Patterico's Pontifications

9/4/2009

AP Publishes Photo of Dying Marine (Updated x2)

Filed under: Media Bias,War — DRJ @ 1:06 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The AP has published a photo taken August 14 of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard after he suffered severe leg injuries from a rocket propelled grenade during a firefight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bernard died a short time later on the operating table. The photo was released despite objections from the Secretary of Defense and Bernard’s family:

“The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call — that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.

The AP defended publication because it shows the “the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it” and released the photo over the family’s objections and after receipt of this letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates:

Gates wrote to Thomas Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer. “Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed – as was the case with Walter Reed.”

“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. 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.”

The AP decided to add to this family’s pain for a “higher” purpose — to show
the grimness of war. Now we know how far some in the media will go to get America out of Afghanistan.

— DRJ

UPDATE 1 — MSNBC publishes the rules for publishing photos agreed to by media embedded with the military:

“The rule regarding coverage of “wounded, injured, and ill personnel” states that the “governing concerns” are “patient welfare, patient privacy and next of kin/family considerations.”

“Casualties may be covered by embedded media as long as the service member’s identity and unit identification is protected from disclosure until OASD-PA [Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs] has officially released the name. Photography from a respectful distance or from angles at which a casualty cannot be identified is permissible; however, no recording of ramp ceremonies or remains transfers is permitted.”

Images of U.S. soldiers fallen in combat have been rare in Iraq and Afghanistan, partly because it is unusual for journalists to witness them and partly because military guidelines have barred the showing of photographs until after families have been notified.

Jacobson, who was crouching under fire, took the picture from a distance with a long lens and did not interfere with Marines trying to assist Bernard.

The AP waited until after Bernard’s burial in Madison, Maine, on Aug. 24 to distribute its story and the pictures. An AP reporter met with his parents, allowing them to see the images.”

Here is a link to the photographer’s journal.

UPDATE 2: The AP is right that war is grim, and not just foreign wars. AP: Where are the photos of people who jumped from the Towers on 9/11?

289 Responses to “AP Publishes Photo of Dying Marine (Updated x2)”

  1. Someone should warn the Associated Press they can go blind if they jack off to that picture too much.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  2. I suggested to AP that a lot of weird, inexplicable stuff happens in war and it might be a good idea to pull their people out of US units.
    Just sayin’

    Richard Aubrey (a9ba34)

  3. I look forward to the AP publishing photos of partial birth abortions.

    You know, just to show the “grimness” of abortion.

    Bubba Maximus (456175)

  4. I’ve updated the post with excerpts and a link to an MSNBC report on this story and the rules for publishing photos taken by embedded reporters.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  5. Really sad story. I think one has to come from a different planet to be a journalist. They can be cold and heartless.
    Is there grounds for the family to pursue legal actions against the AP? Just asking.

    The Emperor (1b037c)

  6. As if more evidence was needed, the AP has thoroughly disgraced itself from what it once stood for – objective and honest reportage. The Pentagon should ban all embedded reportage immediately, pending further review. For every Michael Kelly, there’s an AP.

    Dmac (a93b13)

  7. The dirty socialist Associated Press shoulda used a telephoto lens to snap a picture of Ted Kennedy’s corpulent addled drooling corpse before he died cause of how anyone can get brain cancers in their heads and it’s very grim when it happens to where they give you lots of stool softener cause it’s a huge hassle to get you out of bed.

    I think this would have helped people understand better about the health cares because everyone knows how Associated Press pictures inform the policy-making process in Barack Obama’s America, especially grim ones.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  8. This reporter’s name should become an internet verb.

    JD (b292bd)

  9. The reporterette has a second mission keeping Afghan sheep safe — from at least three members of the Afghan National Army.

    But Gates is not going to last long in Barack Hussein Obama’s cabinet if he goes on dissing his Arab-loving buddies at the AP.

    nk (df76d4)

  10. It’s not so much the reporter, but the editors of the Al-jazeera Pandering that I blame; they are not biased (as they’ve always claimed), they are just on the other side.

    Semper Fi, LCpl Joshua Bernard. Rest in honored peace.

    htom (412a17)

  11. The Associated Press reported in a story about deliberations about that photo that “after a period of reflection,” the news service decided “to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it. – source yahoonews.com

    Good for the AP and freedom of the press, because this cuts both ways. During the ‘good war,’ WW2, an image of a U.S. Marine laying dead, face down, in the muddy jungle was used in Victory War Bond ads to help sell bonds. Graphic, powerful and effective. Other ads, drawn by hand, depict graphic images of a U.S. soldier being shot in mid-stride and pilots slumped dead behind the controls of their bullet-riddled aircraft all to generate war bond purchases. These ads, especially the one with the photo, can still sitr emotions. I still wonder who he was and how his family felt having him used to peddle bonds.

    And lest the hard Right forget, the big bad liberal press are equally exposed to the dangers of war. The latest being a familiar voice to CBS Radio network listeners, Cami McCormick:

    “(CBS- 8/28/09) CBS News Correspondent Cami McCormick was injured today in Logar Province, Afghanistan, while on assignment for CBS Radio News.

    McCormick was traveling with members of the United States Army when the vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device (IED). An American soldier in the same vehicle was killed.

    McCormick was initially treated at a field hospital, where she underwent surgery to stabilize her condition, and was then transported to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for additional treatment.

    McCormick joined CBS News in September, 1998. She has won numerous awards for her reporting on some of the biggest stories since that time. She was at Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina wiped out its levees, and in the Gulf region for the start of the war in Iraq.”

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  12. Comment by htom — 9/4/2009 @ 3:00 pm

    Good point.

    Also, AP’s clients, print or electronic, who buy and publish the photo should not be let off the hook.

    nk (df76d4)

  13. You are really calling for some gruesome finger-chopping episodes with atrocious comments like that DCSCA. I would prescribe not slapping in the face. Hit somewhere else. Take it from the guy with the nine fingers. 😉

    The Emperor whose finger is missing (1b037c)

  14. Comment by DCSCA — 9/4/2009 @ 3:07 pm

    Freedom of the press does not include support and protection by US combat troops. The lady can exercise her freedom all she wants, on her own, in Afghanistan’s battlefields. If she wants to be embedded with our troops, she and her bosses have to follow the rules and abide by their agreement.

    nk (df76d4)

  15. Good for the AP and freedom of the press, because this cuts both ways. During the ‘good war,’ WW2, an image of a U.S. Marine laying dead, face down, in the muddy jungle was used in Victory War Bond ads to help sell bonds. Graphic, powerful and effective.

    You’ve written some astronomically stupid things here, but this just about tops them all.

    1) The AP published the photo in contradiction to the wishes of the fallen Marine’s family. The Marine’s father served as a Marine himself. Keep in mind that the press cannot publish photos of the coffins of the dead being brought off the planes without the families’ permission–yet the AP weasels around that because Bernard was not dead when the photo was taken. That you are furiously jerking off to this blatant disregard to the wishes of Bernard’s family shows what an irredeemable waste of carbon molecules you are, and shows that the press cannot be trusted in any capacity when it comes to reporting on this conflict.

    2) Your analogy of the dead Marine from the WW2 photo would work if the left encouraged their fellow travelers to enlist in the military. Since that won’t happen, your analogy fails.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  16. “And lest the hard Right forget, the big bad liberal press are equally exposed to the dangers of war. The latest being a familiar voice to CBS Radio network listeners, Cami McCormick.”

    DCSCA – Can you link some pictures of her getting injured, the bloodier the better, so that there is some kind of connection to the actual post.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  17. Good Allah. IMP is one of those people that should have to rent oxygen from the people that actually utilize it properly. Stupid that pervasive should be visible to anyone that encounters him. And painful.

