Picturing a Soldier

(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?

The Press Can Save Lives?

"Could a more aggressive press in the United States during World War II have saved lives?" This question was the basis for an online exhibit on the Newseum's website that traced the shocking choice of the mainstream US press to downplay the increasing human death toll at the hands of the Nazis.

The exhibit cites a few reasons why the editors, during the time that the Holocaust was happening, placed the development of a million innocent people being killed on page six or page ten. Basically the editors couldn't bring themselves to believe that what was happening was real. Supposedly there was a lack of eyewitness accounts, a lack of photographic evidence, and the US had it's own anti-semitism that affected the coverage of the time.

But ultimately, I would say the press is to be faulted and blamed for not contributing to ending this atrocity against humanity.

It makes me wonder, what are the stories of today that are similarly being relegated to the back pages. What events are not being covered by the mainstream press that could be saving lives?

(Photo: Grant MacDonald / Flickr)

News That Will Matter in Ten Years

The fantastic author and journalist Michael Pollan is speaking in San Francisco tonight at an event being put on by the Long Now Foundation. Despite the Long Now Foundation being based in San Francisco, I had never heard of them before. I went to their site and their projects are very "forward" thinking...literally. One of their ventures, Long Bets, provides an arena for people to make bets on future events. The goal is for the process to create accurate predictions.

The Long Now Foundation is attempting to launch the "Long News" project, which will try and determine what the most important stories of the week are. The ones that will transcend time and continue to be relevant five or ten years from now are deemed most important. I look forward to following this and seeing what they come up with. As the Long News Project attempts to take off it will begin in the form of blogposts which can be read here.

Twitter Tipping Point

I am sensing a Twitter Tipping Point. Not only was it the hot topic among friends at a bar this weekend, KQED interviewed Twitter co-founder Biz Stone this week about the role of this social networking tool.

At the bar last Saturday my friend asks his twitter savvy friend why he should use this mini-blogging tool. The response came in the form of a question: "Do you remember when I told you to use Facebook eight months ago?" he asked. "Now you use it often and don't need me to tell you why to use facebook," he said. "Well, that's whats going to happen once you start using Twitter."

That's exactly what Stone said as people wrapped their heads around why they should start using this technology. In an interview on KQED's Forum, Stone spoke with host Scott Schafer and bay area callers about why Twitter is important, how to best use it, and the implications of its use.

The main thing that seems to differentiate Twitter from other social networking sites is its closeness to real-time interaction. Even news events over the past few months have been given immediate access to the public via twitter. Just look at the Mumbai attacks or the landing of the plane on the Hudson River in January.

If Twitter is going to become a source of up to the minute news, Schafer asked about how much credibility users should be giving this "news." Stone believes that there does not need to be a mediator, the truth will prevail. The truth will emerge because once something false is presented, Stone says another twitter user will come along and correct it. He also emphasized the need for twitter users to authenticate information for themselves by choosing their sources wisely and/or cross checking information with other sources.

More practical ways that Twitter is being used:

- Twitter is a vehicle for keeping a blog's readers updated on new posts.
- It can be used in dangerous situations. Just look at the journalist student who alerted his network of twitter friends when he was arrested in Egypt.
- Twitter is a great way for companies and organizations to keep their customers or members updated on promotions or events.

There are probably a million other ways that Twitter can be used and I imagine its role will continue to evolve as it becomes more mainstream. In my sphere of friends and acquantences only a few tech-savvy ones religiously use Twitter. However, I am sensing a tipping point. While Twitter currently seems like a piece of technology that I can live without, my interest has been sparked and I am really interested to try it. My main worry is that Twitter will make me document every second of my life rather than live it. But, I am open to the possibility that it could find a niche in my world and become an important way for me to connect to information as well as share it. I'll keep you updated on when Twitter inhabits my life. What are your thoughts on the Twitter tipping point?

Business Reporters Blow It

As we currently face our financial debacle, many blame the press for not doing a better job of alerting citizens to the approaching collapse. Former Wall Street Journal reporter, Dean Starkman, traced the history of Business Journalism and found that there was a significant shift among business reporting that lead to the audience being referred to as investors rather than citizens. It was approaches such as these that Starkman mentions were the reason behind business reporters missing the biggest story of possibly their career.

Caption: Unused newspaper racks clutter a storage yard in San Francisco, California on Friday, March 13, 2009. (AP Photo / Noah Berger)

The image sadly speaks for itself.

Some related articles:

San Francisco Chronicle May Cease Operations

Seattle Post-Intelligencer Dies, Reborn Online

How Do We Know What We Know?

Iraq viewed through an armored vehicle. (Photo: Benjamin Lowy / The New York Times)

How do we know what we know is a deep philosophical question, yes, but on the more practical level it can be applied to how we make sense of our present world. For instance on the issue of Iraq, this question is a deeply fascinating one to ask Americans. How do Americans know what they know about Iraq, a country that is far away yet deeply connected to our own. The avenues for receiving information on what is happening in Iraq include:

- Reading the news from reporters who are stationed there or from news agencies who have Iraqi contacts in the region.
- Hearing the President or Generals report on the situation.
- Hearing scholars and analysts sum up the situation as they see it.
- Possibly directly hearing about it from service members when they return.

