communicating the realities of war to the America public, most photos leaving the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan present only a particular viewpoint. These days it seems that most all photographs in the mainstream media depict American troops in positions of control. Often photos show US troops "patrolling" neighborhoods in strong, gun-wielding poses. Or, they show US troops swiftly moving up stairs and through rooms as they "raid" homes.
Perhaps that is why it was such a shock when the Associated Press released a photo of a wounded Marine on an Afghan battlefield, who later died from his injuries. U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard was the subject of this photo that faced vociferous debate.
Despite, death tolls in the thousands, the American public has seen relatively few images of the consequences of war on US soldiers. Only this past February did the Pentagon reverse an eighteen-year policy, giving photographers the ability to photograph returning coffins of US soldiers killed abroad. In this policy-reversal the Pentagon set a precedent by giving families the decision-making power over whether the media was allowed to publish the photo.
To the dismay of Lance Cpl. Bernard's family, there is no policy that gives families the power to prohibit the publication of any other types of photos, including one's of their family members being wounded in war. The family of Lance Cpl. Bernard did not wish for the photo to be published and their opinion was shared by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski sees the decision by the government to publish the photo as one that clearly highlights the differing roles of the press and government.
The AP's own description of the debate surrounding the photo was published
here. The comments from readers are perhaps the most interesting part of the post.
The comments reveal that the main controversy over this photo centers around the fact that it depicts a fatal wound. Those against having the press publish the photo often take issue with the fact that it's disrespectful to the soldier to show him to the world in his vulnerable last moments. Those in favor of showing the photo want American's to see that the thousands of soldiers being killed abroad are not just numbers, they have faces.
Frankly, I am surprised that this hasn't come up earlier. If we are censoring these photos out of respect to the wounded or the family of the wounded, what kind if image does the public receive about war. Should images of US soldiers in war be kept clean and blood-free? Shouldn't Americans see what's really happening over in the battlefields that they are sending their troops off to fight in? Why are Americans so uncomfortable seeing wounded US soldiers when there are thousands upon thousands of photos of wounded Iraqis and Afghanis?
It pains me to see this photo. It must pain a lot of people, or else there wouldn't be such controversy over it. It remains unclear to me why the press should "respectfully" cover a war when war disrespectfully kills people. It would be dishonest to report it otherwise. Maybe this is just a case of misplaced anger. Why get angry at those who wish to publish this photo and instead take issue with those who sent the US soldier over there in the first place?
