A Story And A Photo: The Death Of One Marine In Afghanistan
Three journalists for the Associated Press present when grenade explosion took off the leg of a Marine, Cpl. Joshua "Bernie" Bernard, in Afghanistan on August 14, in the middle of the deadliest month in that country for U.S. forces since 2001. They wrote a story about it, and published a photo of it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is furious because Bernard's family asked that the photo not be published. Gates writes in a letter to the Associated Press:
Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right — but judgment and common decency
Suffice it to say, the article itself is a fine piece of journalism, a narrative glimpse of the terror and horror of war, which is so rarely represented in the U.S. media. The story begins with a young man's death, and it takes us to the front porch of his parents house in New Portland, Maine. It can be read here. It reads in part:
That night, officers assembled the platoon in a darkened room of the run-down house where the Marines had camped after taking Dahaneh two days earlier. There the officers delivered the news: Bernard had died of a blood clot in his heart on the operating table. He was Golf Company's third fatality since arriving in Afghanistan in May.
Bernard was the 19th American to die in Afghanistan in August. Fifty-one Marines, soldiers and seamen lost their lives that month. Of the 739 Americans killed in and around Afghanistan since 2001, 151 died last year and 180 so far this year.
-
1
Michael-Didn't the Marine die of a blood clot on the operating table while these reporters were still with his unit?
-
-
2
Scherer
.
Is there a particular reason why you actively chose to omit the fact that the reason Gates wrote the letter is because the family objected to the picture being published? I say actively because the sentence right before the one you block quoted from your own source link reads.
.
“Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me,” Gates wrote.
.
Further if you went to your source link source's link you would find that it starts off thusly.
.Today I learned that the Associated Press plans to publish a graphic photograph of Lance Corporal Lance M. Bernard taken shortly after he recieved mortal wounds. I understand that you have decided to do this over the objection of Lance Corporal Bernard's grieving father. Out of respect for his family's wishes I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision."
.
You see Scherer its not so much that Gates is pissed, although I imagine he isn't all that happy, its that the soldier's parent is pissed and Gates is speaking for him as he should. And its specifically about the picture being used to accompany the story. I was under the impression that family members had a sort of veto right on that kind of thing anyway. If not then I certainly think they should.
.
Now it is ironic that you call the AP piece "a fine piece of journalism" in a post that is about as hacktackular as I have ever seen. I really think you should just take it down and apologize for writing it in the first place or failing that remove the part about Gates as it is not based on reality in any way shape or form. And thats said as someone who isn't exactly a big fan of the man.-
2.1
Michael Scherer:
.
I have to go with SG on this one.
.
There's no reason for you to to have omitted that key detail about the family's wishes. It changes the frame of Gates' objections completely.
.
Was there no other photo that the AP could have used?
.
There was no way to both satisfy a reasonable right of privacy and the public's right to know? -
2.2
I was not concealing Gates reasons (there was a link), but am happy to add to clarify his reasons. see above.
Parents have a veto right over the photos of their children's coffins returning to the United States. Not to combat photos.
-
2.3
Thank very much for responding to commentary, Michael Scherer; that and the clarification is greatly appreciated.
-
-
3
For once I totally agree with sgwhite. Thank you sg for calling Michael and TIME.com out on this. It is not only using a dead soldier for sales of Magazines, Newspapers and to further your web page ad sales, it is just simply dispicable, un-caring for the feelings of the soldier's family, and in general Tabloid journalism.
-
3.1
And to add, the failure to also note this:
.
"NEW YORK Newspapers had a mixed reaction to the controversial Associated Press photo distributed today of a Marine who died in combat in Afghanistan last month, with some using the image as a stark example of war and others declining to run it.
-
-
4
Now, if only Time magazine would have an honest debate about the conflict. This, of course, is discounting Joe "I have never seen him write a positive sentence about the US military" Klein's work. You know, given that 57% of Americans oppose the war?
-
4.1
Hear, hear!
-
-
5
I am confused, We read today that many Afghans, incl Taliban were killed . We saw no pictures. Then we have a fuss about a picture of this particular Marine.
So: are we saying that no pictures of the dead on both sides of the conflict should be published? Do the l;aws of war give a family a veto? Do the dead Taliban get a veto?
War is a terrible business. Why are we being protected from seeing the dead and dying on both sides.
Sounds like we are all for war provided it is aseptic. As long as we see no dead bodies then it's okay.
-
5.1
I do not think that is what anyone is saying, bitter. I also believe that showing the true cost of War is necessary. The cost in lives lost. But, if this family objected, the photos should never have been shown. At least not this close to this specific soldiers death.
.
That is all I am saying. I believe we can show pictures of both the dead soldiers and the Taliban who are dying as well. But does it have to happen less than a month after this poor boy was killed? -
5.2
rusty returns to a ntorg moment of sanity, in which I agree with his points. Tsk. What has the world become?
-
5.3
"brief moment of sanity"
-
-
6
Joe Klein (Sept. 1):
"Paul--I think both you and George Will are a bit out of date on American air strategy in Afghanistan. McChrystal has pretty much ended the blast-em-to-smithereens air support strategy that was causing so many civilian casualties. The casualty figures are way down since he took over."