A recent piece from the Washington Post, "What We Don't Know About Iraq," brings up a source of information that often doesn't reach Americans ears:

The view from Iraqis themselves.

Americans have an interest in understanding the way Iraqi's view the war, especially since they are partners in securing their country so that foreign forces can leave them be (or that's what the US military says will happen).

In his piece, Phillip Bennet writes about the names Iraqis have used over the past six years to describe the situation, as told to him by the Washington Post's Baghdad correspondent, Anthony Shadid: "ghazu or 'invasion'; sometimes 'the events'; occasionally 'sectarian war'; and most often, and most hauntingly, suqut -- simply 'the collapse.'"

The above is an interesting to me because we don't often see news articles framed or informed by the average Iraqi perspective.

Bennet cites the 2008 book "The Forever War," by Dexter Filkins, as a strong account of how and why information from Iraqis is not entering the American consciousness. Filkins writes, "there were always two conversations in Iraq, the one Iraqis were having with the Americans and the one they were having with themselves."

Sometimes what we know is not easy to find out and is hidden by cultural or power relation barriers. What would happen if Americans had access to the thoughts and feelings of Iraqis regarding the US war in Iraq?

Bush Captured by a "Mirror with a Memory"

On Monday, January 12, 2009, George W. Bush gave his last press conference. In his last address to the Washington Press Corps, Bush said: "Through it all, it's been -- I have respected you. Sometimes I didn't like the stories that you wrote or reported on. Sometimes you misunderestimated me. But always the relationship I have felt has been professional. And I appreciate it."

With Bush out of office attempts are being made to shape his legacy. In this spirit, Award-Winning Documentary filmmaker, Errol Morris, turned to three press corps photographers to share the images they felt captured Bush's "character" over the past eight years. Morris does not believe that photographs preserve reality, but in fact "capture our evasions and self-deceptions."

View the photos that Vincent Amalvy (AFP), Santiago Lyon (AP), and Jim Bourg (Reuters) chose at Morris' blog "Zoom" on the New York Times website.

---------

Its interesting to note how each of these photographers view the access they were given to the president:

Vincent Amalvy (AFP) says in America the press corps is given more access to the President compared to other countries: "It’s a different situation in Europe. In America when you are part of the presidential pool, you move everywhere with the president. It’s not that way in other countries. You don’t have the same quantity of free access to all these attitudes, pictures and opportunities."

Santiago Lyon, takes a different view then Amalvy: "And it is true that the American system, and especially the White House, allows much more access because they’re much more media-savvy. The White House understands the power of the image. And that’s where I sometimes get the feeling that we’re all being manipulated. It is true that we do get access to a much larger extent, than many other world leaders allow it. And that’s something to be thankful for, in the sense that we’re able to witness White House activities. But, at the same time, the thing is so contrived and so controlled that like any consumer of information, it behooves one to look at the source of the information, to look at the circumstances of the information, and to be able to cast a critical eye on it."


Jim Bourg comments on the role of White House Photographers: "That’s the talent of our White House photographers: to be able to work within the constraints that are imposed upon them by the White House staff, but also to fully document what’s going on."

Bourg also makes an interesting point about key Bush photographs: "It’s interesting to see how differently people will interpret the same picture, how a strong supporter of the president will see a picture one way and a critic of the president will see it a different way. There have been some pictures of President George W. Bush where the reactions have actually gone all over the map, where some Bush supporters see interpret the image as taking a cheap shot at him. Other Bush supporters see that same moment as endearing or showing off his character, showing that he’s a regular kind of guy or showing that he’s a common, unpretentious type of person. And then there are pictures where a photo opportunity can totally backfire on the White House. An example of that would certainly be the “Mission Accomplished” banner on the aircraft carrier where that is a very straight photo as you look at it."

Covering Change

Yesterday, Barack Obama became the 44th president of the United States. This cool feature on the Newseum website shows the front page of 763 newspapers from 73 countries. It's interesting to compare the photos and headlines chosen.

Check out this feature here.

Obama's Coming: How Will He Shape the Media Landscape?

The countdown has begun and Barack Obama will soon be our 44th president. How will Obama impact our media landscape? Here are a few things to look out for:

- Who is going to head the FCC?:
Current FCC chairmain, Kevin Martin, is expected to be replaced by a Democrat when Barack Obama takes office. There is speculation that Obama's former classmate from Harvard law school, Julius Genachowski, will be chosen for the position.

- Net Neutrality: Barack Obama has said in the past that he would only appoint an FCC chairperson that believed in Net Neutrality. Sen. Byron Dorgan, a Democrat from North Dakota, promised to introduce a Net-neutrality bill to Congress in 2009. Durbin believes a bill like this will have success under the new congress and president.

