Woman loses job over photo taken of coffins coming back from Iraq being used in newspaper

The government has banned photos of coffins being returned to the US since 1991.

Why?

The US doesn't want people thinking real human beings lose their lives in a war. War's fun, remember? GI Joe etc.?

You just answered your own question.

"emotional nitwits"

http://www.kuci.org/~brianm/ile/coffins.jpg

but if it's rows of coffins that can't be tied to a specific individual. . .I don't see where they get off saying what the public can and cannot see.

The woman who took the photograph claims, in the story I linked above, she took the photo to show the respect that the poor young men get in regards to their preparations to be sent home -- not solely to serve as a prop for anti-war "propaganda". Now, you can believe her or not. But just calling her an "asshole" unprovoked is, well, something I'd expect an asshole to say.

And is "emotional nitwit" just another euphemism for "bleeding heart"? That's a good one there.

Someone who believes that the war is wrong because we're suffering these casualties in the process of liberating 24,000,000 people, I would not call a "bleeding heart" or a "compassionate" anything. That kind of person sounds like a blind and ignorant emotional nitwit to me.

It carries with it all the times we've seen the flag ceremony at burials in movies and TV and real-life, and in that way carries home the concept of death better than a photo dealing directly with body.

That's why, I assume, the Pentagon embargos those photos specifically.

Bahahaha.

name-calling's a great way to convnice people to your way of thinkingl

censorship is bullshit any way you cut it.

I think we're questioning why coffins are specifically considered off-limits as their image, while grim, doesn't signify giving away any security secrets at all (which I agree is off limits for photographs of course), while plenty of even more gruesome imagery is apparently ok.

Now, this is an x-post, because I just read Milo's point of view, and I just don't happen to share it. Personally, I'm FAR more disturbed by a dead body than a coffin, as a lasting unforgettable grim symbol of the realities of war, that is. But my brian is wired differently I guess, as I easily faint at the sight of gore.. something members of the Pentagon surely are less likely to do, perhaps(?)

Someone who believes that the war is wrong because we're suffering these casualties in the process of liberating 24,000,000 people, I would not call a "bleeding heart" or a "compassionate" anything. That kind of person sounds like a blind and ignorant emotional nitwit to me.

Then why did you first use the term "emotional" then?

It's a good thing we helped him out in the 70s when we did, then, eh?

- freedom
- liberation
- terror
- freedom
- evil
- freedom
- eye-RAAAAAAAACK
- weapons of mass deschtruction

Taking that another step, to an actual dead body (the only combat photo I can think of is Robert Capa's moment-of-death shot from the Spanish Civil War, I'm sure there are others I've just blocked out) and you've got something that turns people away immediately. Like you, they're shocked and horrified (rightly) and don't want to look.

Something like a coffin+flag image is more thoughtful in its effect, because the viewer doesn't have to fight to turn away immediately. And you can show coffins on primetime TV or on the front-page, where a truly gruesome photo you can't.

(I hope none of this sounds like I'm defending the Pentagon's censorship, I just think I understand why they're more concerned with these images than others.)

http://www.worldwander.com/france/Cemetery.jpg
http://www.n.ethz.ch/student/schmitzj/download/covers/M/Metallica%20-%20Master%20of%20Puppets.gif

Today coffins, tomorrow will be national cemeteries. When do you stop censoring the press?

http://www.darkknight.ca/images/villains/twoface.gif

If only it were easier done than said. But that's hardly the case. The thing is.. this has pretty much been our policy for decades, yet tyranny and terrorism still exist. It comes and goes. Perhaps you're more idealistic about the Iraq war being a message to terrorists around the world (and I'll grant Libya's surrender as one positive result from the Iraq war) to stop being, um, themselves, once and for all. It's a very noble goal, but I say, very cynically, that eliminating terrorism is impossible. I'm not saying we shouldn't take measures to prevent it, but I question whether the Iraq war was the way to deal with it best... especially given all the skepticism about muddled intelligence reports (which you can believe it or not) and that our public goals for getting involved in Iraq have now magically shifted to just "liberation", and not "GETTING RID OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AGAINST THE WESTERN WORLD, and oh yeah, liberation". In brief, the U.S. policies towards protecting itself and its allies against Middle East terrorism has been historically bad, and this is just another example of the policies simply providing band-aids and not finding a solution.

Back to the coffin photo issue...

I find the Pentagon's exercising the hiding of these photos to be appalling and baffling personally, aside from the obvious censorship issues. Almost everyone who lives long enough has to see a coffin of a loved one at some point in his or her life, so why should we be forbidden from being able to see the coffins of the some of the bravest people of all and reflect upon that and give them more thought? The above photo makes me more patriotic than not, in fact.

