Photojournalism and Aesthetics

<p>Recently in the new Street and Documentary Photography forum, a

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=007lvp">question</a> was asked about putting aesthetics ahead

of subject matter in photojournalism. What are your personal

opinions about this, should photojournalists compromise the story

they are attempting to convey to the viewers for an aesthetically

pleasing photograph? By this I do not mean painting an unrealistic

picture of an event, but simply compromising or omitting part of the

story in an attempt to make the photograph aesthetic. I realize in

the case of this particular photograph, that no compromise was made

and that the photograph conveyed very accuratly the sentiment of his

subject and etc., however I am just looking for opinions.

Thanks.<br><br>--Dominic</p>

"Omitting part of the story" is a fundamental part of journalism. It's not just propagation, but distillation as well.

You're begging the question by leading with the assumption that making the photo aesthetic would involve compromising the story. A photo with strong aesthetics is usually a stronger news photo because it engages the reader.

 

Leaving aside the fact that any photo necessarily omits part (or most) of the story, if you were to distort the story in favor of aesthetics, that would clearly be bad journalism.

There is certainly room for a photojournalist to create more than just your standard 'documentary' shot and still cover a story with honesty and integrity. We know that a good news photograph can add enormously to the effect of a story and we can all think back on the famous shots we have seen over the years.<P>

 

But, taking the best (aesthetically pleasing) picture you can, shouldn't compromise the photjournalists committment to portraying the 'truth' as he saw it.

Having retired from a 37 year as stringer news Photographer, photo editor, Photojournalist, and publisher, you have asked a question we PJs don't ask ourselves.<br> We are sent out to "get the shot". There are no, not any, none, nada-nein preconceived notions about who, what, where, when, why; the five pillars of journalism. We go out to shoot the assignment, hoping like hell we do "get the shot".<p>This question ought to be asked in another way: "What would make a PJ alter, set up, promote (action), instigate or coach a subject/situation on an assignment? Nothing. There are no incentives for a PJ to judge the scene or persons involved. We write captions for each shot and those captions must answer the five "W"s to the extent it is possible. Better for us, we get paid the same whether we get the shot or not.<br>There is not much activity regarding "The Foundview" these days(foundview.org, whose fundamental principle was simple: show only what was seen at the scene, no grooming no "Setups") Foundview was an attempt to outline a code of ethics for all photographers. Of course, we PJ have our own code of ethics that, almost without exception, no PJ ever knowingly breaks.<bR>

The inference in the original question is: <i>PJs cheat</i>. Maybe not all the time, but PJs cheat. Not true.<br>Almost without exception, these kinds of ethics discussions are held by non-PJs or those new to the craft.<p>You asked: " should photojournalists compromise the story they are attempting to convey to the viewers for an aesthetically pleasing photograph"?<p>

Moreover, how would we do what you are suggesting? What evidence do you have that Photojournalists have time to do what you suggest? What would be their motive to "compromise" any shot(s)? How would the <i>physically</i> accomplish that feat? Futhermore, what principle (person) in an interview or incident would "obey" a lowly PJ who is, after all, hired help?<p>The attached photo is of America's Poet Laureate Maya Angelou. I had 30 minutes with her over a kitchen table at a friend's home as she waited to go to a dedication of a new Public Library named after her. I talked, scribbled, and shot.<br>What would make any living person think they could or would want to "Manipulate" this powerful, rich woman or any subject just for a shot?<div></div>

<p>I am not saying that a photograph that is aesthetic is not compelling and maybe my question was not well worded.

<br><br>

maybe : <b><i>would</i></b> photojournalists compromise the story they are attempting to convey to the viewers for an aesthetically pleasing photograph? ; would be better. I love seeing aesthetic shots that invoke an emotion, here is my post to the thread I mentioned in my question:<b><br><br>Answers to your questions:

 

Is this journalism?- Yes, it certainly tells the story very effectively and evoked a reaction <i>The trouble was that it rather unsettled me</i>. I find too often now uninteresting photographs in newspapers, therefore I believe we need more images like the one you described.

<br><br>

Is this art?- This all depends who you ask, and you will find many different opinions. You could ask this in the Philosophy of Photography and get many long and thoughtful responses (note to Hans- yes we know your opinion on photography as art).

