At what point do you not shoot photographs?

[joeb]

I read "The Quiet Anger of Paul Fusco" on the digitaljournalist.org.

 

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0512/steinman.html

 

It concerns Paul Fusco' site:

 

http://www.abitterfruit.com/

 

The question I have is where do you draw the line. ABitterFruit.com

has images taken at solders funerals. The images on Paul's site are

powerful. I don't have a problem with the project. To me the

photographs honor the solders and their families. If the family does

not want the images taken should you respect the request? Given the

current government policies does the military officier's "assistance"

at the funeral constute a family request or not?

 

To me the bitter fruit essays stand on their own. The comments

section on abitterfruit and the digital journalist article both

express opinions that I don't want to discuss.

 

Please limit your responses.

[will_perlis]

"But he managed to get inside the other funerals and once inside those in charge did not stop him, probably because, as he says, "they did not want to make a scene."

 

Here's where I part company with him. Documenting what the government does, whether they like it or not, is healthy for a democracy. However, once the body is turned over to the family, their wishes have priority.

 

I sure would make a scene (and probably an extremely violent one) if someone was trying to make a political point out of my kid's death if I had already said no. I seriously doubt Fusco's anger would be greater than mine at that time.

[rdkirk]

I don't understand the issue of "getting in" to the funerals. I've attended military funerals--my father's for instance--and served as honor guard at military funerals when I was in the military.

 

There is no government involvement or issue with access to a funeral at a non-government cemetary...which is where most soldiers are buried. If he's having a problem with the government restricting access, it can only at CERTAIN national cemetaries where access is controlled (it's not controlled at all national cemetaries).

 

The military members of the burial detail at a military funeral are fully occupied with the burial detail itself. Every member has an essential role in the burial ceremony--they aren't running around the mounds trying to shoo photographers away, although the officer in charge is certainly likely to accept that task if the widow asks him on the spot ("Captain, can you please keep that man away?"

 

There may be additional members of the military attending certain high-level or high-visibility funerals, but not that of the average private soldier, save personal friends and family. Of course, if the military comrade, brother or father of the deceased shoos photographers away, he's doing it as a personal friend or member of the family, not the "government."

 

My speculation is that Fusco is limiting his funeral-crashing to Arlington Cemetary funerals. If this issue of access exists, Fusco is creating it.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Given the current government policies does the military officier's "assistance" at the

funeral constute a family request or not?</I><P>How can you possibly know that without

askign the family members? what if some say yes and others say no?<P>1.)

There appear to be two stories worth covering here. The loss to the USA of the life of a

soldier, and the toll that loss inflicts directly on his or her family and community. <P>2.)

The second story is

how this administration has decided that they take the role of being an Orwellian "Big

Brother" very seriously. The USA is like a horse. We are now saddled --and have been

saddled for a while -- by the responsibilities of being an empire. This is undeniable. How

we govern ourselves will determine how long this will last and how well we all fare is

determined by our leadership. I worry for my country becasue of the long term harm the

current leadership is inflicting for short term gains. Don't forget These people come from

the group that has the same intellectual mindset & philosophy as the people who ran

Enron: It is all " I-Me-Mine" and "'Go f*ck yourself' if you don't agree with me."

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>My speculation is that Fusco is limiting his funeral-crashing to Arlington Cemetary

funerals. If this issue of access exists, Fusco is creating it.</I><P>You should read the

article and look at the photos before further speculation: He isn't going to Arlington.

[allgone]

I think if you have half a brain and a full heart, you know when to draw the line. I have photographed a few soldiers funerals and memorials since the war began so I can comment on personal experience. Often a Media Relations Officer will find you and ask you to shoot from certain area. The MRO's I've experienced have not been difficult. They want to protect the privacy of the family and work with the media at the same time. I don't always end up shooting where they have requested me to shoot from. It's not a matter of being a defiant funeral crasher, disrespectful, or sneaking around to get the best shot. It just plays out differently. The family arrives, you acknowledge them with respect and sympathy and they acknowledge you in some way, a look, a hello, or even a thank you. Sometimes it doesn't play out that way and I think you need to respect that as well. You go with the flow, don't push, and don't work against it. That's how I personally decide when to shoot and when not to in these type of situations.<div></div>

[joeb]

Jessica,

 

It's sad that the military feels the need to have Media Relations Offciers (MRO) at the funerals. It's interesting to compare your take on the MRO to Paul's. His comments in the interview made me question if prior censorship was happening.

