War photography......not propaganda?

[c.r._hips]

Yeah Kent, but I think for us living our removed lives pictures become easy to dismiss. Billboards with graphic depictions of war just become more eye candy and clutter along the road. The thought of being drafted goes right to the heart of the matter. If there was a draft, each 18 yr. old would be forced to make a stand on their own lives. Is it worth my life or not? Dissent is a powerful tool when it truly is in the hands of those making that decision. We are even more removed, knowing there are enough kids out there that see the military as their future. They , in effect, take contoll of our democratic decisions because we have given it up to them. I find it to be a scary scenario for our democratic principles. But I must admit there is great subject matter for any photog who wants to tackle it.

[pico_digoliardi]

So many ever-so-kind-and-gentle liberals would not tolerate real pictures of the worst of war in their media, and the liberal media won't dare put them off. So, no significant pictures.

 

The so-called right-wing doesn't want them published either, but in order not to feed the liberals' angst. So, no such pictures in their publications, either.

 

So both sides are responsible for the same outcome.

 

See how it works?

 

This year's Pulitzer prize photoessay by RMT photographer Todd Heisler struck right down the middle. The picture of the casket being loaded into the passenger plane pretty much described the painful ambivalance of the public, the loss. I will never in my life get over that picture. It is a harrowing comment.

[mike dixon]

<i>I didn't know that Americans consider the media liberal ... comparing the US mainstream media to e.g. European media, the US media seem to be very war-hungry, very anti-Arab, and pro-Israeli.</i><P>

"Liberal" and "conservative" have sort of lost their meanings in American politics. The "liberal" media kept the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal on the front page for months after every opinion poll indicated that most people didn't relly care about it, and the "liberal" media unquestioningly passed along the Bush administration's claims about WMDs and terrorist connections in Iraq in the rush to war a few years ago. On the other hand, "conservatives" are pushing for more federal government control over the states and people, and "conservatives" are happily supporting huge federal deficits and running up the national debt to record levels.

[kevinconroyfarrell]

I do not get this 'War photography's purpose is to end wars' line. Nor do I get the 'Violence

is a failure to find a civilized means of resolving conflict' line. Nor do I get the 'War

photography is propaganda' line. Nor do I get the 'It is all just an excuse to say some

people are right and some people are wrong' line.

 

Of course some people are wrong and some people are right. The Serbs were wrong to

massacre Bosnian muslims. The Nazis were absolutely wrong. How would you stop these

people? By talking to them? How UTTERLY naive! Violence is the only solution with such

people. The world is not civilized!

 

What is this tip-toeing around worrying about being "judgmental." How could anyone

survive without making judgments? Life is non-stop judgments.

 

How does anyone imagine he is able to sit and write on a computer? Did you think the

world was just dotted with shopping malls and clean, safe hospitals and food stores when

it was created? We walk around in relative safety because there are armed men and fighter

jets assuring our safety through violence. All of the countries we live in were created

through violence. Things do not become benevolent in times of

anarchy. They revert to savagery. Armies are the only insurance against unrestrained

atrocity, not the cause of it.

 

As the Greeks said, "War is the mother of us all."

[michaelkh]

On the L word: I'm with Mike and Ilkka. I have to say, I am in a state of continuous

astonishment at this notion that the USA has a "liberal" media. If, in the UK, our sunday

political talk shows were as stacked with guests from one side of the political divide as

they would seem to be on the other side of the pond, the television stations would be

fined.

 

The simple truth is, "liberal" has become a pejorative term in the USA. It has no political

definition; it's a term of hatred that makes it easier to reject things without thinking.

Moreso when it is reduced to the word "lib", in the way that people used to condense

"japanese" to "jap". It is not even interchangeable with "democrat", as it is no longer a

political term. It's a social classification, apt for a present cultural divide, or a future

repressive regime or civil war.

 

People would do well to think before they use it, and to question whether using such a

blanket term helps or harms their argument.