    JD (b292bd)

  18. “Good for the AP and freedom of the press, because this cuts both ways. During the ‘good war,’ WW2…”

    …we had total press censorship (in war areas) and the media wasn’t allowed to show ANY pictures of dead Americans until September 1943, almost two years into the war.

    Throughout the war, the media was subject to the rules laid down by the Office of Censorship.

    We should have the same thing today…and to hell with the freedom of the press.

    Dave Surls (6db001)

  19. Did you expect anything less, JD? The guy is just ramping up, getting more and more offensive, until he gets moderated or banned again.

    Doesn’t this sound about right, JD?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythomania

    The guy is either sick, or a jerk. Remember his history.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  20. “UPDATE 2: The AP is right that war is grim, and not just foreign wars. AP: Where are the photos of people who jumped from the Towers on 9/11?”

    They wouldn’t run the 9/11 pictures because they thought it would cause a public outcry and hurt them financially, they’ll run this because they think it’ll sell.

    They’re explanation of why they ran it is a bunch of lying crap.

    Dave Surls (6db001)

  21. AP: Where are the photos of people who jumped from the Towers on 9/11?

    Good point.

    I would not have used the photo.

    In the first place, it is so badly composed it appears voyeuristic. The fact the father asked that it not be published, while compelling, is not decisive. The image doesn’t convey the “grimness of war” so much as cheap crowing.

    steve (af3d27)

  22. Dave – I think the standard response to DCSCA’s comments is basically “rubbish.”

    daleyrocks (718861)

  23. You are really calling for some gruesome finger-chopping episodes with atrocious comments like that DCSCA

    I’m glad you find this so amusing – you’re one sad little person, aren’t you?

    Dmac (a93b13)

  24. Comment by Eric Blair — 9/4/2009 @ 4:04 pm
    Very predictable, Eric. Always about the trolls and banning. Whats new?

    The Emperor who feels marmosets need respect too. (0c8c2c)

  25. Very predictable, Eric. Always about the trolls and banning. Whats new?
    Comment by The Emperor who feels marmosets need respect too. — 9/4/2009 @ 4:29 pm

    And you with the thread-jacking, accusations of racism, lies, and general trollish behavior adding little-to-nothing in every discussion you enter. What’s new indeed?

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  26. DCSCA has said a couple of things twice that justified putting him in moderation. But there is no reason to ban him. He is mostly civil if mostly nutty.

    The crawly little worm, on the other hand, is an insidious poison which starts with a seemingly reasonable comment and then escalates until it derails the thread. That thing should be banned.

    nk (df76d4)

  27. ROTFLMAO!!!! I just peed on myself….LOL!!!

    The Emperor who feels marmosets need respect too. (0c8c2c)

  28. ah, here you are again sitting on your couch sending other people’s children to war and perhaps death, pretending your outgrage is patriotism.

    Mark (97ff7a)

  29. You should know, I am really a nice person in real life. Judge me not by the content of my comments nor by the number of my fingers. Judge me instead by the intent of my heart. I love you all. Bigots, racists, homophobes, wife-cheaters, cannibals, finger-chewers. Repulsicans, Demoncraps. It matters not to me who you are. I love you all. Peace out!

    The Emperor who feels marmosets need respect too. (0c8c2c)

  30. Since the AP is either unwilling, or unable, to comply with the agreement they have stipulated to with the DoD, all personnel in the field should consider them as antagonists, and shoot first and ask questions later.
    Fragging is not something only dick-head 2nd Lt’s have to worry about.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ea6a1e)

  31. #7- The dirty socialist Associated Press shoulda used a telephoto lens to snap a picture of Ted Kennedy’s corpulent addled drooling corpse before he died cause of how anyone can get brain cancers in their heads and it’s very grim when it happens to where they give you lots of stool softener cause it’s a huge hassle to get you out of bed.

    The press (and popculture) has publicized some graphic images of the deaths of Ted Kennedy’s brothers, President John Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy. Still images from the Zapruder film were released in ’63 and although the film was withheld by Time/Life it was eventually broadcast years later, used in films and doccumentaries and viewable on YouTube. The graphic images of a mortally wounded RFK on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel in 1968 were front page news as well. Both murderous acts no doubt horrifice to the Kennedy family.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  32. Because there’s no difference whatsoever between a dead Marine and a dead President or candidate for President.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  33. Maybe the marine’s should let the AP journalist know that they will not be to quick to protect them if they come under attack! Then the AP can take as many pictures of themselve’s as they want and publish them! JERKS!

    Jeff C. (31794b)

  34. Everyone loves to see pictures of dead boomer icons. But this soldier guy wasn’t a dead boomer icon he was a real person and the AP knows the difference.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  35. Comment by DCSCA — 9/4/2009 @ 5:50 pm

    Ted’s been sober for nine days now. Surely we can have some death bed pictures of the Lion of the Senate.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  36. Comment by DCSCA — 9/4/2009 @ 5:50 pm

    The assassinations of RFK and JFK took place at public events with a lot of witnesses and cameras around. Would you call the front in Afghanistan a similar venue? Seriously? Are you that mentally ill?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  37. It would take countless hours of therapy for DuckCrap to progress to the point where he would be considered “only” mentally ill.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ea6a1e)

  38. “Where are the photos of people who jumped from the Towers on 9/11?”

    In every newspaper in the world, outside this country.

    JW Democrat (1e4a3b)

  39. The first day after 9/11, none of the MSM showed any clips or pictures of people falling to their deaths. It was a complete and utter self – imposed news blackout from the MSM, and they knew it.

    Dmac (a93b13)

  40. In every newspaper in the world, outside this country.

    Comment by JW Democrat — 9/4/2009 @ 6:44 pm

    Thanks for making the point JW.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  41. So this wasn’t against the rules. Rules which aren’t just a repeat of the first amendment.

    imdw (950039)

  42. #15-Freedom of the press does not include support and protection by US combat troops.

    Actually, it does. The enlistment oath:

    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” source- usmilitary.about.com Freedom of the press is in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  43. DCSCA, don’t be disingenuous. I didn’t say that our soldiers do not protect our Constitutional freedoms. I said that they don’t have to transport, feed and bodyguard this [reporter] when she wants to go to Afghanistan to shoot pictures for money.

    [I rephrased it for you, nk. — DRJ]

    nk (df76d4)

  44. DCSCA – You forgot to mention in your earlier meaningless comment that the news also broadcast Reagan getting shot, not that you would have that on your radar screen other than to note that he didn’t die.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  45. Are you guys still arguing with this delusional nutjob?

    Gosh, there are several of them, come to think of it.

    I think that they should both have newsletters, and we could all subscribe.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  46. Apparently any American journalist around the world is entitled to military protection and escort… because it’s in the Constitution.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  47. #19- …we had total press censorship (in war areas) and the media wasn’t allowed to show ANY pictures of dead Americans until September 1943, almost two years into the war. Throughout the war, the media was subject to the rules laid down by the Office of Censorship.

    Apparently the photo of the deceased Marine face down in the mud passed the Office of Censorship and was used in a 5th War Bond Drive ad published in July, 1944, after D-Day.

    We should have the same thing today…and to hell with the freedom of the press.