 

Thanks for your image and insights.

[j.kivekas]

A soldier in a war is an official doing his duty for the society which has put him there. The war decision is a public decision. The warrior has given his life on behalf of the society. Therefore, because of the duty, because of the presence of the society all along, a warrior funeral is never a private situation but a public situation where media can be and should be present. A good photographer will do his job with good taste.

[pics]

Being a member of the military doesn't mean you are "owned" by the U.S. public nor does it require granting unrestricted access into areas of your personal life and I certainly think a funeral falls into this category. If the individual is being buried with military honors it is because the family requested or Ok'd this procedure and it is the responsibilty of the officer in charge to make sure nothing interfers with the ceremony out of respect for the family's wishes and in the name of decency. Taking photos 4 feet from the casket may or may not be OK with the family and if it's not then you should definitely be asked to stop. Its not an issue of conspiracy but rather one of decency. I've attended military funeral services in the recent future with press photographers present. The familiy had no problem with them being there because they conducted their buisness in a respecful manner and they were not approached or harassed by any military official. If you approach this with a paparazzi attitude then you will have problems and rightly so IMO.

[joeb]

I don't support a paparazzi attitude or any disrespect. It's not the officer in charge of the honor detail, the funeral director, or the family who is asking it's a Media Relations Officer.

 

Many people have a private funeral service. If you have a public service, it's a public service. I have an issue with a government official managing photojournalist's access to a non-governmental funeral. I don't think it's a conspiracy but, it is POLICY.

[j_robinson2]

"Being a member of the military doesn't mean you are "owned" by the U.S. public"

 

It means you are 'owned' by the government. Try being in the military & doing something really stupid that gets you hurt & you find yourself court marshalled for attempting to destroy or harm 'government property'.

[yankfan]

Hypothetically speaking, if a young war widow were to ask me to photograph her husband's funeral so that she could show her young children someday how many people respected, loved, and came to honor their daddy I'd consider it. However, for someone to photograph a young soldier's funeral to further some private agenda, I'd have to say no. There is no dignity in having your son's funeral put up on a website as a political statement.

[35mmdelux]

A little respect is always appropriate in these kind of events. Keep in mind that the family has just received a major broken heart. Their life has fallen apart as they knew it and all their dreams, hopes, and aspirations for the fallen soldier has vanished. The upmost respect for these fallen heros is expected.

 

When my cousin was killed in Vietnam it had reverberations in our family that can still be felt 39 years later.

[j.kivekas]

I think I need to repeat my stand in different words. I too feel that you should always respect the sorrow, mourn and pain a death brings with it. A photgrapher must act discretely, politely and distantly if necessary.<p>

However, getting killed in a war is not a private matter. There is a social responsibility and journalistic duty to tell others about the cost of the actions taken. It's a fundamantal part of the open democratic decision making. Only media can guard those who are in power. Censorship belongs to uncivilized countries.

[craig_gillette]

Newsflash! People don't need a journalist to tell them we are in a war and in wars people die. That's just really sanctimonious, arrogant and ignorant.

 

The family has indicated they don't want a photographer exploiting them or their family member. That one would even begin to question that shows a lack of humanity.

 

Limiting responses seems rather strange in that it's OK to request limits when it's done here but not Ok when a family asks?

[35mmdelux]

"However, getting killed in a war is not a private matter. There is a social responsibility and journalistic duty to tell others about the cost of the actions taken."

 

I totally disagree with the above statement. Death, in any matter or form, IS private. IMO you are a little misguided. What IS NOT private is the policy that takes mostly young people to their deaths. THAT is what must be EXPOSED. The families had NOTHING to do w/ establishing national policy, why must they now endure every knucklehead who wants a photo op?

 

Once you have experienced death close to home you might begin to draw a different, more respectful attitude to those in grief. It is a grief that grabs you by the throat, doesn't let go, and makes everything else totally meaningless. Give them a break.

 

What needs to be understood better by well meaning photographers is that the recoding of an event does not necessarily mean thrusting the camera into the subjects face or stepping into their territory. Take a moment and study the work of HCB or even Andre Kertesz. Both were masters of telling a story often explicitly by not photographing the obvious crowning event/yes, moment.

 

There are other ways to communicate a story that doesn't have to be obvious. Its stepping out of the box and finding new solutions.