They don't have the authority to prevent any such thing. They can't stop you from taking photos of Arlington cemetary. Nobody at Time magazine has gone to jail for publishing this photo. This woman lost her job but it was apparently company policy to cooperate with the DoD's policy. If they have the authority to restrict people from taking pictures of caskets in transit, it's perfectly understandable why they'd want to prevent such photos from being taken just to become propaganda.

milo: i think more Iraqis don't than do.

One entry found for propaganda.

Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

....

So assuming we're going with #2 and #3 here, what's exactly wrong with propaganda again?

Photos of coffins don't exactly reveal the dead, blount. How do the family members know who's in there?

Privacy issues? I don't get that. Their names are released through every news outlet in the country. I mean, certainly there is something very personal about somebody's coffin, but there is also something personal about obituaries, and a shitload of other news that I see and hear about the soldiers.

As far as going "looky looky," well, that's what journalism is. They're showing us what's going on.

And again, I ask, what is this crucial difference? Why is this specifically a bugaboo, while the allegedly irresponsible 9/11 footage isn't?

night ya'll

ANYTHING can be used for anti-whatever propaganda. If you don't want photographs of the inside of a cargo plane because you don't want the bad guys to know what's on the inside, then fine. But why is it wrong to publish a picture of the coffins being loaded off a plane? The Canadians had no problem with it a couple of years ago when several of their soldiers were hit by friendly fire.

Why should the Pentagon go out of it's way to assist anti-war propagandizers?

Good fucking lord is David Brooks posting here all the sudden?

not that I think those, as a rule, are wrong either.

Huh? They don't have to do anything to help the photographers! Photographers generally can take photos by themselves without assistance usually.

Yet.

Because aside from the Pentagon attack itself on the day the victims weren't military.

Why the double standard, cinni? Why is it ok to report it but not show a picture of it?

Right, the Pentagon isn't going to stop or even "balance" negative news coverage of the Iraq war, but if it has the opportunity to proclaim "Not in my house" then it has every right to do so.

That does make sense. It's too bad the woman in question was fired if her reasons for taking the photos were noble... but I guess she apparently forgot to read Pentagon policies.

I don't agree with the Pentagon's policy, personally. But I can understand why they uphold it.

Bullshit. It's been spinning positivist lies about Iraq since before day fucking one.

Me: Then why did you first use the term "emotional" then?

Still waiting for an answer....

Rearrange these letters to form a word: O L I

(yawwwwwwwwn, "the media is obviously ignoring the stories and angles I WANT THEM TO USE".. ad nauseum, this goes for both lefties and righties)

And that's what you'd automatically assume would be the response to such a photo?

You should read the editorial section of the Seattle Times and see the variety of interpretations of the photo from all over the country, and then say that again. Let's just say many interpreted the photo to be pro-troops, and I can totally empathize!

Dignity in perspective

I wanted to congratulate The Times on the news story (covered) on Wednesday's "Good Morning America," regarding coverage of our fallen soldiers being sent home. I believe this photo was a dignified way to respect these soldiers, and further believe that President Bush doesn't want these photos shown because it is a disturbing sight for a distasteful war.

My belief is that "war is hell" and not the glorified "John Wayne" movie set I saw in my youth. Continue to show the public the results of this — and any — war.
Arlene Buck, Parma, Ohio

Compelling resolution

I saw a segment on "Good Morning America" about a photo published in your Sunday edition. I was moved by it. I thought of it as a somber reminder of the sacrifice of all those brave soldiers and the ones still over there serving their country honorably. It solidifies my view that we should stay the course in Iraq to complete our mission to bring peace and freedom to Iraqis so that those who have died to that end have not done so in vain.

It is a beautiful photo. Thank-you.

John Washburn, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

Is "Get Fuzzy" not right-wing (regardless of the limb losing thing)? I got the impression it was pretty conservative leaning, but I don't read it.

*raises hands*

Maybe firing Sicilio, the photographer in question, wasn't exactly the best PR strategy for the Pentagon's policy.

Now you're verging on sedition.

And?

i'm just trying to figure out what the news angle is in photographing dead american soldiers (or burnt alive iraqi soldiers)(or even foreign nation civilian hostages) other than to juice up the story
The conflict - and everything that comes with it, dead bodies and all - is the story. If you're covering Iraq, it would be irresponsible not to photograph the dead. How much dirty shit went down in Bush War, Round I that most Americans knew nothing about, because they saw "smart bombs" on CNN and that was it?

More x-posts - seriously, I don't get the apparent right-wing bent of Get Fuzzy. I only get to read the comics once a week, but I've never noticed anything political in Get Fuzzy.