<br><br>

Is this ethical?- In my opinion yes, but again this is a matter of personal discretion. What is there to make this unethical?

<br><br>

Is this bullshit?- No

<br><br>

 

For my opinon: I believe the image you described was very sucessful, it envoked emotion and showed how the photographer chose to best represent the situation. As I have already said, I beleive that the photography in some of the media today is just horrible. I'd rather have an aesthetic image in my newspaper than a mundane one that shows no creative insight into the making of the photograph. I do not believe that the subject matter was subordinate to the artistry involved in making the picture. The photographer's intention was to portray the feelings of the young Palestinian and the cause he was fighting for, and made a photo which accuratly captured and portayed this. The fact that the image is aesthetically appealing does not mean the photographer compromised the subject matter for the sake of art.</b><br><br>

</i><br><br>--Dominic</p>

<p><i>You're begging the question by leading with the assumption that making the photo aesthetic would involve compromising the story.</i><br><br>I am not leading with that assumption, see my above post....<br><br>Best wishes,<br><br>--Dominic</p>

Well, then the answer is simply that you shouldn't distort or compromise the story just to make a photo look good. I don't think you'd find anyone who would say otherwise.

 

Mind you, despite Ed's protestations, this does happen. A photo may be selected purely because it's striking or dramatic.

<p><i>A photo may be selected purely because it's striking or dramatic.

</i><br><br>That's exactly what I was trying to get at. Thanks.<br><br>--Dominic</p>

In a recent online poll in regard to trust of the media, a full seventy percent consider newspapers to not be trustworthy because of their bias'. Over a hundred thousand people responded to the poll. There's good reason for this loss of trust.

 

With that in mind, when one asks about aesthetics in journalistic photographic efforts, it begs the polling question in regard to bias or distortion in the news media and truthfullness.

 

I myself gave up on newspapers a loooooooog time ago because of the way newspapers distort news to serve their purposes as opposed to reporting news, as it happens, without bias interjection. Very little of what's written in a paper today can I stomach because of the intentionally distorting (slant) of the story. There's no balance to most politically aligned articles and the choice of images are designed to support this bias or slant.

 

As to your question, I consider it a silly question that deals with ethics in photojournalism. Why silly? Because we all know what is right and we all know what is wrong. We all know when what we're doing is wrong. How much wrong a person tolerates is defined by their character (value system).

 

"By this I do not mean painting an unrealistic picture of an event, but simply compromising or omitting part of the story in an attempt to make the photograph aesthetic."

 

When one compromises an image by inserting their personal bias' (aesthetics) in an image, they've corrupted the integrity (truth) of the image (story) thereby distorting the context of an image to selfishly serve their bias' (aesthetics).

 

I hope my above gives some clarity to the issue raised in your question.

One last attempt. "Photojournalists" were mentioned. <P>I suggest you all stop right here, go look at all the Pulitzer Prize winning shots over the years, in particular, the winning shot of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That shot of the Fireman carrying the child is the purest form of a "Grab shot" there is, a shot that not only told a story, it encapsulated the entire tragedy. <br>So by what freekin' magic can anyone here suggest the photographer could have or did "compromise" that shot? Look at all of the winners. "Spot" photography all, "grab shots" that tell a story. And further, a PJ doesn�t control what is printed out of what they turn in. As a photo editor, <I><b>I chose</b></I> what the shots would go to the editorial board so in any instance where the Photog got cute or contrived a scene, s/he never knew what shot would be chosen to be published anyway. Does that make sense? Why contrive, �compromise�, pose-fake or whatever if you <I>had no publishing control</I>? <p>Only people with "artistic" pretensions would say what has been said here about we PJs. As a Photo Editor, I trusted my photographers to get the shot. They had no time to "compromise" (<i>and just what is this "compromise" we are discussing</i>?)<p>Most serious PJs don't take their jobs as anything other than getting the shot and traveling. 99% of us do what we do because we like the technical challenge, love to travel, love to use powerful professional gear, travel. We are kin under the skin, "brother and sister rats" who compete fiercely with the other. We talk about the mechanical part of our craft, we compare notes, give each other hints, fraternize when not shooting.<p>Almost without exception, we don't talk about photography but what we've seen and what we saw.<br> We trade "war stories", how we fell on our arses climbing over a wall while some a-hole was popping shots at us.<p>Yah, we try to get "artistic" when shooting head shots but those shots are almost always made on the fly, as in my Maya Angelou shot. She said "that's enough" and I scooted away like a scalded Rat.<p>When I am shooting on my own (not getting paid), I "do my own thing" (<i>whatever that is especially in those times when I have no professional or other ethic to uphold</i>)<br>But when I am on assignment and turn on my Canon EOS "Robocameras" to shoot? It is all business and professional ethics.<p>Yes, I will protest anyone who would willy-nilly paint PJs with the "cheat" or "cheaters" brush. We work pretty G-damn hard, trying to capture what we see <i>at the scene.</i>There is no time, no way we have influence over the "Action" whatever it is.</I><p> <I>Will the writer of the OP state what he meant by "compromise"? Are you saying or insinuating PJs routinely or even sometime "manipulate" the scene or image as if they were �civilians�? On the other hand, are you suggesting that the PJ poses principle(s) in their shots?</i><p>Just what the hay are any of you saying when you say "compromise"?

