Photojournalism: formal Military Training for Journalists

Eliot,

 

As I have pointed out elsewhere, that is the sad state of affairs in the US at times. Yes there was an out cry over the results, but little action. And maybe that is the way it should be. Save the fight for the bigger things, like preventing our boys coming home in body bags.

 

All these agry words from people on both sides (soeme more than others). And no one seems to want to see our leaders themselves put their own actions where their mouths are. Nope, send the ones that have the least say.

 

I just don't want to see Dover AFB become busy yet again.

 

Chip

Chip, I think General Powell has already done his service and put his money where his mouth is. Rumsfeld is, how old? 70? Cheney is in his 60s and status post several MIs. So you think GW should go to Iraq to fight? Well I might support that idea if Bill Clinton had gone to Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo. If that were the case, you'd have a point. :-)

I only ask this...who made America the world's baby-sitter?

 

In eleven-teen countries from Ireland to South Africa, people kill people every damn day. Some do it with machetes, some with chemical agents. I have studied, HARD, the Constitution of the United States of America, which has little significance left in our World, since Abraham Lincoln decided to squelch it, and I can not find one phrase, one word that says, America is responsible to make sure every little tiny dictatorship that we helped found must then be put down by American boys' lives. My son is in the US Navy. My dad was in the US Navy. I, unfortunately, or damn, fortunately for my sake, was not selected by Uncle Sam to defend the Constitutional rights of the Vietnamese people, however, I still can find NOTHING in the Constitution that says, we, the American taxpayer, is responsible to make sure some ten-cent dictator in a thousand dollar uniform is our responsibility.

As far as foto-journalist being trained to survive by our military goes, hell, we can't even ensure (insure?) the survival of our own boys in US Blue or US Camo or whatever. If those pholks what to carry their nikons and hassalblads to Iraq and photo our atrocities, well, I say, let them take their own damn chances! The men and women that covered Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Normandy damn sure took their own chances.

America has become just entirely TOO touchy-feely!

It is time to get in touch with our Truman side. We have no business in Iraq. These people have gotten along fine without our intervention for about 5 centuries. As have the Isrealites and Palistineans. The P's throw rocks, the I's shoot them. Ok! That is what David and Goliath was all about. In Iraq, Saddam, who btw we put in power, as we did bin-Laden, may have a chemical weapon or two. Hell, so do we. So does England, so does France, so does Germany, so does Russia, so does Indian, so does Pakistan, so does CHina -- catch my drift? In a few months, North Korea may also have a nuke or two. WHY does Bubba Bush see this as a threat? Only a few months ago, NK was part of the triad of evil. Now, we negotiate?

 

Ok - sorry, this forum is about photography. i hope, if there is a war, and it appears that dubbah is gonna start one, even if he has to send Colin Powell over as a sacrifice, some photog gets a picture of a naked little girl running down the road after being hit by napalm. Wait, I think that pic may have already been done.

 

my regards, my compatriots,

Ron,

hating our stupid little wars,

in Ohio

Ron, How did you feel about Bosnia and Kosovo? Were you opposed to wars waged by "Bubba Clinton" or only those by "Bubba Bush"?

I AM YELLING!

 

COULD WE PLEASE GET BACK TO WAR RELATED PHOTOJOURNALISM DISCUSSIONS OR LET'S TOTALLY KILL THIS THREAD.

 

Most appreciated...Todd

Eliot, Gore did try some less-than-honorable tactics to win the recount and 'steal' the election, as you put it, but it was Bush who succeeded at that, wasn't it? You're really good about pointing out the lesser facts that bolster your argument but you ignore the huge one that matters most: The conservative-controlled Supreme Court ordered a halt to the Florida recount and appointed Bush president. All the talk about the popular vote and the electoral college is wasted breath and irrelevant: Bush is this nation's first appointed president, and by any standard of decency, that stinks.

 

I swore I wouldn't get dragged into this, but you manage to wedge your foot in the door of every discussion on this forum that's remotely political and turn it into a personal political tirade. Last week you were telling us Bush, Gore and JFK are intellectual equals because they all were poor students in college. What's next? Bush's Texas National Guard siesta was tougher than JFK's PT boat ride?

 

Todd, my apologies. I won't rise to this bait again.

Kevin...thank you for your promise.

 

I do understand the concern.

 

I'm even thinking that there are some government executives who have put money into duct tape and plastic sheeting stock!!!

 

This whole terrorist thing is really getting to me emotionally.

 

I'm retired, and I lay in bed peeking out at Fox News in the morning!

 

Is this any way to live a quality life.

Kevin, I am sick and tired of seeing every thread that is remotely political being hijacked by the usual abti-Bush anti-America garbage. When people stop posting this crap than I will stop responding. I don't start these arguments, but I do respond. And please don't misquote me or mischaracterize what I said. BNor did I bring up the election in 2000, I just set the record straight.