 

Back on topic, the problem with war photography as it stands at the moment is twofold:

self-fulfilling selectivity and ratings-driven self-censorship. There is not too much war

news, or too little war news. There is simply no trust in its accuracy, and that means all

war coverage leaves all sides unsatisfied. This is for two reasons, as I see it:

 

First, the last decade's trend towards embedded journalism has fatally wounded both the

accuracy and the perceived impartiality (on all sides) of the journalist. The journalist is

now seen not as a recorder but a weapon of war on the public opinion front. This puts

them at risk, but it also means that the inevitable cycle of optimism and gloom in war

reportage is massively amplified by the slow erosion of co-operation with the official

message that occurs in any long-term journalistic endeavour.

 

Second, the drive to produce commercially viable news means that a journalist's impulses

are suppressed by the network's need for clean news. A journalist will never push to put a

coffin on the screen, will be slower to report possible outrages like Haditha, and will tend

to focus relentlessly on an 'upside' to anything, which ultimately leads to them looking like

turncoats when they simply run clean out of upsides.

 

The war news you are seeing in the USA is not wholly liberal, or wholly conservative. It is

neutered, packaged, moderated and compromised by decisions taken entirely outside the

theatre of war, often before the war began. This makes it not viable reportage, and also

makes it useless propaganda.

[kevinconroyfarrell]

If the news is useless propaganda and not viable reportage, how do you know there was

an incident at Haditha? How do you know there is a war at all, for that matter? How do you

know the war is not going as well as the official line supposedly says it is? Everyone on this

thread seems to be aware U.S. service people are dying daily, that the insurgency is very

hard to put down, that there have been atrocities committed by American troops. How can

this be if it is all lies, censorship and propaganda? Where are people getting their

information from, if not the lying media?

 

Information still flows in the West. This is not some '1984' nightmare society, even if it is

fun to imagine it were so.

 

There are problems with coverage of any war. But propaganda is a strong word. To call the

U.S. news propaganda is to cheapen the experience of those who live under the crude

fraud that is real propaganda.

[michaelkh]

To be fair, I didn't say that they would not report such things. I just said they'd be slow to

do so. It wasn't mainstream US television media who broke that story - indeed they didn't

cover it for a long time. It was traditional print journalists, and they spent a _long_ time

doing the kind of story research that most broadcast journalists simply are not doing. It

was a victory for the old way of doing things; the way that television won't pay for.

 

I also did not say that the media was lying. Don't try to oversimplify my point. I'm just

saying they do not function as they should. It is their function to resist the simple

repetition of propaganda.

 

I said that their war coverage generally makes for useless propaganda. I think this is more

by coincidence than talent. But if you want to compare it to the "crude fraud" that is 'real'

propaganda, I can think of dozens of instances of real propaganda in the way the Bush

administration and indeed the Blair government presented the case for war.

 

Think "45 minutes", "old europe", "greeted as liberators", "recently sought significant

quantities of uranium from Africa", and in photographic terms, the wholly orchestrated

toppling of the saddam statue, or the tailhook landing. This is all propaganda. Some of it

is simply false, some of it is morally wrong, and some of it is less clear cut; designed for

instance to cause the review of entrenched positions, to cast a different light on absurd

arguments, or to expose motives.

 

Propaganda is the province of all governments, it isn't restricted to countries you think

aren't free, and it isn't always the wrong thing to do. We allow ourselves to think of

propaganda as something only repressive regimes would do, because this is the modern

interpretation of the word. In reality, any government message that is supported as much

by media management as it is by facts, tends towards propaganda. "Coughs and sneezes

spread diseases" was classic UK wartime propaganda; poetry achieved a level of

penetration into the national psyche that a dry reporting of the facts could not. Indeed,

President Bush talks about having to repeat the truth to "catapult the propaganda". This is

a simple admission that the truth can be propaganda, and that propaganda is what they

practise.

 

In the context of the war, Rumsfeld's own documents suggest that fake stories that were

placed in the foreign media have already come back to convince people in the USA.

