Photojournalism: formal Military Training for Journalists

[jhodges]

I have been in Army Special Operations for four years now, and seen quite a bit.

 

Sorry to burst some people's bubble, but the media doesn't give **** about you. They are there for entertainment only. It's their self-righteous attitude that has caused more problems for those of us on the ground. No one wants to fight. And no one wants to die. But once we're on the ground, let us do our job. No liberal is not a bad thing. The problem is that the liberals of this country in the government and the media are spouting the same crap that communists have for the past half century. Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp?

 

Let me tell you about the "beloved" media. Those rules are there to protect them, and us. Do you think that our enemies really care about our journalists? They don't even care about their own people. When I was on my last tour, we nearly shot what turned out to be a BBC reporter. Because he was supposed to be with an escort. Instead he was walking around with his camera crew, and going into the homes that we were clearing while looking for guerrillas. Their fault not ours. It was one of my best friends who saved this guy. We heard that a few weeks after we left he had been killed by the guerrillas.

 

Most people can't even fathom that we are just about the only country that follows the Geneva Convention to the letter. It is so bad that we can't even shoot back to defend ourselves unless we can actually see the person who is shooting at us. What will save lives is the support of the people, and I have not personally met one person in the past year that doesn't support the military. Some people seem to forget that we are Americans too. We have families as well.

 

To those who say we shouldn't put Americans lives at risk, and kill innocent Iraqis, I say that American lives are already at risk. They have been taken for the past decade while President Clinton would launch a couple of missles at radar installations. Quite a sharp reply to the loss of hundreds of Americans lives.

 

And it is not the DUTY of the press to PROTECT the people from the government. That is our job theough the electoral process. It IS the DUTY of the MILITARY to protect the Constitution of the United States. You do not pay the press. You do not elect the press. They force feed everything to you.

 

I too come from a VERY long line of Americans, who have fought and died for this country. My family goes back to James Wilson who signed the Declaration of Independence. Had people not given their lives then or much more recently. None of the people who are against the government or military would be allowed to say so. Remember where your freedoms come from. It is not the press. It is the Constitution of the United States and it's sworn gaurdians, the United States Armed Services.

 

John

[todd frederick]

The political debate here is always heated and most interesting, but again, my question asked that we not have a go-around on the pros and cons of potential conflict, but look at the role of the media in this situation in light of military training for journalists.

 

What I heard Mr. Brokaw saying was not so much that the Pentagon wanted to protect the journalists, but, to have them under the control of the military to report the conflict in a favorable light regarding the US role in Iraq.

 

When I saw this, it seemed as if the Pentagon was rehearsing a stage play for a world audience. I thought this to be quite surreal.

 

Also, with regard to the journalist "pool," which I'm not sure I understand, how is it that independent journalists like Turnley can gain access to sensitive areas and not be a part of the pool. If I went over there and tried to do what they do the military would put me on the next plane out.

 

Regarding God: I have always had difficulty with persons, such as boxers, for example, who feel the need to thank God for the strength to beat the living shit out of his opponent. I'm not sure God is involved in taking side in such conflicts. The Muslim world is equally sure that Allah (God) will protect them and lead them to victory. I am a strong believer in God (by whatever name), but not as one who takes sides in human conflicts.

 

***I am interested, in this thread, in *how* the phtogjounalists gain access to and *how* they work within conflict zones in contemporary military battles, whether it is in Iraq, Somalia, the Balkans, or Waco. That is the purpose of this question based on the TV clip I saw.***

[jhodges]

Some of my friends can answer that better than I can. The journalists have to be cleared for certain things just as we do. Some of it has to do with trust. Some of it doesn't.

 

My point is that just because Mr. Brokaw says it on the news doesn't make it the truth. I do not beleive that the reproters and camera crews are bad people. I also know that they beleive they are protecting the people. That does not mean their methods are sound our just. The media will always cry foul when it comes to the military. These reporters that are going through training at Benning still have minds of their own, and I'm sure they are quite capable of intelligent thought. So why must it be assumed that the military can and will control them? The military is no some big ominous giant. We are individuals. And we individuals in the field do make the final decision. Nobody I have been with has a problem with reporters being with us. We do have a problem when they step on our toes. This is why they are going to BASIC at Benning. So they can be given a better understanding of the troops they will come in to contact with.