 

"It's a fundamantal part of the open democratic decision making." Whoa! I have no idea what this means. If that was truly the case my friend we wouldn't need this discussion, would we? But since you raised the issue, embedded deeply in the fiber of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a great concern for the individual's personal, hence privacy, rights.

 

Its about having humanity IMO, no matter how far off base the national leaders may be.

[j.kivekas]

Graig and Paul, let's just come to the conclusion that we see things in a bit different light. We do agree though that a photog must act discretely and honour the grief.<p>

Here are a couple of good links to support this thread, to make us ask, do we know, would we know, should we know, where the line should be for a photo journalist, is it private or is it public?<br>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55816-2003Oct20?language=printer">- Curtains ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins</a><br>

<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616268111.html">- Sacked for photo ... </a><br>

<A href = "http://seto.org/photo/capa_death_of_a_loyalist_soldier.jpg">- The famous Robert Capa photo of a loyalist soldier</a><p>

And one ugly one for those whose stomach can take what war really is about. Sensitive people, please, do not follow this link! It certainly is not a Hollywood movie with a handsome hero who gets the girl.<br>

<a href="http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html">- Disgusting war pics</a><p>

And I must emphasize, my comment was about photo journalism and its limits, not about the politics itself. If this is seen unappropriate, I don't mind if the administrators remove this message. It is not ment to hurt anybodys feelings. Just to make ask questions where the limit should be. Black is black, white is white.

[craig_gillette]

You're right. This misplaced belief that people like me don't "know" what is going on is the very arrogance that I find so annoying about many journalists. One would have to believe that journalists have failed for years in getting out the word (to America and/or the world) that they were unhappy over all of the flack about coffins, airplanes and jobs and the like (or that they had simply not reported any of the casualties, etc.). But that isn't the case. Journalists have discussed in excruciating and apparently endless detail all that the public might want to know, need to know, or desire to know about the war.

 

Yet intrusion on a family's grief is justified on the excuse that people (still?) don't know the grief caused by war. But then one must ask, is this because people are ignorant, blissfully or otherwise? Or that all of the other journalists have failed in doing their jobs, those of enlightening the masses?

 

Or that somehow "they" haven't come to the same conclusions as those held by the journalist?

[j.kivekas]

I am sorry, I don't quite follow you now. There is a saying "the work doesn't end by doing it." Of course news have to be told even if similar things have happened before. Grief is part of the ultimate price that you may have to pay. Of course there is an obligation for a journalist to tell this. Certainly, it is much more important piece of news than which fur Brittney bought last week. The tsunami and New Orleans proved how rapidly things can change from a safe society to complete destruction and uncontrolled chaos. The thing that you never imagined to happen to you can happen.<p>

Here in Finland we have presidential election underway. One key issue is should we go to NATO. And the next following question is always "should our boys possibly die somewhere in Africa". Now, to show or not to show war grief in a photo both carry political power, here, right now. Should people be reminded or should they not? One way or another, a journalist has his vow and his heart to follow. Fortunately there are many journalists so views get levelled - hopefully at least most of the time.

[35mmdelux]

I agree with your thinking on when/when not to shoot. As you eloquently stated, there are enough journalists that it would be covered in one way or another.

 

On a sidebar issue you brought up, why in the world would your country want to send boys (your words) to die in Africa? The Africans kill, no strike that, they butcher themselves regularly. To me, that is a no-brainer. No Fins to Africa now or ever. Peacekeeping missions are another issue so long as it is multi-lateral operations, meaning alot of countries involved so that no one country takes a big hit.

 

About the NATO issue, the Fins can sit by and let the USA and the UK do the dirty work or they can pitch in to try to make this a better world.

 

The Fins should not forget that most all NATO issues are in their backyard, not ours. To forget history is to allow it to happen again.

[tri-x1]

>There is a social responsibility and journalistic duty to tell others about the cost of the actions taken. It's a fundamantal part of the open democratic decision making. Only media can guard those who are in power. Censorship belongs to uncivilized countries.<

 

The above is a classic example of the line media members use when them thump themselves on the chest and declaring themselves the keepers of American freedom. That's a lot of Bull

 

The media once presented boths sides of controversial issues as objectively as possible so readers or viewers could make informed decisions. Bitterfruit is an example of members of the "media" using the sorrow of a family to promote a specific agenda. A good reason why I no longer am in the news business (after 30 years in the profession).