I'm rather afraid that Ed is attempting to put on the 'hard bitten' PJ act a little bit too much. While some of what he says may be generally true it doesn't fit with my experience both as a photographer and as an editor.

 

The first thing you want in a picture is impact because the purpose of the picture is to grab the reader's attention. Sometimes the impact is less than obvious, as in local newspapers where you quickly learn that faces sell papers, but it is there all the same. Then it has to tell a part of the story but that's less important because you've got all those words next to it.

 

So to answer Dominic's question, photographers put aesthetics ahead of subject matter most, if not all of the time. They look for the fireman outlined by clear sky between burning buildings, the bloodiest victim of the car crash, the moment when the footballers collide... because these are the images that sell to editors. And editors buy them because they think that the public wants to see that sort of picture (and because the proprietor would really like another Newspaper Society award to hang in his office).

 

What's more, realism is not where it's at when it comes to gore. The bloody victim is a sure sell but not if you can see the six inch gash to the bone that the blood is shooting out of. Perhaps on a really slow day at a national newspaper but not in most cities, in my experience.

Ed, your response is typical of the chest-beating reporters and photographers indulge in whenever anyone suggests that their work includes bias. Yet bias is present in all news coverage, in varying degrees, no matter what you may choose to believe. Bias-free reporting does not exist, almost by definition.

 

Many reporters and photographers like to think they are just a sort of recording consciousness, but they still must make decisions about what is in the story, and what is out of it. The camera has to be pointed at a particular subject, and the shutter released at a particular time. This is the outcome of a conscious decision that at the very least carries a bias that says, "this scene at this moment belongs to the story."

 

For an example of this, consider statements made by Christopher Morris during an interview on NPR regarding his coverage of the Iraq war. When discussing photographing civilian casualties as an embedded photographer, he said that he ignored the concerns of the troops that he would make them look bad, that his job was simply to record what happened for posterity, and that whether his coverage made the troops look bad depended on editorial decisions beyond his control. A few minutes later, discussing the looting of Baghdad shops by US troops as they entered the city, he spoke of his decision not to take photos because "it happens in every war" and he felt the only reason to do so would be to make them look bad. There is an obvious bias at work here.

 

What Dominic is referring to (because he's certainly made himself clear to me) is the potential to record a moment that doesn't reflect the story accurately. If you don't believe this is possible, I suggest you refer to a decent undergrad PJ textbook such as Kobré's "Photojournalism: The Professionals' Approach."

 

That text gives as an example photos of a politician at a public meeting, with a variety of facial expressions, making the point that it is easy to select an expression that will make for a striking and controversial photo, but which will distort the reality of what actually happened at the meeting.

 

Tnis doesn't assert that "PJ's cheat." It asserts three things, which are obvious to anyone willing to think for a minute: first, journalism is subjective, second, it is possible (although wrong) to distort the story with a photo, and third, sometimes (although wrong) this happens.

 

When it happens, it's often because the photographer and his editors end up more concerned with having a dramatic or striking photo than with having one that represents the events he experienced.

 

For example, consider the contact sheet posted by S. Liu in the recent "Decisive Moment" thread on the street photography forum. Ask yourself whether the select from that contact sheet accurately reflects what happened that day. Nope; it is simply the best photo on the sheet, and incidentally, the photo that represents the subject in his best light.