 

I saw a clip of one journalist who looked like he was having a real tough time throwing his weight around. I myself went to Sand Hill (Ft. Benning) for BASIC training. It is the best BASIC training post in the Army. But don't think that because they are going through BASIC that they will be soldiers or mindless drones. Anyone who has ever been enlisted will tell you that you are not really a soldier until after AIT. BASIC training is just an introduction for everyone. So you know what to do and what to expect. That's it. And the most important thing for these journalist, NBC (Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical) training , is taught at BASIC.

 

Also from a soldiers stand point, it should help the journalist fit in and be accepted by the soldiers on the ground. I do not think this is a bad idea. The media does belong there. Not to keep an eye on the military, but to show the world what is going on.

 

If you want to talk about controlling the media, look to the communists. In the late nineties, Milosevic would not allow journalists into Bosnia or Kosova. Why? There is no proof, from the media, to the rest of the world, of the horrors that he caused. That is controlling the media.

 

John

[kevin m.]

If the aim of this course is to teach journalists how to avoid making deadly mistakes on the battlefield while they do their jobs, then it sounds like a good idea. But given the Pentagon's post-Vietnam record of media control and the highly secretive nature of this administration, I remain skeptical; I think they will release the same kind of puff pieces they did during Desert Storm.

 

BTW, the citizens of communist controlled countries I've met differ from us in one critical respect: They were quite aware their media was propaganda. I wish I could say the same about us.

[chip l.]

John,

 

My family may have a shorter history within the military, but there has always been a respect for those that serve our country. For your service I thank you. Yet it is from my father, who served 20+ years in both the Navy and Army, that I learned not to take at face value everything the government is trying to sell us.

 

You stated that it is the job of the military to protect the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution covers just that, the United States. I see no where that the Constitution requires our military to go into countries "it" deems evil. It is the job of the Press to show what our government is doing. In doing so it is our job to demand that the administration answer our concerns. The press may force feed us the news, but they are no different than our own government force feeding us their views. It up to us as individuals to decide what our own opinions should be.

 

I am sure that "polls" are changing by the minute, yet the last one I had seen indicated that the people of the US (for which the Constitution was written) wants to avoid war. When the threat is clear, the people do and will support calls for war. What I and many others don�t see is why we should risk bring back ANY of our young men in body bags, or being maimed for some spit of sand. That region of the world has been at war for thousands of years. And will probably remain at war for thousands of years more.

 

Thank heavens that we do have the press. Even our founding fathers saw the power of the press and the need for free access to information. I don't think that anyone like myself is anti-military. But the military is for defensive purpose (in a democratic society). And at least from what the press and the administration have shown, there is no threat to the continuity of our Constitution. If you are referring to an evil tyrant in Sadam, then military action is through the UN. Until the US leaves the UN, we then should abide by the rulings of the UN. The UN at this point is asking for no rush to judgment. The world, save Britain, is asking to wait. The majority of the American people are asking to wait.

 

I am hoping that the training that these journalists have received will not be put to use. We as a nation have been treated to much heart ache in the last year and half. I hope that the photojournalist does bring into our homes further heart ache for the American people.

 

I wonder how many wars would be fought if the likes of Bush, Rumsfeld, Sadam, and others had to risk their own lives; and not the lives like yourself, John.

 

Chip

[david_smith12]

O' Joy. Another opportunity for America Hater's to vent their spleen.

 

More to Todd's original post--I wonder....

 

Is combat photography "anti-war" or "pro-war"? Or Neutral?

 

Does it matter which side of the line the photo's are taken? (Iraqi, vs USA/Brit, How 'bout French Photog's, Arab Photog's?) Is coverage of an incinerated Iraqi more meaningful than a picture of a gassed Brit?

 

Or is this coverage supposed to be neutral?

 

Since the PJ "chooses" what to shoot, is the PJ not editorializing?

 

I'd like to hear what people think.

 

And if you must bash the USA and Britian, please move it to another thread or forum. There's the entire bandwith of the internet at your disposal. This is supposed to be a photography forum.

[cd thacker]

<I>Most people can't even fathom that we are just about the only country that follows the Geneva Convention to the letter.</I><P>

 

John, are we following the Geneva Conventions, to the letter or otherwise, at Camp X-Ray - where, in the last fourteen months, there have been a reported fifteen suicide attempts? and where our government has given itself permission to secretly try and execute the "detainees"? If we're at war . . . then why aren't these men Prisoners of War? Or, rather, why aren't these prisoners of war called prisoners of war, and accorded their rights as such under the Geneva protocols? When we attack Iraq, if Iraqi soldiers are taken prisoner, will they too become "detainees", do you think?<P>

 

Eisenhower told us that the greatest threat to our freedoms comes from what he called our "military-industrial complex". Do you suppose he was right? I'm glad the U.S. military is there to protect the constitution (even though that's not supposed to be their job). Do you think we'll ever arrive at a point when civilians in high places, and others, will use the military in the attempt to <I>subvert</I> that constitution? And if we do, will you recognize it? or does your Special Forces loyalty trump everything?