 

Here is the quote from YOU:

"The president reminds me of Coriolanus in the Shakespeare play; he seems to think explaining himself to the public who elected him is beneath him. But then, he wasn't elected, he was appointed, wasn't he? Maybe that explains the chip on his shoulder."

 

It's funny how liberals love to spout off again and again but get very upset when people start bringing facts into the discussion.

"but you manage to wedge your foot in the door of every discussion on this forum that's remotely political and turn it into a personal political tirade"

 

Kevin, I just reread the comments posted well before my first one, and all I can say is you really have some nerve. This thread has been blatantly political from the very beginning, and you as well as others had made it so long before my first post. Apparently your definition of "personal tirade" is rather restricted, it applies to that with which you disagree.

"But then, he wasn't elected, he was appointed, wasn't he?"

 

This, of course, is an incontrovertible fact. He wasn't elected, period.

 

By the way, if his brother, the Governor of Florida, hadn't disenfranchised thousands of black voters ("Oh, your name is Joe Washington? Well, you must be the convicted felon and you can't vote here. Oh, you say you're 'not that Joe Washington'? Fine, you can prove it later, you still can't vote at this polling place") in a transparent and deliberate attempt -- ultimately successful -- to steal the election, well, those thousands of votes, all of which would have gone to Gore, would have more than overwhelmed any kind of questions about indented chads, hanging chads, or confusion over ballot positions of names.

 

What makes things worse is that the latest trend is to steal the voting machinery, literally, from under the noses of election commissions. When one candidate for the Senate owns part of the company that counts ballots, when that company keeps its ballot counting software on the web, essentially unprotected from any half-decent hacker, and when the final, electronically counted ballots yield an upset in favor of the candidate that owns those machines, against all pre-election polling, then there's a real problem. If you must ask where this happened, by the way, then you're basically an ignorant individual and it's not up to me to enlighten you, nor would I want to try.

 

In the old days a photographer could take pictures of people casting their ballots. Now, in many cases and increasingly so, there's literally nothing to take a picture of, and no record of the ballots cast, except in a computer chip that's erased soon after the election. In this context, performing street theater in front of polling places, ridiculing and mocking those who run the system, probably makes more sense than bothering to 'cast a vote.'

 

G.

I was under the impression this was a Leica related forum, not some Jingoistic, warmongering, chest beating American rant.

 

Where is the Moderator? This does not belong here.

Actually, upon reflection, I realize that it isn't fair to expect even educated people to keep up with news that's deliberately not covered by the corporate media.

 

So for those interested here's a basic link about vote fraud, or the appearance of fraud, due to ownership/control of electronic voting machines:

 

http://www.talion.com/election-machines.html

 

It has other links as well. This is a vast, if subterranean, subject that should be better known.

 

I still maintain that the theater of voting is about all that's left that's socially meaningful in our so-called democracy.

 

G.

George,<P>

 

It's a good point you make. I just heard today about a group of senior computer scientists located in Silicon Valley, who are campaigning to have the US Congress pass a bill outlawing use of voting machines that don't leave a paper trail. They are advocating the return to a paper ballot/writing pen combination, or, at the very least, a touch-screen machine that prints out a ballot. Their point - and certainly it's valid - is that a machine which leaves no paper trail is essentially useless, at least as far as the idea of representative democracy goes, because its results are entirely vulnerable to manipulation, and, unlike a ballot box, there is no failsafe check on it.<P>

 

I really think the situation in the US is grave. More so than most people realise.

I meant "realize", of course.

Let's both sides here lower our voices a bit and realize the immediate predicament the United States finds itself in. Regardless of whether you believe a war is prudent or not, the possibility of the US entering into it essentially alone with very few allies in tow must be seen as a disconcerting situation, unless you are on the side of Bin Laden or Hussein. There's a chess game going on here, and unless someone can somehow convince me otherwise, the US hasn't played it very well to this point. The approach taken by the administration has not worked to gain and maintain European allies, and dealing from a position of isolation will not be an advantage to America, in Iraq and in the world situation as a whole. There are legitimate reasons why some people believe a war will create a more dangerous threat to the west than no war, and it's time we recognize those viewpoints as honest and heartfelt, and not just anti- American sentiment. We may in fact find in the end we are not so strong that we can ignore opposing opinion from our own allies, and the people in those nations who propel it.

This problem of voting manipulation, which by the way is seen as a grave problem from outside the US, does pertain quite fittingly with the whole notion of photojournalistic control. Whoever does control what we see or read there is no doubt that it is controlled.

 

Whether it is the individual bias of a reporter or photojournalist, or their editor, or the media mogul who owns the publication or indeed the state, our information is increasingly filtered. The trouble is, it is much, much more difficult to see through, understand or even accept that control when it comes from the complex and largely hidden forces and interests of the state.