    Bear in mind that the deceased Marine pictured in that 1944 War Bond ad, and Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, both gave their lives in defense of that very freedom as articulated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  48. Nobody’s putting anybody in jail over this. But should we put her in a tank, give her MREs, and bodyguard her fat ass?

    nk (df76d4)

  49. Why did the AP pick a white soldier for their first dead soldier? I’d guess cause minorities already are considered pretty anti-war so the AP’s target market for the consumption of dead white soldier images would be pro-war white folk. So they would think gosh that dead soldier looks just bout the same age as my (son, brother, neighbor, nephew). We’ll have to see as the dead soldier campaign progresses how different focus groups respond to the different dead soldier images so we can help the AP refine the messaging more better. Lots to learn about how to exploit these dead kids since a lot of it simply hasn’t ever been done before.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  50. I agree, happyfeet, but I also think they chose this Marine because his injuries were primarily to his legs so his face was noticeable and relatively unscathed. The overall effect was to make him look almost childlike, which (I think) is the image the AP wanted to convey.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  51. I have not been able to find the picture on Al Gore’s internets. Link?

    nk (df76d4)

  52. Ok, DRJ are you a mind reader?

    nk (df76d4)

  53. Well, the first time round it was paramount just to set the precedent I think so it may have been more catch as catch can than what we’ll see in the future.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  54. nk,

    I’ve been avoiding it but I added it to my last comment.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  55. Oh, good Allah. This JW thingie, imdw, and IMP all in one thread.

    JD (e3dc5c)

  56. I heard somewhere that HuffPo had it main page, enlarged. I don’t go there, so it’s hearsay (netsay?). I really don’t care to see it as the father has requested it not be shown.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  57. oh. msnbc had slightly better quality I think … (#4) –

    Fellow Marines come to the aid of Bernard after he is mortally wounded by a rocket-propelled grenade. Msnbc.com initially chose not to run this picture. The AP distribution of the photo became controversial after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked the service not to publish the image. We are allowing you to decide whether to view it.

    It’s neat to feel so empowered. I love it when MSNBC allows me to decide. That’s so cool of them.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  58. oh. I hadn’t thought of it that way Mr. Stashiu3. I think I’d just assumed the soldier’s family was more concerned with their son’s image being exploited not so much just being seen. The Associated Press is a famous dirty socialist anti-American propaganda organ to where the concerns raised by their being in possession of a picture of a loved one immediately extend beyond a concern that they might merely show it to how they’re going to want to use it to advance their dirty socialist ideology.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  59. Her journal excerpts make an interesting read. It’s a case study in self-absorption — more first-person pronouns than a week with Gilderoy Lockhart — and her callousness to the wounded Marine is interestingly offset with her grief over some mildly wounded reporters.

    I finally figured it out. She’s not against the war, and neither are her outlets like AP and MSNBC. She’s just on the other side. I can respect that, but I feel no more grief for a wounded or killed reporter than I feel for an Al-Qaeda or Taliban terrorist similarly injured. So in a somewhat perverse way I can understand where she’s coming from. The Taliban are the ones who feel bad about the wounded AP and CBS reporters, I reckon; from their point of view it’s a friendly fire casualty.

    Of course, to be on that side after being raised here is treason, but that doesn’t make it rare.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (21af74)

  60. That’s possible happyfeet, but I would consider it a private tragedy for my family, not something for public use by anyone. Soldiers are not inherently public figures like politicians or Hollywood celebrities. Just because a news organization calls it news doesn’t make it so. What I’ve read is the father did not want it shown. I didn’t see it qualified in any way. That should be given the highest consideration IMO.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  61. Gates’ letter was excellent. He is one of the few good things Barcky has done.

    JD (e3dc5c)

  62. DCSCA – Have you got those pictures of Cami and Teddy for us yet?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  63. It’s clearly in the context of a media-driven and administration-blessed ratcheting up of opposition to engagement in Afghanistan. That’s very a lot objectionable, but parents of dead soldiers don’t have absolute moral authority. That never doesn’t infantilize a soldier. He died as a soldier of the United State Marine Corp I think not as someone’s baby boy.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  64. Somebody said she shot the casualty picture with a long lens, but she says she shot from 10 yards away, and the low quality is due to slow shutter in the dim dusk light (1/2 second).

    She also says that she thought about helping the guy….

    I kept trying to gauge whether or not to drop the camera and help the Marines with the injured man. I remember feeling that as my first instinct when we had first approached him

    …but of course she didn’t. She took pictures instead, and was delighted that she could end-around the media rules with them (she mentions that she knew they violated the rules even as she was shooting). That’s one cold homunculus the AP has there.

    Elsewhere she whines about carrying thirty-five pounds, disses the Afghans.

    I am not a psychiatrist, real or pop. So I’m not going to try to diagnose this person.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (21af74)

  65. And yeah, her goal in sending the message was political.

    It’s not as easy to see an image of that casualty and NOT think about it. I never expect to change the world or stop war with one picture, but only hope that I make some people THINK beyond their comfort zones and hope that a few of them will be moved into some kind of action, be it joining a protest, or….

    I believe that is why I decided to send the photo in to the NY desk despite what the media rules of engagement said,

    See, she answers to a Higher Power. Lou Grant maybe.

    Kevin R.C. O'Brien (21af74)

  66. Then show his U.S.M.C. photo, tell his story, interview the family and friends if they agree, you don’t have to include this. It’s not about infantalizing anyone or Absolute Moral Authority, it’s about boundaries and respect. He died as a Marine and someone’s baby boy. We’re just going to have to disagree again.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  67. “And yeah, her goal in sending the message was political.”

    They report. You decide. Fair and Balanced.

    imdw (de9ac8)

  68. That’s very a lot objectionable, but parents of dead soldiers don’t have absolute moral authority. That never doesn’t infantilize a soldier. He died as a soldier of the United State Marine Corp I think not as someone’s baby boy.

    It’s an interesting observation, happy, and while you may be right on one hand: he did die as a soldier of the USMC, I would guess to most parents, these soldiers do indeed die as their baby boys, their carefree children, their awkward adolescents, their rebellious teens and everything in between that they were in the short lives, because when that USMC soldier dies, it’s only as a Marine to the public but to the parents brought him into this world, it is a lifetime of detailed memory, history and the lasting imprint on their hearts.

    What the photojournalist did was attempt to gain notoriety for herself because if she had not taken the photo, if the AP had not ignored the parent’s and Secty Gates’s request, how would it have negatively impacted anyone?

    What loss would have occurred?

    What irreversible damage would have ensued?

    What disastrous consequences, even unintended, would we as a nation be enduring because a parent’s request for privacy and dignity was heeded?

    There was nothing gained from this. And not even the photojournalist gained anything. It’s just now we know what she is made of.

    Dana (863a65)

  69. yes – I guess we have to disagree but there’s a … need maybe I think to anticipate instances of dead soldiers who have parents that are enthusiastic about exploiting images of their dead kids. If you invest parents with the authority to deny the exploitation of their kids than you invest them with the authority to do otherwise.

    I think the highest consideration is the kid’s service and death not be exploited period.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  70. oh – I hadn’t read Dana’s comment yet when I did the #69 one – brb

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  71. I don’t think any parent has exploited their dead son more than Cindy Sheehan. And oddly, not even a published photograph of him in death was necessary.

    Dana (863a65)

  72. I don’t want to derail this conversation. But, has anyone here ever met a professional photo-journalist?

    They are, honestly, the biggest assholes (since Van Jones coined the phrase) in the world. And I will give them credit, they’re also brave to go into battle zones and other dangerous territory.

    They really tend to be adventurers with a certain mindset to photograph their opinion. And, you cannot question them about their opinion because what they photograph is the “truth.”

    Some say that photos cannot lie, but they indeed can.

    But, most photojournalist lament that they are beyond the fray and they only portray reality. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t.