Outside of the war, Armstrong Williams took money from the Bush government to act

literally as a paid shill for the No Child Left Behind Act. If that is not propaganda, what is?

 

As an aside, I'm actually quite surprised as to how few truly iconic visual moments this war

has produced, propaganda or otherwise. Most of what sticks in my mind is what was said

or unsaid. While we are discussing such moments, can anyone think of other strong

images (right or wrong)?

[kevinconroyfarrell]

Well, referring to the war coverage, you have got the line, "There is simply no trust in its

accuracy..." This word "accuracy" would tend to be about facts, would it not?

[mike dixon]

"No trust in its accuracy" implies that people are unsure whether what they are reading is an accurate, relatively-balanced account. It does not mean that people think "it is all lies, censorship and propaganda" (your characterization). Believing that everything you read is true and believing that everything you read is a lie are not the only two possibilities.

[ben conover]

Good morning from Ireland.

 

Michael Houghton, thanks for the well writen comments above. I like your photos of Brighton beach. As to you question, yes there is one image I remember clearly. An innocent Brazillian is lying dead in the London tube at Stockwell, I'm sure you know the image I mean.

Even with photographic evidence and witnesses the police were not convicted for his murder. Seems people don't believe photos anymore.

 

Strange how selective our non-photographic memories are, how few images we can retain, speaking for myself anyway. Perhaps one needs to be immersed in that kind of photography every day to remember the faces and the tears. In my book of Medium format Roger Hicks said that to do photography properly it must be an obsession.

 

Are the images we are fed neutralizing our views? Are we being photographically medicated?

[gav]

Arriving a little late to the discussion, but it seems interesting nevertheless.

 

OK: war photos do not and have not stopped wars, but i would argue that they have raised awareness of some of the hidden issues around wars, for example civilian casualties.

 

Until photography and freelance photographers, people 'at home' assumed that the only casualties of a war were military, and that their 'boys at the front' were simply killing other soldiers. We now know this to be a complete lie, mainly through photojournalism. We can see the boredom of the soldiers, the impact of the war on civilians, the destruction of cities and other infrastructure. The photos might not stop the war, but they make us understand (even in a small way) what it is like to live in a war zone.

 

We take this for granted, but prior to WWII, with a few exceptions, no one was aware of the war if they were not actually there.

 

In addition, war photographers give us some insight into the soldiers themselves, Capa, Burrows, McCullin shows young people becoming soldiers. The vacant faces of soldiers do not give away their feelings, heroic, scared, betrayed etc. Leee millars images of WWII are fascinating, not just for the shock factor, but for the mundaneness of the situation, war is not some other place, war happens in any place, and could happen to you.

 

For these reasons, war photography is important. The fact that certain media will be biased towards certain images is kind of irrelevant to the photographer. Perhaps at a later date they will be able to publish the photos they really want. With the Web as it is, any photographer with any political agenda should be able to get their photos published by a sympathetic organisation, though they may not be paid for it.

[kevinconroyfarrell]

I do not think that "accurate" refers to "relatively balanced" (your characterization) but only

to accuracy. Accuracy pertains to facts, balance to opinion. If I say the Israelis took out a

bridge in southern Lebanon, this may or may not be accurate. Balance comes in when I do

or do not air reactions or comments from all sides. I might omit certain facts, but this is

lying by definition.

 

By the way, I do not understand this idea that we were all duped into going into Iraq. I

think it was fairly obvious at the time that Colin Powell made his case before the UN that

the US had no evidence. He used drawings to illustrate his points, or satellite photos that

could have been of anything. The telling moment was when he said opponents of action

against Iraq had said no connection could be established between Sadaam Hussein and al-

Quaeda. I am not comforted by that was his statement, as if to mean one cannot be

certain. The war was about making sure. The American people bought it because we

thought it would be a cake-walk, not because we thought it was right. It was a chance to

go kick some Arab butt after September 11. Once things got difficult it became, "We were

duped!"