 

An individual, for instance, who hates state aggression, or indeed a pro war patriot is a far simpler issue and one that we can factor in when we read or see an image. At least you can get to know that snapper A is pro war while snapper B is against. When the government manipulates the people (which of course history has shown they regularly do) then for us who want to know what is going on it becomes deeply problematic.

 

It is perhaps this above all that makes me most anxious about the current US moves � what is their real agenda and how far will they push it?

 

No one wants to see Saddam remain in power � and we don�t need the sententious moralising to remind us he is bad. However, we all know there are dozens of bad leaders who are dragging their populations down � since when has it been the job of the US to sort them all out? (Quite aside from the question of whether the US would bother � we all know that there is no interest in doing that).

 

Which brings us back to the obvious question, why Saddam?

 

Two alternatives:

 

1) Saddam is a threat, with all his urgings to get weapons of mass destruction and use them, so he must be neutralised and an example sent to other would-be threats. Here we can argue about the timing of the threat and the methods that should be used to disarm him - from immediate all out war to a less aggressive process of containing him. This is where the international debate is currently fixed.

 

2) This is all about strategic interests and opportunities. Saddam (hated by the world) is the excuse, for certain industrial/military complexes to gain future economic/political/strategic/security advantages. This drive towards advantages will be a step by step process which will be reviewed as it goes � first Iraq, then maybe Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. War being the most favoured method in this particular case, but it will not prejudice the use of subtler methods in future cases.

 

It is alternative 2, which obviously worries many who view the drive to war with some suspicion. The problem is we can never be sure that it does not hover in the background even if it is not the primary driver. Needless to say this would worry anyone who is concerned about real democracy, sovereign rights and the death of thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of ordinary people.

 

What makes it even worse is that it is seen as a possibility as coming from a country with such a well known democratic constitution and, at least in the early part of the twentieth century, a reasonably good record on progressive, liberal thinking.

Alternative 2 (above)would also be an explanation as to why the French and the Russians, who already have the strategic advantage with their oil companies in Iraq, are so dead set against war.

 

It would explain why any 'perceived' security threats from Saddam are much less of a worry to them - they simply do not wholly buy alternative 1.

Todd,

 

Sorry that that this thread has turned so nasty at times. Unfortunately the word "war" seems to bring out some feelings on both sides. I personally tried to avoid making this thread into something that you had not intended; but when those of of that else where have are accused of "hijacking the therad", "bashing", and "hating America" I felt that some gentle words were in order. Unless I missed something in reviewing the postings in this thread, the anti-war folk were not the ones to "bait" this thread. Again sorry that what you had hopes for with this thread have gone in a different direction.

 

To those that feel that that this is a photography/Leica forum and those topics are the only ones that should be posted. I agree to an extent. If I or any one else were to post a new thread asking "Does war with Iraq make sense?", then that is most decidely OT and has no place here. But as with this thread, some of the answers sparked feeling within members here, and as such should be allowed to a point. What that point is only the moderator can say for sure. I am surprised that some responses were not pulled already, but in the end I thank Tony for his restraint.

 

Hopefully this flare up will be brief and your thread will be back on topic.

 

Chip

Eliot, My apologies, 'personal political tirade' was a bit of a cheap shot. Though you and I will never agree on politics, I try not to get personal in my posts, but it was late and that one slipped past my editor.

"If it weren't for those radical liberals - the Founding Fathers - you'd be

speaking Cockney..."

 

Are these the same "slave owning", 2nd amendment writing, no poor or

women voting, evil white men you folks all hated during Clinton's "troubles?"

You guys would have been the Torys.

Tony,

 

I promise never to post any more war correspondent/photojournalist questions! ;>)

 

Todd

Todd, while it lasted it was useful discussion. Thanks for bringing it up. Who knew that photo.net was actually a conservative call-in show?

Todd,

 

We are trying here....

 

Chip

 

PS- I have the same thoughts as you as I plan my "safe room". BTW if we seal up the windows and doors, how much air would be left? Also what camera gear are you planning for in your safe room?

Preston,

 

Many thanks for the laugh of the day!

 

Todd had an interesting thread thought going. While not directly related to Leica, but since Leica has been involved previously in conflict photography, I thought it was fair game. In fact given the demographics of the Leica Forum (generally older, more established in their photography) I like seeing threads that get into the "meat" of photography. Meaning that we discuss philosophies and such of photographic work. Much Like Todd intended for his original question.

 

As I have pointed out in other threads that have called for ending OT threads, we are a family here. As with any family there will never be agreement on hot topics. Should hot topics be avoided? Yes, if they are only there to spark trouble; but if there is a photographic reason behind it then I would hope we are adult enough to continue that thread.

 

Again thansk for the laugh...

 

Chip

Amen to that Todd! (from an old fart atheist)