    Ultimately, thought, their editors pretend to disseminate the truth as they see fit.

    In this case, they are

    Nevermind, the most important thing is to portray the cruelty of war. I’ve been schooled.

    Bring the troops home from Afghanistan. Now.

    Ag80 (b272f0)

  73. oh. I think what was gained is that the Associated Press has established a precedent. Remember that our feeb Secretary of Defense and his cover his ass letter obscure the letter that our dipshit commander in chief didn’t find necessary or of importance to write.

    If you thought Gates’ letter was compelling ask yourself why Barack Obama didn’t find it so.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  74. oh. I think what was gained is that the Associated Press has established a precedent. Remember that our feeb Secretary of Defense and his cover his ass letter obscure the letter that our commander in chief didn’t find necessary or of importance to write.

    If you thought Gates’ letter was compelling ask yourself why Barack Obama didn’t find it so.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  75. And oddly, not even a published photograph of him in death was necessary.
    Comment by Dana — 9/4/2009 @ 9:31 pm

    Well said Dana.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  76. If you decide to do a post on her journal, Kevin, leave a comment and I’ll link it in a new post.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  77. Kevin,

    Regarding this part of the journal:

    That’s when I realized there was a casualty and saw the injured Marine, about 10 yards from where I’d stood, with his legs just hanging on by skin.

    I’m not sure if that means the photographer was 10 yards away when she shot the photos or if, at a previous time, she had been 10 yards away from where he was injured.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  78. For reals though if this is a Wrong Thing then it’s incumbent on our soldiers to communicate that to skank-assed dirty socialist Associated Press photographers.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  79. I kept trying to gauge whether or not to drop the camera and help the Marines with the injured man. I remember feeling that as my first instinct when we had first approached him

    She had time to think, to consider if his life were worth dropping her camera. She had time to make the decision, to focus her camera, to snap the picture. She had time to indulge herself and willfully ignore the very real possibility that she could have aided in saving a man’s life – ironically, a man who was dying to save her life and many others as well.

    Dana (863a65)

  80. “She had time to think, to consider if his life were worth dropping her camera.”

    She does call it ‘instinct.’

    imdw (184748)

  81. Bernard lost two limbs. I feel sure those two Marines could have used an extra set of hands to help apply tourniquets to stop Bernard’s blood loss.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  82. She does call it ‘instinct.’

    While her instinct was to stand nearby and watch him die – while taking his picture – the soldiers next him had profoundly different instincts, no?

    Dana (863a65)

  83. I believe inalienable rights. And I believe in nontransferable responsibilities tied to those inalienable rights. And I spent money based on my belief in the 2nd amendment.

    If that piece of garbage were to take a photo of my soldier daughter in the same situation, she should thank her lucky crystals or whatever else that I believe in the nontransferable responsibilities tied to my 2nd amendment rights.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  84. She salivated at the idea this picture would help her career. Make her some money. Why is the AP this greedy?

    that they showed these pics to the family at all really, really gets me down. It’s such a shame this country barely deserves the Marines, Army, etc. I only hope this brave wonderful young man did not see or realize that this slime was snapping shots as he died that would needlessly aggravate his family’s sacrifice. Imagine that being your final moment.

    I am deeply troubled by our media. This truly is a sign of the times.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  85. Dana, it’s impossible for me to put myself in those shoes, where the common Samaritan urge of helping a dying man is overcome by ‘journalism’.

    reporters think they are some kind of glorious knights of invading privacy… for what? Maybe if it was a secret that marines die in war this would make sense, but we didn’t learn anything from this.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  86. Juan, I suspect most of us don’t know how we would respond in such a pressure-filled life and death situation, and perhaps quite easily I would have been locked up and frozen in complete fear, unable to even think let alone move; but this photojournalist did not express being overcome by fear or shock but rather a deliberate thinking through of her options and which choice would be better for her.

    I think that if it were me, I would be much more able to live with myself in the aftermath if I had just been too impotent to help because I was in a state of shock and couldn’t move, rather than having decided that taking a picture was more important than HELPING SAVE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING’S LIFE.

    Dana (863a65)

  87. good point… I’d probably freeze up or act stupidly. hopefully I would be a hero, but I’m very human in that area.

    Like you say, this ‘person’ did not freeze. They considered ‘help that man’ or ‘take some sweet ogrish pics of his death to prove once and for all that war causes ugliness’.

    Why is it that Michael Yon can get so many amazing and informative pictures of warzones? Because he thinks about communicating reality, not coming up with a narrative and desperately trying to prove it. How long was this photographer trying to show true horror that there was an ability to consider helping a person, and it was rejected?

    that young man looks like really nice kids, and I don’t know why I deeply empathize with his family in this case, but I really am sickened.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  88. I too deeply empathize with his family and I suspect it’s because as a parent of two young men myself, I cannot imagine the depth of staggering loss Cpl. Bernard’s parent felt only to have salt burned into the wound by a denial of their last request. It is stunningly disrespectful and the flagrant arrogance that motivates such a decision clearly evidences some very serious devaluing of life itself.

    Dana (863a65)

  89. #48- Nobody’s putting anybody in jail over this. But should we put her in a tank, give her MREs, and bodyguard her fat ass?

    Comment by nk — 9/4/2009 @ 8:22 pm

    #43- I didn’t say that our soldiers do not protect our Constitutional freedoms. I said that they don’t have to transport, feed and bodyguard this [reporter] when she wants to go to Afghanistan to shoot pictures for money.

    [I rephrased it for you, nk. — DRJ]

    Comment by nk — 9/4/2009 @ 8:08 pm

    Uh…. yes, ‘we’ should and yes ‘they’ do. It’s DoD policy regarding embedding media with troops. You might want to read up on it before cracking wise.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/d20030228pag.pdf

    Specificly, policy section 2C:

    2.C. A MEDIA EMBED IS DEFINED AS A MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE REMAINING WITH A UNIT ON AN EXTENDED BASIS – PERHAPS A PERIOD OF WEEKS OR EVEN MONTHS. COMMANDERS WILL PROVIDE BILLETING, RATIONS AND MEDICAL ATTENTION, IF NEEDED, TO THE EMBEDDED MEDIA COMMENSURATE WITH THAT PROVIDED TO MEMBERS OF THE UNIT, AS WELL AS ACCESS TO MILITARY TRANSPORTATION AND ASSISTANCE WITH COMMUNICATIONS FILING/TRANSMITTING MEDIA PRODUCTS, IF REQUIRED. -source DoD

    And for those who urge member of the media to become combatants, there’s section 4C:

    4.C. MEDIA EMBEDDED WITH U.S. FORCES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CARRY PERSONAL FIREARMS.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  90. The military has to protect this photographer if she is embedded, but reporters don’t have a right to embed. Perhaps nk’s point was that the military should decline to let this photographer embed in the future.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  91. DCSCA, even if it was the law that we ‘have to’ support every reporter that shows up, which obviously is not the law, nk’s asking if we ‘should’ is still a valid question.

    Citing a law is a dumb retort to a philosophical objection. Our military should not be supporting slimeballs. I don’t want a pliant fawning propaganda machine (on my side), but that’s a million miles from what we’ve got or would have if we kicked all AP out of all warzones. Respect the military. Just basic freaking respect.

    If that’s contrary to the law, then of course, I am advocating changing the law.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  92. Talk about moving the goalposts. DCSCA originally claimed it was a First Amendment issue and in the Constitution. Now, he cites DOD policy. Of course, that only applies to journalists approved to embed, not everyone exercising their rights under the First Amendment.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  93. #90- The military has to protect this photographer if she is embedded, but reporters don’t have a right to embed.