[leslie_cheung]

>>>Why do many insist on seeing evil in the efforts of the freest,

most generous, and inspirational of countries on earth?<<<

 

hm...the good old american dream. but it's called the american

dream because you got to be half asleep to believe it.

 

>>> I wonder how many wars would be fought if the likes of Bush,

Rumsfeld, Sadam, and others had to risk their own lives; and not the

lives like yourself, John. <<<

 

when the rich play war, it's the poor who dies.

and there's countless poor among america as well as iraqis.

 

 

i wonder what capa,

smith, bresson, chim would think of photojournalism today.

[cd thacker]

And, by the way, Ray Haack is, as usual, absolutely right about liberalism and its history. If it weren't for those <I>radical</I> liberals - the Founding Fathers - you'd be speaking Cockney - or something like it - right now, and wishing you'd been born as something other than a serf . . . (though, come to think of it . . .).

[eliot]

"Is combat photography "anti-war" or "pro-war"? Or Neutral?"

 

Combat photography per se is neutral. My problem is with many PJs whochose to show only one side of the story. The pictures themselves may be honest, the photographer is being dishonest. For example, I have frequently seen pictures of Israel tanks and soldiers and the damage they have done to a Palestinian village, but without any photos of the event that incited the response: a terrorist act that maimed and killed Israeli citizens. To me, this is an intrinsically dishonest representation. So it is in too many cases, the PJ is trying to use the photographs to make a point, and omits any that do not fit with his pre-conceived ideology.

[jhodges]

Chip,

 

You have some well thought out points of view. At that point it comes down to opinions. Over-thinking can be just as deadly as not thinking. That is what got this country into the politics of post WWII.

 

A very good point was made by a journalist whose name I have forgotten. Who elected the UN? Why should we be subservient to the UN. It was meant as a forum where the countries of the world could speak to one and other openly. It was not created to dictate what we can do, or when, or under what circumstances. If the UN does not care what happens to our citizens on our soil (and an embassy, ship, our post anywhere IS sovereign US soil), then why should we follow them to the deaths of American civilians? The rest of the world will always be against us, because it is their economies that will suffer. Their oil suppliees will suffer. The very things they accuse us of being concerned with.

 

David, you have an interesting question that was posed in Leica World (I believe) not long ago. They spoke of censor, and specifically at the Gulf War. I have nothing against the PJs. They are doing their job taking photos as you or I would. It is the context in which the editors and publishers place those photos. One photographer was recently speaking against going to war in Iraq because of all the horrible things he took pictures of in Desert Storm. However the worst photos he showed were actually of what the Iraqis running from Kuwait had done. Not us. It is one thing to take the photos and provide the truth and accurate information, and another thing entirely to take photos and provide false or misleading information.

 

As for the political leanings of the PJs, being anti-war, pro-war, or neutral, I will tell you what I have learned from being in combat. There are no neutral parties in war. And the only innocents are children. And I don't know anyone that is "pro-war." Then there are those who are there simply because it's an assignment.

 

John

[chip l.]

"Is combat photography "anti-war" or "pro-war"? Or Neutral? "

 

I would hope that it is neutral. Reporting what is seen as it is seen. Just as we saw the burning oil fields, later we saw the mile of death. Just as a photographer that takes pictures at an anti-war rally. How one interprets the images is up to ones own biases. Are they America haters, or are they excersing their given rights under the Constitution? Or is the only opinion that counts are those that blindly wrap themselves in the flag. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind. They had in mind a government that was held accountable to the people. I doubt that Thomas Jefferson would see any of the debates here or else where as "bashing".

 

Given some of the feelings by those that first brought politics into this discussion that "America right or wrong", and that anyone disagreeing is "bashing" the US and others; are images to be censored because they don't meet the needs of the administrations goals? Look at the images from Vietnam that swung opinion of a "popular" war to one of a war of questionable value. Were those images "bashing" America? Or were they fostering positive debate?

 

When there is war in Iraq, I do hope enough independent photographers are there so that the truth, regardless of who is right and who is wrong in this matter, comes out. IMO "bashers" will be the first to admit that their initial opinions were wrong.

 

Chip

[chip l.]