[pico_digoliardi]

<i>There are problems with coverage of any war. But propaganda is a strong word. To call the U.S. news propaganda is to cheapen the experience of those who live under the crude fraud that is real propaganda.</i><p>

 

It is worse than propaganda. As I wrote some other time, the news media and the government function in a symbiotic relationship of which neither are fully conscious. That is, the relationship benefits each without reflection, intention, or concern for anything except the positive outcome that serves each, and it is quite positive: each are getting their way.

[ben conover]

Elegant words Pico and so true. When staying with friends in Tuscany (Italy) I was struck at the choice of poiltical opinion at hand, and the graphic way people use that with photgraphy on banners for referendums etc.

[dickhilker]

To further illustrate the liberal bias of U.S. media, consider that after headlining the "We were duped!" theme, there's been relative silence about subsequent revelations of WMD and Al Quaida involvement in Iraq. According to polls, a solid 85% of the editors and writers at the major newspapers and news agencies are active, registered Democrats. How could that not result in bias?

 

One thing's for sure -- they just don't make wars like they used to. In the good olde days, the armies would march neatly onto the field of battle, square off and have at each other. Uniforms identified the sides and interested parties would take their picinics to the hillsides to enjoy the carnage. Today, a little old lady could have a bomb or an AK-47 under her skirt - and know how to use it! Inevitably, because combatants and innocent civilians are often indistinguishable, there are bound to be more civilian casualties. Add to that the depersonalization of warfare conducted remotely by warriors with computers, and collateral damage is going to happen. There's no way to put a pretty face on any kind of war, but I feel the media are doing the public a disservice by aiding the Islamofascists in their weakening of the country's resolve to fight terrorism at its roots.

 

Yes, we've been duped -- but by whom?

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------

[robert_m_johnson]

Please don't say that we have no access to world news here in the USA. I have been

watching this station Mosaic on and off for years when things heat up in the Mid-

East. If you can't find alternate sources for world news, then you have not been

looking hard enough.

 

Funny thing is that even the news from the mid east follows the USA news pretty

closely...

 

Mosaic...

 

http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/streamsArchive/

 

You can also find Free Speech TV if you put some effort into it, not your average USA

daily news broadcast.

 

http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/genx.php?name=home

[kevinconroyfarrell]

Well, while you are at it let us not forget C-SPAN on cable in the US. Where else can you hear

Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal and others not in sound bites but speaking at

length.

[dickhilker]

Thanks for the Mosaic link. It certainly gives the impression of getting the news from the source. However; considering their mission statement, sponsors, Peabody award and affiliates, I get the impression that it's PBS with an Arabic accent.

 

I love PBS for its dramatic presentations and the breadth of its programming, but wish they'd at least pretend to be even-handed in their reporting of news. I guess you can't be both "socially responsible," whatever that means, and unbiased!

[michaelkh]

Kevin, I entirely agree on the 'we were duped' issue. It is amazing to me that people can

now claim they were honestly misled, when the effort to mislead them was so childish,

transparent and and opportunistic that a half-wit should have known that much of it was

misrepresentation. What is particularly striking is that the more confused, weak-minded

and random the justification for an action, the harder it is to unpick in any objective

manner. The campaign to justify this war was a street fight; scrappy and bewildering.

 

Dick, the reason there has been relative silence about the WMD 'finds' is that they weren't

news, nor were they new. The substances found were ancient, expired, and dated to the

before the first gulf war. Indeed the claims made by Hoekstra and Santorum have been

explicitly disavowed by the department of defense: "not the WMDs for which this country

went to war". The same might be said of the Al Qaida fighters currently moving into Iraq, I

guess.

 

(On the issue of bias: a majority of british transport workers are unionised. This doesn't

mean that the transport industry is run on marxist principles. Except when the world cup

is on.)

 

And I have to say, whatever side of the debate you fall on, please try to avoid the talk radio

nonsense term "Islamofascist". It only makes you look silly.