    DRJ- It appears they do, and not just because of their rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. They are encouraged to do so by the military and if ‘nk’s’ point is do decline media access that goes counter to the preferred policy. But surely he can speak for himself. The DoD doesn’t want the press going off on their own. The DoD wants media embeds to get their story out. Just read the policy guidelines.

    2. POLICY.

    2.A. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) POLICY ON MEDIA COVERAGE OF FUTURE MILITARY OPERATIONS IS THAT MEDIA WILL HAVE LONG-TERM, MINIMALLY RESTRICTIVE ACCESS TO U.S. AIR, GROUND AND NAVAL FORCES THROUGH EMBEDDING. MEDIA COVERAGE OF ANY FUTURE OPERATION WILL, TO A LARGE EXTENT, SHAPE PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ENVIRONMENT NOW AND IN THE YEARS AHEAD. THIS HOLDS TRUE FOR THE U.S. PUBLIC; THE PUBLIC IN ALLIED COUNTRIES WHOSE OPINION CAN AFFECT THE DURABILITY OF OUR COALITION; AND PUBLICS IN COUNTRIES WHERE WE CONDUCT OPERATIONS, WHOSE PERCEPTIONS OF US CAN AFFECT THE COST AND DURATION OF OUR INVOLVEMENT. OUR ULTIMATE STRATEGIC SUCCESS IN BRINGING PEACE AND SECURITY TO THIS REGION WILL COME IN OUR LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO SUPPORTING OUR DEMOCRATIC IDEALS. WE NEED TO TELL THE FACTUAL STORY – GOOD OR BAD – BEFORE OTHERS SEED THE MEDIA WITH DISINFORMATION AND DISTORTIONS, AS THEY MOST CERTAINLY WILL CONTINUE TO DO. OUR PEOPLE IN THE FIELD NEED TO TELL OUR STORY – ONLY COMMANDERS CAN ENSURE THE MEDIA GET TO THE STORY

    2.B. MEDIA WILL BE EMBEDDED WITH UNIT PERSONNEL AT AIR AND GROUND FORCES BASES AND AFLOAT TO ENSURE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF ALL OPERATIONS. MEDIA WILL BE GIVEN ACCESS TO OPERATIONAL COMBAT MISSIONS, INCLUDING MISSION PREPARATION AND DEBRIEFING, WHENEVER POSSIBLE.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  94. DCSCA – What is your native language?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  95. #91- I don’t want a pliant fawning propaganda machine (on my side), but that’s a million miles from what we’ve got or would have if we kicked all AP out of all warzones. Respect the military. Just basic freaking respect. What you ‘want’ is irrelevant. What the military wants is very relevant, and that’s to have them embedded. Read the policy.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  96. You don’t seem to understood what I said, but the military’s interests are a democratic issue. We can discuss what they should want or what they should do, even if you don’t want us to.

    What’s actually irrelevant is the policy you’re misunderstanding.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  97. DCSCA,

    The military’s decision to encourage reporters to embed is different than a reporter having a right to embed.

    But if you view encouragement as equivalent to a right, then I submit the family had more than a moral argument that the AP shouldn’t publish this photo. Under your theory, the family has a right to prevent publication … because having the ability to encourage someone to do something is the same as having a right to compel them to do it.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  98. Fact is, the military has zero obligation to allow reporters to embed. And often, allowing an embed is very, very bad for the United States.

    Kicking the AP out, from the onset, would have been good for our country. Look at the lies they have printed over the years. Look at this idiotic photo… that tell you nothing but harms the war effort.

    And the military has been absurd in dealing with great journalists like Michael Yon, too.

    They know what to expect from the AP. The AP isn’t going to come down hard on the wrong people in the pentagon, perhaps, and they can keep selling the propaganda.

    What’s really amusing is that DCSCA thinks what the citizens of this country wants is irrelevant… or perhaps he thought he sounded tough when he said that. It’s a fair point on my part that I don’t want a press that is too easy on the military leadership. It’s totally relevant and actually quite central to what the embedded reporter programs have always been about.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  99. #97- The military’s decision to encourage reporters to embed is different than a reporter having a right to embed. Please indicate where this is stated in the 2003 policy paper. Read it. The policy is what it is- a ‘policy’ crafted by the Bush Administration and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in 2003. If you accepted this policy position during the Bush Administration and now oppose it under the Obama Admnistration, write your congressman to pressure for change.

    The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the freedom of the press and properly screened reporters, from credentialed news organizations, are welcomed to report as embeds with military units in combat areas. If you’re disenchanted with the policy to embed, no doubt you’d get a great deal of support from the news media as they’d much prefer to go off on their own to cover a story, as they did Vietnam, which resulted in news coverage that clashed with government policy briefings in the famed ‘5’o’clock follies.’ The suppression of media coverage in the other extreme during the first Gulf War proved to be a disaster for the DoD as well.

    Hence the current policy was crafted which is under fire now for being manipulated by the DoD:

    http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64401

    But this bastion of liberal media- The Stars and Stripes see it this way: “…These ground rules recognize the inherent right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information,” reads the “News Media Ground Rules” issued by U.S. military officials for embedded reporters…”- source, Stars and Stripes, 8/27/09

    If you’d like I’ll email you the images from 1944 depicting American dead used to peddle government war bonds. No doubt the family had no say in the use of that photo of their family member to sell them. I’d like to know who the fellow was.

    The AP made the editorial decision to publish a combat photo just as they published images of the Commander In Chief being assassinated in Dallas in 1963 and images of his brother, a U.S. Senator, mortally wounded on the kitchen floor of a Los Angeles hotel in 1968. (He had not died yet.) They published images of JFK’s assassin being gunned down, a South Vietnamese police chief executing a Viet Cong suspect with his pistol in a Saigon street, children accidently napalmed in 1972 and an Allied flier about to be beheaded by Japanese officer in 1945. The media has published a photo of a loyalist soldier slain in mid-stride in Spain in 1936, images of Mussolini (and Saddam Hussein) being hanged, the bullet-riddled body of John Dillinger and office workers jumping to their deaths on 9/11. Perhaps the Kennedy family and the families of all those other people imaged for the purposes of news coverage over the years objected as well.

    And you, in fact all of us, have the right to choose not to view any of them.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  100. #98- Fact is, the embed policy was crafted by the Bush Administration in 2003. Read it.

    What’s really amusing is that DCSCA thinks what the citizens of this country wants is irrelevant… Hmmmm. Then from your perspective, I’m in exceptionally good company:

    “RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say [the Iraq War is] not worth fighting.

    CHENEY: So?

    RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?

    CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.” -Source, ABC News, 3/19/08

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  101. People who think the AP should not have published the photo and defend what we are doing in our wars do not realize who is really running this country. I think the wealthy masters have done a bangup job dividing all of US (Americans). Divide and conquer… Well, how can this be done??? OWN THE MEDIA..

    STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS
    STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS
    START BEING GOOD AMERICANS

    When we are not able to put a name to a face or a picture, we do not have a true emotion regarding the picture. We just know that war is hell, and bloody, and people die. We do not think that this could happen to any of us, so we are somewhat numb or complacent about what we do to each other on this planet.

    I wish the family peace and pray for their son. And I also have the greatest respect for his service to this country.

    I would not have been able to pray for him and I would not be able to express my gratitude had the AP not published his photo.

    I think anyone who wishes to somehow make the truth of war disappear, and I’m talking about someone who supports a war that is pointless.