"A NATO airstrike exploded two fuel tankers on Friday that had been hijacked by the Taliban, setting off competing claims about how many among the scores of dead were civilians and raising questions about whether the strike violated tightened rules on the use of aerial bombardment."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=1&hp
-
7
“Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right — but judgment and common decency”
How apt. We are all a part of humanity. The dead soldier could have been a relative of the AP reporters. Their refusal to honor the wishes of the family will cause the family further pain and suffering.
Gates was absolutely right in excoriating them.Great piece.
-
8
I'm really shocked to see people defending Gates on this. The AP was not only within its rights, it was within its responsibilities. The real act of humanitarianism is to do the right thing and in the face of criticism to refuse to shield people from the reality of a war being fought in their name.
I don't blame the family for their quite reasonable wishes but sometimes journalists have to make the tough decision and in this case it was showing the uncomfortable truth of war. As much as we all sympathize with the family and their wishes, the AP had a different, very important obligation here and it met that obligation.
-
8.1
Shocked?
~
While I disagree with your argument that the AP had a responsibility to publish this picture despite the family's objection, it is a reasonable and fair perspective. However, subscribing to your viewpoint should not mean that Gate's actions are indefensible. Isn't it his responsibility as Secretary of Defense to defend the families of the soldiers he must send to war? If the press has a responsibility, as you say, to publish graphic photos of America's dead soldiers, Gates certainly has a responsibility, on behalf of the families, to strongly object. -
8.2
Sorry, OT--
.
neorationalist86:
.
Have you had a chance to glance over my response to your "Thoughts?" inquiry?
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/02/health-care-hitting-the-re-set-button/comment-page-1/#comment-92267 -
8.3
The question destor23 is this, if had been YOUR family member and you complained to Gates about it, what would your reasonable expectation be about how he would handle it? Before Scherer amended his post he framed it as Gates being furious without any qualification for why. And in the past we all know how the previous adminstration worked overtime to prevent any pictures being taken of soldier's caskets coming home from war even if the parents didn't object to it. So it was left up to the reader to either click the link or assume that Gates was just made because the AP ran the story and the picture. Now maybe he would have been pissed about it regardless, but when a family member appeals to him to intervene its not only his right, but his duty to do so on their behalf. There really isn't anything to "defend" Gates on here. What was needed was context which Scherer has since provided (although I still would say he assigns emotions to Gates which may or may not be accurate).
.
Put it to you this way, if it was MY son I wouldn't accept anything less from the Secretary of Defense. -
8.4
destor23:
.
So it was that particular photo, or nothing?
.
There was no other choice?
.
In order to fulfill their public duty, the AP was simply compelled by their consciences to use the only photo that could be obtained?
.
If you put the wishes of one family against the needs of our entire nation, then that's one thing, but this isn't such a case.
.
The AP simply said "F*ck you, family. We're within the law; there's nothing you can do. We decide what's appropriate, not you.", instead of using another photo to inform the public of the ongoing pointless horror of this nation-building occupation. They did this probably because (for the most part) they're a soulless bureaucracy like most other established organizations that size, private or public.
.
If there was no other way, that's one thing, but that's not the only photo of death in Afghanistan --not by a long shot. -
8.5
Well and there is also thisfact that Associated Press had been so subservient to the bushies all those years, suppressing every negative picture, every negative report, and doing their share of cheerleading the SCHOOLS! THE PAINTED SCHOOLS! while never showing the atrocities, the death and the destruction. They were kept on a very tight leash during the Bush years, all of the news agencies, Time Mag included, and they willingly complied.
.
Now I figure they think they are going to show some muscle against the Obamas, to try to regain some of the manhood they turned over to Bush and Cheney for eight years. -
8.6
SZ
~
So it was that particular photo, or nothing?
.
There was no other choice?
.
That's a good point. Certainly there are other photos available, photos not involving a soldier whose family is objecting to its publication. Furthermore, we all know the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words." But is it really true? Couldn't an impassioned piece on the ills of war suffice without the addition of a graphic visual aid? Are we, as a society, that desensitized that words can no longer provoke an emotional response?
~~~
On a side note, I just read your response on the "Hitting the Reset Button" thread. Sorry, I did not have time to respond in such a lengthy manner, but I did posit my own thoughts, if you so care to read them. -
8.7
I shall, neorationalist86.
-
8.8
Sorry to hijack this thread, this is the last OT comment...
.
neorationalist86:
.
You might want to read this thread from the beginning...it's rather remarkable.http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/04/health-reform-subsidies/comment-page-1/#comment-93068
-
8.9
SZ
~
The personal mandate clause without adequate subsidization is a travesty. It completely circumvents the purported virtue of health-care reform: to provide necessary health care to all, regardless of their financial means. This is precisely why UHC with progressive taxation is really the only avenue to achieve Social Justice. -
8.10
Hi guys, thanks for the thoughtful replies. But doesn't Gates also have a larger duty to make sure that the press is painting an accurate picture of what's going on? Isn't the AP doing now what we complained it didn't do in the previous decade? We may all have to agree to disagree here but, well, it's complicated, isn't it?