 

Back on the topic somewhat, I note that both Fox and Al-Jazeera reporters have been fired

on (by the Israeli Defence Force) in the reporting of the Lebanon conflict. Warning shots

they may have been, but shots nevertheless. This to me is the most telling sign of the real

change in fortunes of the average war correspondent. Independent reporting (though I

choke on the word somewhat in both cases here) is no longer a likely outcome.

[dickhilker]

Sorry if I seemed silly to you, Michael, but I've never had the time or patience for those talk shows amd hence wasn't aware the term had fallen into such popular useage. It is, however, far too serious a matter to be dismissed so breezily.

 

Please don't credit my lack of further response to a lack of credible information or resolve, but the realization that we've strayed way off the topic.

[kent_tolley2]

kevin farrell , jul 23, 2006; 10:53 p.m. <I> Of course some people are wrong and some people are right. The Serbs were wrong to massacre Bosnian muslims. The Nazis were absolutely wrong. How would you stop these people? By talking to them? How UTTERLY naive! Violence is the only solution with such people. The world is not civilized!</I><BR><BR>

<b>Such people?</B><BR> Wait just a minute here. To partition the world into 2 camps: the righteous and the wicked and then to justify the righteous in their destruction of the wicked is truly naive. Who gets to decide who are the righteous and who are the wicked? You? President Bush? Hitler? Osama bin Laden? Even entire populations have been wrong and will be wrong again. By Sept '39 the German people stood behind the NAZI leadership and empowered them. And anti-Semitism was not confined to Germany. So who gets to decide?

 

This division into right and wrong that you advocate has been going on since the beginning. If I am a Christian then you, as a Muslim, are the wicked. I am justified. If I am a Muslim, then you as a Jew, are the wicked. I am justified. Pick any religious, political, racial, geographical, age, gender lines to divide along but in truth, righteousness and wickedness exist in every one of us. If you persist in denying your own wickedness then you'll end up projecting it onto me. I'll become wicked for you and you'll ultimately be forced to destroy me. To me, yours is the childish view of the world. And it always ends in division, hatred and violence.

[michaelkh]

Dick,

 

We are indeed way off topic. I shall retire, I hope, as gracefully as you.

[john falkenstine]

I think it takes some time before the real war photography can be separated from the propaganda. In Europe after the war, few war photographs were shown. Nobody had any need of them. The best place to find them in Munich in the Sixties were the flea markets. At such places Copies of SIGNAL magazine could be picked up for a couple of Pfennigs. http://uw3.de/signal.htm

[will_perlis]

"...real war photography..."

 

But what's "real"? Let's discard the deliberately staged stuff for the sake of argument. Just thinking of the WW2 pictures I remember, that leaves guys playing volleyball, guys oogling girls while on leave, the guys with the 1000 yard stares, the guys in rehab or coffins, the gals in flak jackets or flight suits, real Rosies with rivet guns and wrenches, and so on and so on.

 

Those are all as "real" as any other picture of war.

[kevinconroyfarrell]

OK, Kent A, we disagree completely. I do not know that I believe certain people to be

wicked, but I do think people can be vessels, willing or unwilling, of evil. And I think the

question remains, how would you deal with a regime like that of Milosevic? Such a man

laughs when you try to reason with him. He does what he wants unless stopped by force.

Moreover, the world operates pretty much on this principle. Look at the animal kingdom.

Look at the world of nature. It is all about violence. We deceive ourselves about the true

nature of life. We live in protected cities. We take our relative safety for granted. We forget

that safety is not the natural state of things. It is artificial. It is created by men banning

together against nature. But the violence lurks just beneath the surface of civilized life,

waiting to explode at any moment. We cannot control or change this.

 

My sense is that you might be a Rousseauian. That is, you believe nature to be good and

man to be corrupt. War is not the natural state of things but an anomoly caused by the

folly of men. If man could be got to behave right, there would be no war. It is a matter of

changing social convention. I do not know that is what you think, but I sense it.

 

I, on the other hand, do not entertain such a hopeful view. I think war IS the natural state.

This does not mean I am in favor of war. But I think war is inevitable where men are

concerned. The only freedom one has is to choose which side one is on.