    I mean, can anyone tell me what we are in Afghanistan for anyway? history has been very clear for thousands of years: Afghanistan is where empires go to die.

    Boneman (ba2811)

  102. Sorry, I didn’t finish my thought in my previous post:

    “I think anyone who wishes to somehow make the truth of war disappear, and I’m talking about someone who supports a war that is pointless is doing a disservice to the truth.”

    Now Gates is out there saying the publishing of this photo is an outrage. And I’ve read countless posts agreeing with him. I wonder, if we didn’t see or hear anything about this war, if the death, dying, torture, and corporate greed would mean anything to us.

    Personally, and I say this with all due respect to the family of the fallen hero:

    If it were me, I would want people to know who I was and what I died for. I want everyone to know everyone, and to get off this corporate train that is sucking the very blood and soul of all of US Americans completely dry.

    Peel the label of corporatism away and you will see brownshirts just like Hitler made.

    Peel away the label of corporatism, and what you will see is FASCISM.

    Boneman (ba2811)

  103. 102:

    Sorry, I didn’t finish my thought in my previous post:

    S’Okay. Morons aren’t expected to think in complete, coherent sentences.

    In spite of your paranoid delusions (like this one:

    Peel away the label of corporatism, and what you will see is FASCISM.),

    that indicate you have a tenuous grasp on reality to start with, (and this one, that completes the picture of a patient in a mental health care facility:

    “I think anyone who wishes to somehow make the truth of war disappear, and I’m talking about someone who supports a war that is pointless is doing a disservice to the truth.”),

    )there is a point to waging war when you are being attacked by an enemy whose goal is a relentless global conquest, the bloodier the better, and the destruction of Western Civilization a benefit in their eyes.

    Now, do the adults a favor and crawl back into the shithole you came out of.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  104. DRJ, you have to remember that the International Man of Parody worked for CBS. He knows things, and has absolute moral authority.

    I wonder what he did for CBS, actually.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  105. “While her instinct was to stand nearby and watch him die – while taking his picture – the soldiers next him had profoundly different instincts, no?”

    Yup and being under fire they’ll have different instincts too. She’s a reporter. Not a combatant. Though I don’t see how this debate affects whether it should be published or not.

    Of all the things an embedded reporter would publish, I think the least surprising would be the picture of someone dying. That happens quite a bit in war. Did people think they were only going to take pictures we like?

    [note: fished from spam filter]

    imdw (60954d)

  106. Now we know how far some in the media will go to get America out of Afghanistan

    If that is the case I don’t think they appreciate that it only feeds the more leftie side in terms of reacting such as “See he is just a baby..we need to leave that place”
    Normal people see these pictures and the ones of the people jumping from the towers and their “instictive” reaction is to wish death on the people who shot him/planned the towers.

    voiceofreason2 (d41fa5)

  107. I wonder what he did for CBS, actually.

    He serviced Gunga Dan in the men’s room, naturally.

    School Mom (a93b13)

  108. Whoops, last one was mine.

    Dmac (a93b13)

  109. This IMP, the stupid is strong with this one.

    JD (88ca98)

  110. “If it were me, I would want people to know who I was and what I died for.”

    Soldiers have made a decision to risk their lives for something important to them. They are humble enough to accept that usually their sacrifices will be anonymous. They are able to believe there is actually something more important than their egos. They subordinate their egos to accept commands and discipline for what they can only hope is a greater good.

    This humility deserves at least the respect to allow privacy to the families, particularly if it is specifically requested. But the ego of the ‘journalist’ and the moral hubris of the media brushes this aside.

    jodetoad (059c35)

  111. Well said, jodetoad @ 108.

    When we are not able to put a name to a face or a picture, we do not have a true emotion regarding the picture.

    This is a subjective determination. While it may be true for you, there are plenty of caring people who can simply read an article and see a picture without the personal identification and be so moved and compelled that they continually pray for those involved, or they go out and begin greeting returning soldiers or volunteer at their local V.A. hospital – and that’s because even without details, they clearly understand the grimness of war.

    If you say there is not a “true emotion” to a photo without name/face, then in turn you have decided for others that if there is no name/face, then their emotions and reactions to the photo are false. Unless I’m misreading your comment, that is on helluva an arrogant thing to say.

    Dana (863a65)

  112. “I wonder what he did for CBS, actually.

    Comment by Eric Blair — 9/5/2009 @ 7:02 am”

    Tour guide?

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  113. DCSCA just has the typical lefty confusion over the definition of the word “right” versus policy and does not understand what he links. More asshattery from the moron.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  114. “I mean, can anyone tell me what we are in Afghanistan for anyway?”

    We’re in Afghanistan to kill as many members of the Taliban and Al Qaida as we possibly can.

    At least that’s what I want.

    Dave Surls (ed699f)

  115. #113- THESE GROUND RULES RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE MEDIA TO COVER MILITARY OPERATIONS AND ARE IN NO WAY INTENDED TO PREVENT RELEASE OF DEROGATORY, EMBARRASSING, NEGATIVE OR UNCOMPLIMENTARY INFORMATION.

    source- those wild-eyed, confused Pentagon ‘lefties’ at The Department of Defense

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/d20030228pag.pdf

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  116. It really should be painful to be that arrogant and illiterate. The right to report is not in question. The policy to embed is not a right, nor is individual protection of journalists in a war zone a right. The ability to sign an agreement before embedding with the military and then disregard it at your convenience is not a right. Policies can change, although I think the embed policy is a good one. Jacobson should never be allowed to embed again.

    I’m going back to ignoring DCSCA and apologize for engaging him in the first place. Broke my own rule.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  117. Indeed, Stashiu3, ignorance and wilful misrepresentation of the level of the International Man of Parody should hurt more.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  118. DCSCA,

    Do you equate the “right of the media to cover military operations” with the “right of the media to embed” its reporters in military units? I’d like to know if that is your position.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  119. #118- See #99. See #115. Read the policy. Read the First Amendment. The Pentagon position is clear, the policy as crafted by the Bush Administration and continued under the Obama Administration is clear. The freedom of the press is guaranteed, for better or worse. The media has the right to request embedment and the Pentagon is obligated under existing policy to grant that request.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  120. “Apparently the photo of the deceased Marine face down in the mud passed the Office of Censorship and was used in a 5th War Bond Drive ad published in July, 1944, after D-Day.”

    No, that decision would have been made by the OWI, which was completely independent of the Office of Censorship, and not subject to their control.

    “The Office of Censorship did not undertake to suppress the publication or broadcast of anything that was given out officially by a qualified government authority, even when the information violated one of the code’s restrictions.”–wiki article on the Office of Censorship

    If you’re going to dispute what I have to say, you might want to actually learn a little about the subjects under discussion.

    Dave Surls (ed699f)

  121. #120- Then what you posted was irrelevant to the use of the photo to begin with.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  122. DRJ, notice that the International Man of Parody pretends not understand your question, and fails to answer it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  123. Read the policy. Read the First Amendment

    Given that the protege of Von Braun never reads his own sources, this is flat – out hilarious.

    Dmac (a93b13)

  124. DCSCA,

    If the answer is so apparent then you should have no problem answering it directly: Do you equate the “right of the media to cover military operations” with the “right of the media to embed” its reporters in military units?

    DRJ (3f5471)

  125. “#120- Then what you posted was irrelevant to the use of the photo to begin with.”

    On the contrary, what I said was that we should have the same kind of press controls we had in WWII (so that the idiots in the press can’t publish photos like the one we’re talking about), which is totally relevant to the discussion.