-
-
9
This is one of those questions I have to vote undecided on.
.
The AP is certainly within its rights, but had it been my call I would have defered to the family. But then again, the fact that our view of the war has been sanitized beyond recognition does adversely affect our decisionmaking about policy.
.
Just goes to show that some questions don't have pat easy anwers no matter what your ideology. -
10
The execrable Associated (with terrorists) Press refused to publish Mohammed cartoons! Why? According to Kathleen Carroll of the Associated (with terrorists) Press: "we don't distribute content that is known to be offensive."
Translation: The Associated (with terrorists) Press will not publish anything that is deemed "offensive" by its like-minded leftists and terrorists. As far as publishing content that is offensive to dead American service members, their families and the pro-America community, it's bombs away, baby, for the Associated (with terrorists) Press.
-
10.1
textee:
.
Yes, they should have published the cartoons.
.
No, the Associated Press is not a corporation that employees terrorist sympathizers, that's insane.
.
Can't you just make a reasonable point without losing your freaking mind, dude?
.
What's wrong with you? Do you just like to throw your sh*t at the wall, like a f*cking orangutan? Don't you care at all about having any dignity?
.
You sound like a fruitbat, textee. The guys you listen to on the radio and watch on the tee vee who sound like you are doing it because they're entertainers, because they're carnival acts. Don't you get that? To them you're a f*cking mark, a mouth-breathing, cotton candy-faced mark. They're laughing at you all the way to the bank.
.
Thank god there are conservatives who are starting to wake up and tell people like you that you're acting like idiots, textee.
.
Here's a real conservative for you, so that you can clean yourself up and try to model yourself after principled men of thought, and not barking clowns.
http://jr.ly/tqcz
.
Wise up, man. We've got big problems to fix. Your country needs better from you right now. -
10.2
...Here it is, this link should work.
.
http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/can-we-have-buckley-back
.
It's called "Can We Have Buckley Back?"
.
It's by a movement conservative with a brain in his skull, you should really read it to see what that's like. -
10.3
SZ
~
Bravo!
~~~
Long live Buckley!
-
-
11
Rustyreturns: appreciate your thoughtful response. Agreeing to disagree agreeably makes for fruitful discussions.
-
12
Lack of judgment and common decency on the part of the MSM? The term that leaps to mind is res ipsa loquitur.
-
13
[...] A Story And A Photo: The Death Of One Marine In Afghanistan - Swampland [...]
-
14
OT:
~
Steny Hoyer (D-MA) attempting to outdo Mike Huckabee in the treason category.
http://cnionline.org/israel-threatens-lebanon-and-obama/#more-657 -
15
Not a child, but a solider fighting in a public arena - what ever action these soldiers take, is done in our name, we are responsible for every action they take, and it is the public treasure that pays for these wars.
The level of censorship involved with hiding this war from the public is unexceptionable, but governments and the war industry learned that when the public views real war, they don't like it - and try to stop it. So the war, the civilian dead, the soldiers really haven't been visible that much in our media -- how old is the war in Iraq/Afghanistan? At this rate they are already mentioning they will not be pulling out before 2011 -- making it ten years,what do we have to show for almost 10 years of war, but more veterans with wounds we can't afford to support in the years to come, a shortage of men in the smallest generation in our country.. and nothing to show for it but trillions of dollars to the war industry. We need more pictures, not less. People don't read, and reading doesn't get to the emotions or really convey the horror of what we are doing -- pictures do, that is why the government has restricted them. And the media who are owned by companies with relationships with war industries fear to show them.
-
16
[...] Time.com | A Story And A Photo: The Death Of One Marine In Afghanistan — Three journalists for the Associated Press present when grenade explosion took off the leg of a Marine, Cpl. Joshua “Bernie” Bernard, in Afghanistan on August 14, in the middle of the deadliest month in that country for U.S. forces since 2001. [...]
- michaelscherer Gibbs says Desiree Rogers will not testify tomorrow before House on WH gatecrashers. - 3 hours ago
- michaelscherer Always a bad sign when you (NBC) have to preface every news report (Salahi) with big disclaimers that the parent company is not a factor. - 7 hours ago
- michaelscherer Ah.... Richard Wolffe. - 20 hours ago
Most Popular »
- "Personal Sins Should Not Require Press Releases"
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- The 'Alice' Interview: A Very Different Brand of Wonderland
- Congress's Tepid Reaction to Obama's Afghanistan Plan
- Tiger Speaks
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- Rep. Woolsey: Majority Of Dems Will Vote Against War Funding
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- The Dreaded X
- Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated?
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Rachel Uchitel: Tiger Woods' Alleged Affair Connection
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- Europe's Secret Nuclear Weapons: What Should NATO Do?
- Why Fritz Henderson Resigned as GM's CEO
- Ireland: Lack of New Catholic Priests Spurs Campaign
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
Quotes of the Day »
RSS