***

I actually prefer wars to be fought like Vietnam where nothing is HIDDEN, where people (including the families of the soldiers fighting obv) at home have a real awareness of what is being gained and lost by those doing the living and the dying for such lofty concepts like a "future of democracy and freedom."

That's our view now, but I'm not entirely sure how true this was of the actual Vietnam era. You had Cronkite on TV saying the war is unwinnable and you had some unbelievable images (the aforementioned napalm girl), but did the average American at home really see photos of My Lai and all the villages otherwise burned and the dead Americans in the jungle (etc.)?

It quite wrong and very very unhelpful to characterise the détente with Libya as a 'surrender'.

On the subject; It's rather suprising that this photo of several coffins has been banned when there are any number of photos and film footage of coffins being marched down the plane's ramp one at a time. There seems to be no standards other than the standard military line of 'report only what we want you to', which is the proper attitude for the military to take. Of course it's the duty of any journalist to ignore this fiat and try and get round it wherever possible. It's been mentioned that casualty figures are out there, in the public domain, for quoting by whoever wants to. (although the total number of dead is hardly ever quoted). However, the number of US wounded is never quoted, and is, by all accounts, impossible to get from the US military authorities. And no one, not even the UN or the Red cross knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the past year.

I''ll agree that this is a very powerful photograph, and it should be splashed across the front pages of the world as 'anti-war propaganda'. A really powerful photograph, though, would be a photo of the stretchers and broken men and women disembarking from a medical evacuation plane.

So they gathered the crippled, the wounded, and maimed,
And they shipped us back home to Australia.
The legless, the armless, the blind and insane,
Those proud wounded heroes of Suvla.
And when our ship pulled into Circular Quay
I looked at the place where me legs used to be
And I thank Christ there was no body waiting for me
To grieve, to mourn and to pity.
But the Band played Waltzing Matilda
As they carried us down the gangway,
But nobody cheered, they just stood and stared,
Then they turned all their faces away.

From 'The Band Played Waltzing Matilda' by Eric Bogle

-- Alex in SF (clobberthesauru...), April 23rd, 2004.

I'm curious as to how this is legal myself. I couldn't find any official version of the policy on the DoD website.

-- Stuart (gonzomoos...), April 23rd, 2004.

i don't read it closely enough to know - most of the time to me it just looks like an edgier garfield

-- cinniblount ([email protected]

Out of context, that is a funny exchange.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2385.html

You'd have to ask Autumn Almanac about tactics, but I did say "verging."

http://www.theindiadirectory.com/shopc/imges/brownshirt.jpg

Yeah I know, rah rah, constitution sacred, rah rah. It's still dogshite.

pulling from way back: "i'm just trying to figure out what the news angle is in photographing dead american soldiers" there wasn't any! silicio was a cargo worker, not a journalist. it got into the major press after getting on the internet. it's not like photogs don't know the pentagon rules. the question re silicio's canning is whether she did.

well it might be in the Pentagon's best interest but that doesn't mean it's in the public's best interest.

I am however, quite puzzled by this. The only reason i can think that the pentagon would be banning photography of coffins draped with flags and not dead bodies is that the former incorporates iconography belong to the government. Or because they can.

it also strikes me as an unnecessary and not terribly useful policy to prohibit the taking of photos of coffins, precisely because they have no inherent relationship to any given argument; if the pentagon is truly fearful that they will inevitable end up reinforcing only the anti-war side then perhaps they are not sufficiently confident in the rightness of their own positions.

... I'll grant Libya's surrender as one positive result from the Iraq war.

actually, Libya was in negotiations far before the Iraq war, and mostly through/with the British.

otm and I would think certainly not a surprise

What the US government wants is for "politics" not to exist. It would like meanings to be fixed. (For instance, it would like "heroism" to be the province of imperialists, not pacifists.)

The problem wth these photos would initially appear to be their strong point, from the government's perspective: they immediately force you to consider the enormity of the sacrifice made in this war.

The enormity of the sacrifice? Made by the Iraqis maybe. But my us? C'mon in most of the US's wars abroad these would be minor losses. The right-wing socialist aspect of the US Military aside, our servicemen and women joined knowing they might have to fight. The reason this war is a dud stems from the gross incompetence and delusional thinking of a bunch of armchair pseudos who are as amateurish as any administration in my lifetime.

I'm, of course, not refering to you.

At first blush you'd think this stuff couldn't help but rouse the nation's patriotism. And you'd think that the more patriotic, the more support for the war.

Maybe Bush and Co. actually realize that being patriotic doesn't necessarily mean being on their side of the argument?

Thank you, hstencil and Ed, for the correction.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002868

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_18.php#002870