 

As for the utopian vision of honesty you're giving us as you speak on behalf of "we PJs," I can give you a long list of photographers and reporters fired or disciplined for ethical breaches far more serious than this. Heard of Brian Walski, for example?

<i> should photojournalists compromise the story they are attempting to convey to the

viewers for an aesthetically pleasing photograph? </i><p>

 

A compelling documentary image does not have to be aesthetically pleasing, but pros are

able to make both happen. In documentary photography, ultimately the goal is conveying

information about a story, or it is the story itself. If there's a choice between getting an

aesthetically unappealing shot or not getting the shot, a photojournalist would go for the

shot. If the choice is between two shots of equivalent informative value, but one is a 'better'

shot that is better composed or more interestingly lit or prettier, why would anyone be

opposed to it? Your hypothetical implies that something is being lost when there are

aesthetically-pleasing documentary photos -- is anything really lost? Examples?

<p><i>Your hypothetical implies that something is being lost when there are aesthetically-pleasing documentary photos -- is anything really lost? Examples?</i><br><br>I am not saying that, I am asking would a PJ do that. Newspapers are not always honest and hence there must be some unethical photojournalists as well.</p>

<p>i>What Dominic is referring to (because he's certainly made himself clear to me) is the potential to record a moment that doesn't reflect the story accurately.</i><br><br>That is exactly what I am referring to, I did not phrase my initial question very well and I am by no means saying that PJs are unethical or dishonest. I am also not saying that grab shots like the Oklahoma City Bombing example are compromised and I am also not saying that the majority of photos have aesthetics put ahead of subject matter. I am just asking "Would this happen?, could this happen?, would some PJs do this?. I am sorry if some believe this is a stupid question, if they do, they do not have to respond.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>--Dominic</p>

Dominic

 

As to stupid, I wrote silly, not stupid. And yes writing down words such as silly is sometimes necessary, otherwise people won't use their mind. If everybody only wrote answers that didn't challenge, then one won't stop to think about their questions.

 

I saw your question as an unthought through question, therefore I saw it as a silly question. Sorry you found my choice of words uncomfortable but I intended the choice of words to be thought provoking and sometimes that will make people uncomfortable.

Sorry I did not mean to offend you Thomas, yes I realize the question was not as well thought out as it should have been, I did not organize my thoughts and ideas very well. Yes I do realize that silly has a very different meaning from stupid and again I am sorry if I offended you.

 

Best wishes,

 

--Dominic

Dominic wrote.<p>

 

<i>Sorry I did not mean to offend you Thomas, yes I realize the question was not as well thought out as it should have been, I did not organize my thoughts and ideas very well. Yes I do realize that silly has a very different meaning from stupid and again I am sorry if I offended you.</i><p>

 

Not at all.<p>

 

It was I that was concerned about offending:) I wanted you to think your question through a bit more as it seemed more a question of ethics and bias; something newspapers of late seem to have a horrible problem with:)<p>

 

Thanks for your thoughtfullness as no offense was taken.<p>

Harvey: (in part) <i>"So to answer Dominic's question, photographers put aesthetics (<I>beauty</I>[eg]) ahead of subject matter most, if not all of the time</i>".<P> I presume when you say "<i>photographers</i>" you have folded PJs into the mix. PJs are the only "<i>photographers</i>" with a certified code of ethics regarding the craft: (using "craft" rather than hobby)<bR>To lump them in with hobbyists or "serious amateurs" or others not bound by an ethical code is at least disingenuous.<p><i> "They look for the fireman outlined by clear sky between burning buildings, the bloodiest victim of the car crash, the moment when the footballers collide... because these are the images that sell/</i><p>If by "they" you mean photographers (the class) you are right. But then, every photographer worth their salt, PJ or rank amateur, looks for the best shot and composition as you outlined.<p>�<I> �to editors. And editors buy them because they think that the public wants to see that sort of picture (and because the proprietor would really like another Newspaper Society award to hang in his office</I>�)<p>Pardon me all. I keep forgetting I am of "<I>The old school</I>" of Journalism, when ethics were taught in college and journalism was a profession people aspired to attain. Journalists learned English, learned to spell, read and wrote on literature. Journalists then applied their lessons to the craft, some in a most anal retentive way.<br>I am also of the time when digital first came to Photojournalism (1995) and now kids with no background in English <I>or</I> Photography, but grounded in �Art� or kids without a definable major became and become PJs. I also forget ethics are not taught as a general course in college (or high school) to <I>anyone</I>.<br> Who am I to expect such an unwashed crowd to adhere to journalistic ethics when they have little or no knowledge of ethics? When the digital camera makes everyone a �photographer�? <p>Before I realized it, I had joined in a conversation where people were talking about "aesthetics" and journalism in the same sentence.<br> English major that I am, I was uneasy with the subject, in that the two were literally conversational and topical oxymorons;<br> Webster�s says this about aesthetics:<br><i>Main Entry: 2aesthetic<br>