    Dave Surls (ed699f)

  126. I think the following is well put.

    “For those of you with short memories or who were not alive in 1968, I can tell you that photos of dying American soldiers in Vietnam were a regular part of the day’s news.

    Have we become so squeamish, that we can’t handle the truth of a war we chose to fight? I’m well aware that the main “lesson learned” from Vietnam as far as the Pentagon is concerned is–“Don’t let the news media show Americans dying”. So we “embed” reporters and photographers and control their output. And supposedly independent news sources like the New York Times can write about Gates fury while hewing to his censorship regime and not showing the picture, supposedly because the soldiers parents didn’t want the picture shown. Was that even a consideration of news editors in 1968?

    How can we ever make a collective decision about the wisdom or folly if this war, if our news media decides its role is to protect us from the reality of the war?”
    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/05/you_cant_handle_the_truth_1/

    JW Democrat (fcc189)

  127. Another example of JW Democrat copying a talking point that JW has no understanding of.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  128. The reason for the embargo on the use of identifiable pix of casualties from the combat zones was due to the many instances during the conflict in Vietnam where relatives of the deceased first found out about the death by seeing the pix on the evening news. At least during an official notification, you had the advance warning of the approach of a Western Union/Postal Service/uniformed Military Representative to your front door (see that scene in “We Were Soldiers“) with the bad news. To turn on the evening news, and to be confronted with the picture of your son, or husband, lying in a rice-paddy having given his all for his country, without any warning, is not how a civilized country or society would handle events like this – which says a lot about the thought processes within AP, and other major media.

    AD - RtR/OS! (552fc3)

  129. It is another Moronic Convergence with the International Man of Parody and JW Leftist.

    JD (68664a)

  130. AD,

    That’s a feature, not a bug, to JW’s crowd. Those parents deserve that pain for letting their children join such a despicable group (the United States military). This shot could only have been improved if the father had seen it before being notified of his son’s death. The story would have been perfect then.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  131. It is another Moronic Convergence with the International Man of Parody and JW Leftist.
    Comment by JD — 9/5/2009 @ 5:04 pm

    Way to go JD… now imdw is bound to join in. Consider yourself denounced. 😉

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  132. Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/5/2009 @ 5:05 pm

    If JW wishes to espouse such a destructive policy, he should do it publicly (in the square, so to speak) and he should be prepared for the push-back – a push-back that will reflect the depths of depravity to which he has led us.
    I repeat: A civilized society does not treat its’ contributors in such a manner as the AP demonstrates in this instance. In an earlier time, the father of that dead Marine would walk into the AP offices and just beat the $hit out of the person who green-lighted that pix – and the beat cop would buy him lunch.

    AD - RtR/OS! (552fc3)

  133. “If JW wishes to espouse such a destructive policy, he should do it publicly (in the square, so to speak) and he should be prepared for the push-back – a push-back that will reflect the depths of depravity to which he has led us.”

    The soldier signed up to serve his country. That service did not end with his death. If the issue is having his parents learn the facts first, that I understand. But the pentagon in the recent past banned even photographs of flag draped coffins on the airfield and that has everything to do with pentagon disinterest in fully confirmed consent on the part of the public.

    The people you still support: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, have been shown to be incompetent. They’re responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths, American and other. If Afghanistan was a necessary war and most Democrats by far will say it is, it is the last administration that’s responsible for the mess we’re in now. And you defend them over the soldiers in the field.

    JW Democrat (1e4a3b)

  134. I will repeat again, those leftist nutjobs who wish to deny my 2nd amendment rights should better be glad I have also accepted my responsibilities regarding my 2nd amendment rights (that I used to spend good money).

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  135. JW Douchecrat, I, the father of a soldier who spent 15 months in Iraq protecting your 1st amendment rights to make a total burro of yourself, spit in your face. Comical reference aside, anonymity, distance, and my own principles prevent me from shoving my size-10 steel toes into your teeth.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  136. JW Democrat, your description of the Pentagon policies and their motivations are just as dishonest as anything from you ever is. Abject dishonesty is all we ever get from you.

    Associated Press intentionally violated an agreement that they had reached specifically to allow their reporter to embed with the unit. Without any justification at all.

    But then, I guess we already know what your word is worth, so you obviously have no understanding.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  137. F*ck you, JW.

    [note: fished from spam filter]

    JD (68664a)

  138. JW (is that short for JabberWokkie?) has as much relevance to a civil discussion of national and world events as DuckCrap, and brings about the same level of honesty to it.

    AD - RtR/OS! (552fc3)

  139. And you defend them over the soldiers in the field.
    Comment by JW Democrat — 9/5/2009 @ 6:02 pm

    Where the hell do you come off saying that? You are deranged beyond belief with hatred. I’m tired of deconstructing your pitiful attempts to parrot lame talking points, so this is the last time.

    First, if military service doesn’t end with death (something I do not stipulate, but pointing out the flaw in your own logic is enough), then why would you object to any administration granting or withholding access and information about soldiers depending on whether it furthers the administrations goals? In other words, if they’re still serving, those soldiers are serving the civilian chain, meaning the administration. Surely you see the problem there, right? Just because you like the current administration doesn’t mean you’ll like the next one.

    Second, saying photos of coffins has “everything to do with pentagon disinterest in fully confirmed consent on the part of the public” is not the only reasonable explanation. How about respect for the dead, their families and comrades, and general public? But, since President Bush and his administration were evil, there can be only evil reasons for any decision I guess.

    Third, you consider the previous administration incompetent. Considering the judgment and reasoning you’ve demonstrated here, your word means nothing. I disagree with your assessment and can point to nearly 8 years and counting without a major terrorist attack on our soil because of their policies, which President Obama has largely kept in place. Yet, you don’t call him incompetent.

    Finally, you’ve got nothing for soldiers in the field and they know it. The fact you can even say that is disgusting. When I was still active-duty, I would gladly defend someone like you… that doesn’t mean I’d share a meal with you. We’re done.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  140. Comment by Stashiu3 — 9/5/2009 @ 6:24 pm

    Well said!

    AD - RtR/OS! (552fc3)

  141. Comment by JW Democrat — 9/5/2009 @ 6:02 pm

    The AP performed a valuable service with the publication of this photograph against the wishes of the soldier’s parents and the Secretary of Defense.

    Without its publication I would have truly had no idea that war was dangerous and grim.

    ASSHAT!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  142. Remember, the AP will not show pictures from 9/11…they might be too upsetting.

    Andrew Robinson (6286b8)

  143. As Dorothy’s aunt said to the witch, “I have waited many years to tell you what I think of you. And now that I have the chance, because I’m a Christian, I can’t.”

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  144. Stashiu did a good deconstruction of the assumptions behind the TLE’s post. The TLE’s posts might seem like hypocrisy (well, they kind of are), but the explanation is pretty straightforward.

    Posting photographs of people falling from the Towers would inflame anti-Muslim sentiment, and that is would be bad.

    Posting photographs of people killed in media-unpopular war would support anti-war positions held by media and pundit types, and that would be good.

    It’s all about Teh Narrative™. The conclusion comes first, and then the background information is sculpted to fit.

    At least the Left is being pretty up front about it. Seems like the public is waking up, at least according to polls.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  145. Imagine the staph meetings at PMSNBC, trying to figure out why over 50 percent of the population of the US aren’t following their lead and kowtowing to Ear Leader. It has to be DEFCON-5 at major state-run media outlets by now.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  146. #126- Yeah, every civilian and combatant has to sigh a release form to permit use of their images for publication in any and all endeavors of life, peace and war alike.

