13 Sep, 2009

“American Press self-censored, no longer bears witness to what war does to people”

Imtiaz Muqbil

Originally Published: 13 Sep 2009

A debate that broke out earlier this month in the U.S. media over the publication of a photograph showing a mortally wounded soldier in Afghanistan raises much wider issues about the role of media in wars and conflict, especially the mind-bending manipulation required to maintain public support.

Many newspapers declined to publish the graphic photograph, but a few did, with one courageous U.S. editor, himself a former war veteran and war correspondent, decrying the self-censorship of the once go-getting, investigative U.S. journalists.

Wrote Mike Tharp, editor of the Merced Sun-Star, a McClatchy newspaper in California, in opting to print the photo and post it online, even though he estimated that public opinion on this matter ran roughly 70-1 against that decision:

“Those of you in the Greatest Generation can recall hundreds of far more graphic images from both World War II and Korea. Those of you in my generation can do the same about iconic images from Vietnam.

“But since then Americans have become desensitized to the sacrifices we ask from those we send to war. Regrettably, the American press has censored itself and failed in its mission to bear witness to what war does to people — and not just Iraqis or Afghanis … but to mostly young Americans.”

The debate has been robustly covered in the U.S. media, especially the media industry publication Editor & Publisher (E&P).

According to E&P, the image was included in a package of stories and photos the Associated Press (AP) distributed. It showed Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard, 21, whose leg was blown off by a rocket-propelled grenade in southern Afghanistan and later died of his wounds. An AP photographer who was embedded with Bernard’s unit took the picture from a distance with a long lens.

The package of photos, which included battles scenes as well as later scenes of a memorial service, was held under embargo to give editors time to consider publication of the single graphic image, E&P reported. The decision followed long deliberations within AP itself. An AP reporter also met with Bernard’s parents, who were shown the images in advance.

Journalists embedded with U.S. forces in Afghanistan must sign a statement accepting a series of rules, which include provisions designed to protect operational security and the lives of the soldiers and Marines who host them in the field.

According to E&P, Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP, said in a sidebar story included in the package, “AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is.”

“We believe this image is part of the history of this war,” AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski was quoted as saying. “The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice.”

Because the AP feed runs automatically on some of the subscribing newspapers’ websites, some of them ran it without their knowledge. Some of them complained later when they found out, according to E&P. Others were alerted to it, and decided not to publish.

E&P reported that the Intelligencer in Wheeling, West Virginia, ran the image along with a lengthy editorial explaining why. It said, in part, “We are entirely in support of the war against terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. We also are dedicated to supporting America’s fighting men and women. We believe that it is important for those of us for whom our soldiers, sailors, air crews and Marines serve to understand the sacrifices they make. Too often, they make the ultimate sacrifice — for us.”

But in the midst of the debate that broke out about the “sanitizing” of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the most significant justification came from Mike Tharp.

E&P quoted Mr Tharp as saying, “I expected these reactions when I ordered that both the AP photo and story be published in our pages and on this Web site. It’s my responsibility, and mine alone, at the Sun-Star. I did so because, as a veteran, a war correspondent and an editor, I feel a deep duty to show American civilians the costs of fighting a war.

“To show the ultimate sacrifices paid by our servicemen and women in our name. Printed words, as your comments vividly show, wouldn’t have generated the same responses as the image we ran.

“Those of you in the Greatest Generation can recall hundreds of far more graphic images from both World War II and Korea. Those of you in my generation can do the same about iconic images from Vietnam. But since then Americans have become desensitized to the sacrifices we ask from those we send to war. Regrettably, the American press has censored itself and failed in its mission to bear witness to what war does to people — and not just Iraqis or Afghanis … but to mostly young Americans.

“As a father I also understand those of you who commented about respecting the family’s wishes. I don’t take those wishes lightly. But the photo and story had been transmitted all over the world by the time it landed in Merced. I believe that a greater good came from our publishing the photo than by not publishing it.

“That good is to make you, our audience, aware of what I myself have seen as a soldier and as a reporter — and this photo and story are a small part of what happens in war. Publishing the photo and story are meant to show — not just tell — you, our audience, what it means to go to war.

“Some of you 12,000-plus veterans in our county already know that. Most of you in our audience do not. Now you know a little more. I hope that you remember this image when you make your judgments about the two wars we’re in today and those in our future. If the photo serves to remind you of your duty as citizens and voters, it will have served its purpose.”

Later, in a blog, Mr Tharp added, “For the record, the vast majority of the Sun-Star’s revenue — as with all newspapers — comes from advertising. Not circulation. And certainly not newsstand or newspaper rack sales. If anything, our publication of the photo would lower such sales. So that old dog – ‘to sell newspapers’ — won’t hunt.”

Not surprisingly, the decision was criticised by the Pentagon. The New York Times, one of the papers which chose to publish the picture, reported that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sent a scathing letter to Tom Curley, president and chief executive of AP, calling the news agency’s decision “appalling”. He said the issue was one not of constitutionality but of “judgment and common decency.”

“The American people understand that death is an awful and inescapable part of war,” Mr. Gates wrote. But publishing this photo, he was quoted as saying in his letter, goes against the wishes of the family and thus would mark an “unconscionable departure from the restraint that most journalists and publications have shown covering the military since Sept. 11.”

The issue will resonate in Bangkok, once the base of many Vietnam War era battle-hardened correspondents who relished the excitement, danger and challenge of getting their cameras right into the frontline rather than sit back and listen to the “Five o’clock Follies” the derogatory term used to describe the daily official U.S. military press briefings.

Their reports and camera footage did what good journalism is supposed to do – tell the truth, expose the lies of the spin-doctors and prevent the war effort from being hijacked by the multi-million dollar military marketing machinery. By helping to end the Vietnam war, the U.S. media saved the lives of thousands of young Americans.

Today, however, truth has become the first casualty of the massive, all-encompassing “war on terror”, the tagline used to justify the U.S. military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As for those who think that the military is really sensitive to the feelings of bereaved families, consider this quote from a New York Times report last week, “The United States signed weapons agreements valued at $37.8 billion in 2008, or 68.4 percent of all business in the global arms bazaar, up significantly from American sales of $25.4 billion the year before.”

People are dying but business is booming. Keeping the public fooled is an intrinsic objective of the disinformation campaign mounted by the merchants of death. Luckily, a rare handful of U.S. media outlets still know that.