Function: noun<br>

1 plural but singular or plural in construction : a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty<br>

2 : a particular theory or conception of beauty or art : a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight".</i><p>That was what was causing my unease: what does beauty or the philosophical appreciation of beauty have to do with raw, in-your-face journalism?<bR> Especially in the context of the gritty, dirty, funky, utterly vile things I and others have seen as journalists?<bR>�Beauty�? Is that what the original questioner meant? Surely not. To infer by innocent question that photojournalists go in search of beauty rather than seek content in their assignments? Certainly not. But the thread took off as threads do, on the tangent of �<I>In search of; or for; �beauty in photojournalism</I>�.<br> Which made nearly any subsequent input along those lines nonsensical. <p>Sure I have fond beauty in the flowers and other flora in Haiti but the flowers and the beauty in Haiti were not or were never mentally juxtaposed in my work as a journalist.<bR> Haiti is a filthy, nasty place with broken down everything, their infrastructure in tatters, their people, thanks in large par to the Unites States, a �<I>Lumpenproletariat</I>" of the worst sort. a<br> OK. If your assignment is to cover a flower show at the local Botanica, in that venue, a PJ would search for beauty among the many beautiful flowers� but not in Haiti or America�s Appalachia or a near brawl at an outdoor press conference.<p> Indeed, had the question been about photojournalistic ethics or ethics in journalism instead of �Aesthetics� this thread would make sense. But each respondent, including myself, floundered helplessly in the question.<p>I am going to follow this thread closely to see whether someone, perhaps the original questioner, will put this topic on its proper course; photojournalism and ethics.

<div></div>

Somebody already has, Skippy, and you've made a point of not responding to those points.

Fine, now its about photojournalism and ethics. Are there unethical photojournalists out there, do we see unethical photos in our newspapers today? Would a photojournalist be unethical in order to get a shot that sells?

 

--Dominic

Dominic , mar 26, 2004; 08:45 p.m.<br><i> "Fine, now its about photojournalism and ethics. Are there unethical photojournalists out there</i>",<p>Yes, but damn few. Your original question begs another: in what field of endeavor would we <b><i>not</i></b> find unethical people?<p><i> "..do we see unethical photos in our newspapers today?</i><p>With the notorious exception of the one doctored Newsweek photo of O. J. Simpson, I would say very few.<p> <i> "Would a photojournalist be unethical in order to get a shot that sells?</i> <p>Again, the Photojournalist has little to say about what is published.<br> Example: S/he brings in or uploads 120 shots. Those shots are culled by the photo editor (my old job) then brought before the editorial board. <i>It is they</i> who decide what shots go where and which shots go above the fold or to the features page-etc. The PJ is out of the loop, especially these days where the PJ may be in Rangoon, Burma uploading from a D-SLR onto a portable satellite dish. <bR><I>Had a PJ working for me insisted that I publish shot 6 or shot 30, I would immediately be suspicious of their motives</I>.<br> Your question(s) would be more apropos of a Paparazzi and <I>their</I> motives; <b><I>What must be remembered by all is freelancers and Paparazzi are <u>not</u> PJs</I></b>.<br> A PJ working for a news organization? No. A freelancer or stringer who gets paid only if their shot(s) are published? Emphatically yes.<p>These ethical questions need to be directed at freelancers and Paparazzi, not honestly employed Photojournalists who, as I will insist, don't have a vested interest in which, if any of their shots get published as long as they get the byline.