"There are no neutral parties in war. And the only innocents are children. And I don't know anyone that is "pro-war." Then there are those who are there simply because it's an assignment. "

 

Thank you John for a well put statement. I think those of us that have been labled "bashers" are thinking of the children and those that are there becuase of the "assignment" of duties (maybe more so those of you in the armed forces, since our opinion should have greater affect on those that are our country men). I don't see the leaders standing behind their words and going to battle. No, they will be in their bunkers talking of "acceptable losses".

 

Once all the images and words are in, many years from now we will know if this was worth the effort. In the end we can not judge from our current perspective of time. And it is the photojournalist that provides IMO the most powerful statements of that history. Whether the German youth "blindly" following the Third Riech, or the survivors of the death camps of Europe. Or maybe images of the the bombed out Isreali bus, or the images of Isreali military bulldozing Palesitian homes. Images seen in the comtempary time are there for debate (pro and con)- to inform. With the passage of time they provide history of that moment.

 

Chip

[albert knapp md]

Doug- I hate getting into a political debate here BUt since

everyone else is in the mud, here I go. Firstly, Camp X-ray is

strictly following the rules of the Geneva convention. This is

beijng followed up by Congress and you guessed it- Amensty

International. both have stated that so far, so good. secondly,

these are military prisoners who do not have the rights of

American citizens or non-combattants. They are the creme de la

creme terrorrist-wise. Maybe we should just release them and

allow them to start new trouble? Thirdly, no one wants a conflict if

it can be avoided. My family hase served in the Civil War (north

and South- a big family!!!), as well as the First and Second World

Wars. In fact my dad was a B17 pilot in the 486th Bomb Group

(heavy) in England from 1943-44. He started out as a 2nd

lieutenant and ended up as a Colonel. His unit was the basis for

the novel 12 O'clock high. Many of his friends were killed in some

of the most famous raids but even he acknowledges the

importance of eliminating Saddam. I think that Bush has done a

very good job so far (many of you know that I am an active

Democrat) and as a nation we should put our differences aside

and get on with the action. BTW, the journalists now training are

in for a big surprise. The "fog of war" is litteral this time!!

[eliot]

Chip, no one (no sane person) is "pro-war". There is always carnage, always, civilian casualties, always destruction. I don't need some idiot PJ with an agenda to tell me this or show me this. Sometimes war is necessary, and sometimes it can be avoided.

 

Iraq is a good case in point. Saddam had several means of avoiding war, for example, by cooperating with the inspection regime and declaring all his WMDs. He chose not to. Now he has another chance to avoid war. The administration has as much as told him he can "voluntarily" leave Iraq before the fighting has started and he will not be prosecuted. All to avoid military and civilian casulaties. It is a very generous offer. But I don't hear any of the so-called "anti-war" activists calling on Saddam to abdicate in the name of peace.

 

Which betrays their true agenda: they are anti-Bush or anti-America, not anti-war. I find the hypocrisy of many [NOT ALL] of those on the left to be mind-boggling. To many of thease so-called peace activists, the real enemy is George Bush, not Saddam Hussein.

[ray .]

George Bush and you and I know full well that Sadam is not going to leave Iraq. Therefore that offer is meaningless.

 

Let's please get it straight for once. Those questioning what politicians say and do are not necessarily anti- American, and that goes for every politician ever born up to and including George W Bush. Take your blindfold off, it's tied a little too tight around your head, squeezing your brain and cutting off blood flow.

[eliot]

Ray, I do NOT know that Saddam Hussein will not choose to abdicate. Neither do you are any anyone else. The point is that anyone who professes to be for peace should call for Hussein to step down. Then peace can be achieved.

 

And I don't challenge anyone's right to speak against Bush. But I believe I am correct in calling a "peace activist" hypocritical if he/she just blithely ignores the role of Saddam Hussein in promulgating this war.

 

With all due respect, I don't call you names so you shouldn't call me names. If you want to argue your point of view than go ahead. If not, fine. Once warned. The next time I will not be so respectful in my response.

[chip l.]

Eliot,

 

You have raised some good points. But I would say a majority of those that are opposed (as evidenced by some of the pictures that Samire and I took, and our personal experinces at the rally back in January in DC) that there is a minority of people that are anti-Bush and such. But a greater number want to hold the administration accountable for their demands of war.

 

Yes, the administration has made some very decent offers to Sadam to avoid war. But this is an issue of world importance and the US voice should not be the lone voice. That being said, the reason you have people around the world demonstrating against a war on Iraq and not for Sadam to step down is simple. The voices within ones country should be listened to. Sadam does not have to listen the the general public of the world. He would or should listen to the voice of his people. Yes, I know that those voices are being silenced (in many cases with violence)by Sadam and his men. But that does not mean that the US should act alone in "freeing" the people of Iraq. That is the basis of the majority of the world wide discussion on this matter.