- "The Cyber Czar": Obama is going to name the first-ever Federal Chief Technology Officer. Paul Kurtz, is predicted to be appointed to this position, which has been dubbed the "The Cyber Czar."

- The Digital Divide: Barack Obama has promised universal broadband Internet access to all Americans. Investment in Broadband Internet service is part of his economic stimulus program which could boost job creation, enhance US infrastructure, all while making it easier for rural, urban poor, and elderly populations to access the internet. Commentators, such as Stephen Wildstrom writing for Businesweek, worry about Obama's current proposal. Wildstrom writes: "Subsidies for network construction and subscriptions could end up doing little more than boosting the semi-monopolies enjoyed by the cable and telephone carriers."

- Media Ownership: Barack Obama has pledged to encourage diversity in media ownership. As outlined in his Innovation and Technology Plan: "Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. Barack Obama believes that providing opportunities for minority-owned businesses to own radio and television stations is fundamental to creating the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves and demands. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum."

Participant Films

Movies have the power to make social change. I strongly believe this. Participant Media has been at the forefront of making feature films that make a difference.

Jeff Skoll (who you may know as the first president of eBay) founded Participant Media in 2004 with the mission of producing "entertainment that inspires social change." The people in Hollywood told him that his idealism would not be sustainable.

In 2005 the company released: "Murderball," "Syriana," "Goodnight and Goodluck," and "North Country." These films led to eleven Oscar nominations. The company later released such films as, "Charlie Wilson's War," "An Inconvenient Truth," and "Fast Food Nation," to name a few.

The ability to entertain and inform is not an easy feat. Participant medias ability to inform through award-winning films allows the information to reach a broad audience in a way that I believe has not been done before. They then continue to engage the audience with social sector partners on advocacy campaigns that can be accessed online at www.participate.net.

Skoll raises a fascinating point: Movies do not necessarily need to do well at the box office to make a social impact. Despite "North Country's" poor attendance at the box office, the film went on to have a strong impact on policy. The film came out when congress was debating the renewal of the violence against women act. By having screenings on the hill and working with social sector partners such as NOW, the film was widely credited with the successful renewal of the act.

Update on America's World View

By coincidence, after writing yesterday's blog post, I came across an IPS article covering the findings of the latest Tyndall Report. The report found that "foreign-related news coverage by the three major US television networks fell to a record low during 2008." It also found that coverage of Iraq, the most covered International story, decreased in 2008.

As a young, city-dweller who stays highly informed without watching the nightly news, it was good for me to realize that despite my experience, the average American is still indeed participating in what I thought was a thing of the past. Grab that TV dinner, its time for the evening news!

The Tyndall Report follows ABC World News with Charles Gibson, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, and considers these programs the primary source of national and international news for most US citizens.

The decline in International coverage, according to Andrew Tyndall, could be explained by a focus on the 2008 presidential election as well as the domestic effects of the economic crisis. International news coverage could ramp up this year or the statistics could signal a, "turning point in insularity in the mainstream media." Tyndall also mentioned that TV networks may be handing over the responsibility of covering international news to online agencies.

Statistics I found interesting in the IPS article:

- An estimated 23 million US residents watch the 22 minutes of evening news the three networks broadcast on an average weekday evening.

- The Pew Research Centre for the People & the Press, published late last month, found that some 70 percent of the public in 2008 relied on television as a main source for national and international news last year.

- The same Pew Research poll found that the Internet surpassed daily newspapers as a main source of national and international news, particularly for younger adults, for the first time last year.

- Of the top 20 stories in 2008 the Iraq war was the highest-ranked overseas story, ranking seventh on the list. The Next international story on the list was the Beijing Summer Olympics, followed by the war in Afghanistan, which ranked 17th.

- Other top international-related stories included the Sichuan Province earthquake in China, last month's terrorist attack on Mumbai, Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, the Russia-Georgia conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the situation in Zimbabwe.

America's World View

I am catching up on watching TED videos and I just saw an inspiring talk by Alisa Miller, CEO of Public Radio International from May of 2008. She addresses the massive decline in International Reporting by American news agencies and the negative effects this is having on our world.

Miller shows an amazing visual of how the world looks based on the amount of reporting being done on each region. Behind the US, Iraq was the largest image on the map.

Miller states that foreign bureaus have decreased by 50%. Aside from one-person bureaus in Nairobi, New Delhi, and Mumbai, Miller said there are no network news bureaus in Africa, India or South America. This lack of coverage ignores the world's largest population centers.

Why is there a lack of International Reporting? Miller says because its cheaper to cover Brittany Spears and Anna Nicole Smith.

This lack of coverage of international news has led to a less informed public. But she says, it is not due to lack of desire for this news.

Her concluding question: "Is this distorted world view what we want for Americans in our increasingly interconnected world? I know we can do better and can we afford not to?"