Should reporters be able to display video and pictures of dead soldiers without the parent's or the military’s consent?
This debate was triggered this week when a photograph and 52-second videotape of a Texas soldier dying in Iraq was posted on the New York Times web site. The journalists involved, Times reporter Damien Cave and Getty Images photographer Robert Nickelsberg, were embedded photographers that captured the events of a patrol on Haifa Street in Baghdad on January 24th that turned deadly after a bullet struck Staff Sgt. Hector Lee Leija, 27, in the head.
No consent was obtained from the military or the soldier's family prior to the posting the images and video on the web site. In fact, the family was not even informed until after they were posted.
Before a reporter can be embedded into a military unit, they must sign an agreement with the Pentagon that states that: "Names, video, identifiable written/oral description or identifiable photographs of wounded service members will not be released without service member's prior written consent." The ground rule goes on to say, "In respect for family members, names or images clearly identifying individuals 'killed in action' will not be released."
As stated before, this consent was not given and the family was not even informed before it was posted. The media was finally removed from the web site after the family and the public displayed outrage.
The media and the Pentagon have sparred about how Americans killed in Iraq — or even caskets containing remains — should be reported since the beginning of the war. So I ask you. Are images and video of dead soldiers so newsworthy that reporters do not need to follow the rules? Should these reporters be punished?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4513193.html
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/6340818p-5526121c.html
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
It is hard enough for a family to lose a loved one without learning of it, or having to see it, on national TV.
unless that journalist had personally witnessed the death and therefore shared the
same risks. From what I read, these reporters met that part of my criteria.
Conversely, I would have considered it equally taboo for journalists to publish photographs
of dead GIs until their next of kin had been notified. I feel the same way about video.
After the fact, I believe the public should be able to witness anything they are okay
with watching. I want citizens to know what war looks like and war is about killing
and dying, both of which are profane, powerful, disturbing and sad.
Was it horrible watching the young Sgt from Texas die on video? Did knowing his name make it worse? If it were my brother, the Viking in me would want to avenge his death. Who is responsible for this death? Is it the messengers?
People here could have been outraged by the first dead bodies in Iraq. Over 3000 young Americans and more than 700,000 Iraqi's have died. Many more wounded.
Let's stop the suffering. When one person suffers, we all suffer. Let's send love and kindness to Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's let healing begin.
Was
BUT Mitch, should it be published BEFORE families are notified of (a) the death and (b) when it will be played so it can be avoided?
Those videos will not change peoples minds about the war.
As for the need for the public to know the horrors of war, perhaps some of you are right but no one can know that horror unless they have personally been there/done that. Learning those horror can NOT be done thru pictures or even video.
I think this war in Iraq is a mistake and this country needs to find a way to get out without losing any more. The American public is fully aware of what is going on there and I am reasonable sure that most want our military home.
Dishonoring and disgracing those men and women who have died accomplishes nothing. The media is doing nothing but trying to make a few buck by sensationalizing thoses deaths.
No one wants war least of all me. The American people know this was was/is a mistake and from all I read and hear the majority wants our military out as soon as possible. We want them all home but neither the Dems or the Republicans are going to tell Iraq "ok that's it we are out of here!" and immediately withdraw. It just isn't going to happen.
You say those news people are not there to help their networks make money? Bull! It promotes higher ratings which results in more money in their pockets.
Whether the war is a mistake or not has nothing to do with real deaths. Yes, I think that after the military has approved the video/pictures (they won't) and the next of kin is notified, it should be published where if you want to know about it you can.
Three weeks ago my son's friend in Iraq watched his best friend get blown up into tiny pieces from mortar. The only thing left to identify him was his boot (only 1 boot). Both men have served two tours and both over thirty years old. The marine left behind was what they call "benched" because of the horror and shock of the event. The mission was completed successfully with casualty.
These men and women know the risks of serving, and instead of blowing it off as they knew what they were getting into, what about getting on your knees and thanking God they have the courage to do what most would not to protect your freedom. It does not matter if you agree with this war. It does not matter at all because we are in it and we need to win now or have it here.
No one is thinking about what it would be like to have tanks and war on their street here. Unless we maintain our military it will come here.
Death is a part of life. It is really the only gaurantee in life. We will all die eventually. Soooo be the best you can be because tomorrow is not a gaurantee.
What does maintaining our military have to do with war here?
It would be nice if a family could be informed before they had to see their loved one dead and on the television, but people seem to forget we have a global network of information exchange. In minutes, images, stories and live feeds are broadcast. This is incongruous with the notion that we should have to wait for the government to approve what pictures are appropriate for us to see. IMO that is a slippery slope and a means of censorship.
I am also of the opinion that a portion of US citizens live in some fairy tale land where the believe a number of our public actions, disgraces, and utter acts of inhumanity should not be displayed for everyone to see. Easier to wave the flag and ignore the loss of our young men and women that way.
No way should a family see a video on TV or whatever before they have been notified and perhaps approved it. That's the rules, whatever they are, follow them.
I ashamed to say I'm from NY/NJ area. These next two yrs are not gonna be pretty, especially after Clinton saying "If I'm elected, we're outta there immediately". The Times, The Post and all the liberal media are gonna make these last two yrs as distasteful as they possibly can, even if it means crossing the moral and ethical boundaries they should all be held accountable to.
We need to be aware of what some Americans are going through in our names. If there's one over-riding attitude among our troops in Iraq it's that they are the only ones who have been asked to sacrifice while their country goes merrily on it's way to the shopping mall and worries more about what's in the celebrity mags than what's going on in Iraq.
And any American in uniform doesn't just belong to his family. He, or she, belongs to all of us. Their sacrifice is in all our names. Their wellfare should be all our concerns. Their deaths are a loss to us all. No matter what your political beliefs, or what your opinion on this war, these men and women have served without question. Many have suffered death and mutilation for their service. This is their reality and if seeing it is what the average American needs to make it real for him then the media needs to show it.
I respect the family's wishes, feel sorrow at their grief, but if this soldier's death is to mean anything than we all need to feel that grief, and be moved by that death.
And who knows, maybe toward a better tomorrow.