 

You hit a very important point. It is a minority of people that are on the far left of this debate. So the rest should not be painted as "bashers" becuase of that small element.

 

Chip

[kevin m.]

Eliot, You make 'war' sound as though it were a kind of weather rather than a conscious act carried out by human beings. 'Saddam had several means of avoiding the rain, for example, by wearing a raincoat or carrying an umbrella...' If - I guess I mean when - war comes, George Bush will bring it, as he has made abundantly clear.

[eliot]

"But that does not mean that the US should act alone in "freeing" the people of Iraq."

 

Chip. I understand about 16 or 17 nations in Europe support our war effort: far more than oppose it. This includes Spain, Italy, and many of the former Soviet black. The European natiuons that oppose it are most vociferously France, but also Germany and Russia. Not uncoincidentally, these nations have economic ties with Iraq, which they are concerned about lost: France the most, with some $ 60 billion in oil-related business. So the most consistent opponents of this war all have a serious economic stake in it.

 

Next, just becauzse a bunch of people get out and protest against a war, doesn't mean that the President should be persuaded by them. I agree with the President's policy, but I am not going out and protesting in favor of war. This is no way to judge whether a policy is correct or not, based on a bunch of people carrying signs.

 

Finally, Kevin, I don't know what in my post suggested to you that I view war like the weather. That is not my opinion, nor do I accept that incorrect characterization. My opinion is/was that: 1) Saddam Hussein should have complied with the treaties he sign and the UN resolutions that he agreed to abide by, but didn't; 2) Saddam Hussein should not step down to preserve world peace (and I do NOT rule out the possibility that he will do so, if only to save his own neck); and 3) if he does not do so, the President is justified in going to war.

 

I understand that you would like to attach all of the responsibility for this war to GW Bush and none to the dictator who rules Iraq, but I do not accept that.

[eliot]

Just to correct, I obviously meant to say "Saddam Hussein SHOULD step down..." not that he should not step down. Unlike some others, I do not think this is outside of the realm of possibility. When he realizes war is inevitable if he stays in power and that our forces will come after him, he may decide to step down only to save himself. It is not a likely scenario, but it is certainly possible. Otherwise, where would he go?

[kevin m.]

Eliot, By 'weather' I meant to suggest a force of nature beyond human control, which is what your choice of language in the post that I referenced sounded like. Strange that you would suggest the American anti-war protestors request that Saddam step down rather than ask our government not to go to war; isn't it more fitting that we make a request of our own, ostensibly democratic government, than petition a far away despot?

 

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.

[eliot]

Kevin. You have some very strange ideas. President Bush has explained himself over and over and over and over, his speech to the UN, his campaigning, his State of the Union address. If you refuse to listen, it is not HIS fault.

 

Your next comment betrays exactly what I was talking about. Your problem is with thye President, more than with the war. You made my point better than I could have hoped.

 

We could argue back and forth but Al Gore basically tried to steal this election. Fact, not opinion. That is why he requested recounts in FOUR COUNTIES ONLY, where Democrats have a large majority. He also tried to have military votes disqualified - YES MILITARY VOTES - the people who defend this country. Finally, three or four newspapers went over the ballots and concluded that GW Bush won. I don't know why you are bringing up this utter nonsense. Bush won, a bunch of Democrats tried to change that and failed. Get over it.

[chip l.]

Regardless of Electorial College results, here are the real facts:

 

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

[eliot]

I thought we were talking about Iraq. Chip, you too have some strange ideas. We have a constitution which specifies an Electoral College. That's how presidents are elected. THOSE ARE THE REAL RESULTS. That's the way our system works, regardless of whether it offends your sensibilities.

 

Not only that, but I suspect there is a lot of hypocrisy at work here. I have NO DOUBT that most of those people who point out that Al Gore won the popular vote and therefore should be President would have been only too happy to defend the Electoral College if Gore got more electoral votes and Bush got more popular votes.

 

You want to change the system? Start a movement to amend the constitution. I have no problems with the electoral system, regardless of who wins. But remember too that election strategies are based on the electoral system. That's how the candidates decide how much time and money to spend in each state. So if Bush's strategy worked better than Gore's, that;s just the way it is. All he had to do to win the election was to carry his own home state of Tennessee (presumabbly the people who know him best) and Al Gore couldn't even manage that.