Well, it's a good thing I got my chest waders out of winter storage, as it's starting to get deep in here. Leaving aside the amusing notion that Nachtwey isn't a photojournalist because he freelances for Time, instead of shooting cat parades for the Butthole Herald and Times....

 

Within the past year or two, Brian Walski at the LA Times was fired after a photo he filed from Iraq turned out to be a composite of two other photos. A photographer at the NYT, whose name momentarily escapes me, was disciplined after it was revealed he had set up a photo. Patrick Schneider of the Charlotte Observer was disciplined after photos he submitted to a regional photojournalism competition were discovered to have been manipulated.

 

(In the last case, the manipulation was limited to excessive burning, and there was some controversy. The Charlotte Observer, invoking the disingenuous argument that raw files are analogous to a reporter's notes, has refused to release the originals, so the degree to which the versions published in the paper were altered is impossible to tell.)

 

The common element in all three cases is that the offenders were staff photographers, not freelancers -- just as the recent scandals involving reporters at the NYT and USA Today involved staff reporters, not freelancers. The motivation in these cases is obvious: job security, promotion, and career advancement depend on bringing back good photos.

 

There are two ways of looking at these cases. You might take them as evidence that the system works, and that cheaters get caught. Or, you might take the view that these cases are the tip of the iceberg, and for every guy who gets caught there are several others successfully continuing to cheat.

 

The fact is that Walski was caught when a reader noticed that some people seemed to appear twice in the same photo. The NYT guy was caught when a fellow photographer, who witnessed the incident, turned him in. Schneider was caught when the difference was noticed between the original published versions of his pix, and the ones that were submitted to the contest. (Since the paper won't clear up the questions surrounding the original published versions, that story remains incomplete.)

 

In each of these cases, the offenders could have been doing the same thing for some time without being caught.

 

These are, of course, only three out of thousands of photojournalists working in the US during that time. These three cases received wide attention because two involved major papers, and the third an unusual situation involving a photojournalism contest. It is entirely possible (even likely) that there have been dozens more, at small papers, that have never received attention, but even then you're looking at only a small number of offenders out of thousands.

 

So, yes, unethical stuff gets done. Unethical photos are published. A small number of well known cases get a high profile, which makes the problem appear more widespread than it probably is.

 

And apparently even staff photographers aren't perfect.

Andrew: <i> "Within the past year or two, Brian Walski at the LA Times was fired after a photo he filed from Iraq turned out to be a composite of two other photos. A photographer at the NYT, whose name momentarily escapes me, was disciplined after it was revealed he had set up a photo. Patrick Schneider of the Charlotte Observer was disciplined after photos he submitted to a regional photojournalism competition were discovered to have been manipulated</I>�.<p> I think the paucity of times cheating has been documented out of the tens of thousands of Photojournalists and tens of millions of images stands my argument in good stead.<P>More significantly, the fact you and me know of the <i>same documented incidents</i> also bodes well for my contention that Photojournalists shoot: it is the editorial staffs that cheat.<p><I> �The common element in all three cases is that the offenders were staff photographers, not freelancers -- just as the recent scandals involving reporters at the NYT and USA Today involved staff reporters, not freelancers. The motivation in these cases is obvious: job security, promotion, and career advancement depend on bringing back good photos</I>�.<p>Still doesn�t explain how they did it in or form the field.<p>Since we cannot prove a negative, which seems to be what you are inferring, I will stipulate some PJs have cheated. But again, it is the editorial staff that publishes (and manipulates), not the PJ.<p><I> �These three cases received wide attention because two involved major papers, and the third an unusual situation involving a photojournalism contest. It is entirely possible (even likely) that there have been dozens more, at small papers, that have never received attention, but even then you're looking at only a small number of offenders out of thousands. �So, yes, unethical stuff gets done. Unethical photos are published. A small number of well known cases get a high profile, which makes the problem appear more widespread than it probably is</I>�. <p>I think the paucity of times cheating has been documented out of the tens of thousands of Photojournalists and tens of millions of images stands my argument in good stead.<P>More significantly, the fact you and me know of the same incidents also bodes well for my contention that Photojournalists shoot: it is the editorial staff(s) that cheat. <br>My only question in what you say is this: are you suggesting Walski duplicated the soldiers in question in the field? If so, how?