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?