    Pro-war advocates simply want to sanatize the conflict, a la Gulf War 1, because of the impact those vivid images of war had on American opinion and support for the war in 1968. War, after all, is good for business.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  147. Hey, duckcrap, I dare you to go thru the process required to don a US military uniform. I don’t care if you go thru the simple USAF boot or the 13-week USMC boot. Just go thru one of them. And then tell me how a civilian’s last minutes is more valuable than a soldier’s.

    Until then, be glad I respect my responsibilities, as I have recently repeatedly made public.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  148. Yes, I am tired of Karl Marx lovers urinating all over the Declaration and the Constitution. And I am tired of the Karl Marx lovers deficating on the Federalist Papers, without which the Constitution would never have been ratified for them to urinate all over.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  149. C’mon, John. Take a moment and ask yourself how you think this character lives his days and nights. Is it any wonder that he has to create a fictitious sooperdooper identity for himself, and sneer at people who actually, well, do things? Especially brave things, like enlist in the Armed Forces? He doesn’t have to have served, but you can see how he just can’t help himself, making journalists the equivalent of soldiers.

    Gosh, I wonder why?

    Seriously, go look at the long, long history of nasty-mindedness (say, regarding McCain), bizarre Walter Mitty stories, and unbalanced posts from the guy.

    His goal is to get you stirred up. You know how you live your life, daily. You can guess how he spends his.

    That is why he does what he does. Jealousy and resentment are his bread and butter.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  150. DRJ’s question still hasn’t been directly answered.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  151. That’s not the guy’s goal, Stashiu. Look at his history. It’s all about slapping at people to feel better about himself. Trying to score points.

    This isn’t the first time he has played word games. It’s just more TrollFest 2009.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  152. I know, but he’s hoping we’ll forget. I never forget. Ask horace. 😉

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  153. Yeah, what happened to horace? Is that hortense?

    And what about the pharmacologically enhanced (or seems that way) wheeler’s cat?

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  154. DCSCA’s biggest problem is staring himself in the face when he looks at himself in the mirror. He’s not happy unless he’s making other people unhappy.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  155. DCSCA has been spamming comments since
    his very
    early posts here
    at Patterico’s
    and hasn’t changed. Ignore him.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  156. There was a rock group named after the “flash in the pan” affect many bands have. And they also did the same thing, just not as brilliantly. I consider wheeler’s cat a trollosphere example of the band.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  157. Jeez, Stashiu. That was horrifying. My first thought was, is it possible for a person to plagiarize themselves? Then I thought, this is a sign of either bizarre laziness or something pretty psychologically toxic.

    Word for word. Bizarre.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  158. Then, there are his early predictions. What a prognosticator!

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  159. #124- DRJ-

    I concur with Rear Admiral Smith, DoC for the ISA, until the policy is modified or ended by the powers that be.

    Per the current ‘policy’ as instituted by the Bush Administration and continued by the Obama Administration. Credentialed journalists can choose to exercise the right to be embedded (which the military states they prefer, rather than having the press roam freely in a combat zone) and when they are properly cleared, must be permitted to cover combat operations per the ground rules of that policy. The policy clearly says: “These ground rules recognize the right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information,” per the “News Media Ground Rules” issued by U.S. military officials for embedded reporters…” Credentialed reporters have the right to cover combat operations and can exercise the right to be embedded if they so choose.

    Smith told the Stars & Stripes: “To imply journalists embedded with our forces only serve to highlight positive aspects of our mission slights the professional journalists who regularly embed with our forces and report what they experience, both good and bad.” If you opposed a free press freely covering a conflict within the expressed guidelines, I’d be interested to read why.

    In more general terms, my ‘personal’ preference is for the press to have access to everything, any time and all the time, the good, bad and ugly, exercising freedom of the press to the fullest; from Cheney’s energy meeting logs to all of Obama’s dealings on healthcare, to combat photos, victory parades, flag draped coffins returning to Dover AFB, Medal of Honor ceremonies, family reunions when troops return and autopsy images of assassinated presidents. It is up to you, or any of us, to choose to consume what the media serves up and it’s up to the media to be responsible in what it reports. Personally, I’d end the embed policy and let reporters report from the battle zone without proctoring by the Pentagon but until that is changed, I support the freedom of the press, it’s adversarial role and the current embed process it has to work with. When the Secretary of Defense has to state publicly that,’ The media is not our enemy…” that in itself speaks volumes. In the past I believed the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated across the board, if only to restore a level of decorum and civility to public discourse in all mediums. No more, given the ubiquitous nature of information today in a 24/7 cycle. A cellphone and an uplink can make you a reporter these days. It’s unenforceable. It’s best that all voice are heard and they will any way in this environment, be it Olbermann, Beck, Stewart and Colbert.

    But rather than asking me if I equate the, “right of the media to cover military operations” with the “right of the media to embed its reporters in military units,” why not ask Cami McCormick, or Bob Woodruff, or Kimberly Dozier, or any of the other members of the press, AP et al, who have risked life and suffered injury to report events independent from the government line in curent war zones. Their answers would carry considerably more cache than mine.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  160. DCSCSAAAAkumquatalexander said:

    The media has the right to request embedment and the Pentagon is obligated under existing policy to grant that request.

    Wow. We certainly are expanding the Bill of Rights. Which Amendment guarantees this Right? I know you’re going to say the First, but how exactly?

    Please enumerate the case law so that I understand your opinion.

    Ag80 (b272f0)

  161. Does IMP ever shut up?

    JD (b3f947)

  162. Well, like Stashiu3 pointed out, if you miss any given statement or Wall O’ Text, you will see him plagiarize himself again later. Word for word.

    Get the feeling he isn’t posting here to interact or learn or teach?

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  163. DCSSAMajorfontleroyoftheelmtree said:

    In more general terms, my ‘personal’ preference is for the press to have access to everything, any time and all the time, the good, bad and ugly, exercising freedom of the press to the fullest; from Cheney’s energy meeting logs to all of Obama’s dealings on healthcare, to combat photos, victory parades, flag draped coffins returning to Dover AFB, Medal of Honor ceremonies, family reunions when troops return and autopsy images of assassinated presidents.

    How about the bathroom? How about your bathroom? At exactly what point does the press have the ability to peer into private lives?

    There is case law. Cite?

    Ag80 (b272f0)

  164. Now, to be fair, I commit typos all the time. But this was precious:

    “…Their answers would carry considerably more cache than mine….”

    Given the comment spamming that Stashiu3 points out, the “cache” for “cachet” typo is pretty Freudian. And funny.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  165. In the words of Inigo Montoya, “Let me sum up.”:

    Shorter DCSCA:

    blahblahblahblah… Credentialed reporters have the right to cover combat operations and can exercise the right to be embedded if they so choose.blahblahblahblah
    Comment by DCSCA — 9/5/2009 @ 8:44 pm

    Thus proving he doesn’t know the difference between a right and a privilege. Or, that he’s a dishonest troll. Wait, those aren’t mutually exclusive. All of the above seems right.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  166. What is worse than the IMP, is that some of you actually pay attention to its’ pathetic utterings.

    AD - RtR/OS! (552fc3)

  167. #160- In my ‘opinion,’ you should read the policy.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/d20030228pag.pdf

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  168. We should just “let things land”?

    Stashiu3, thanks for the fun links. I know that Dmac has a list of IMP’s Tall Tales of Derring Do, as well.

    But wasn’t he part of an assassination team with the NSA while he worked for CBS?

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  169. What is worse than the IMP, is that some of you actually pay attention to its’ pathetic utterings.
    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 9/5/2009 @ 9:00 pm

    But I always wash my hands before and after. 😉

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  170. #165- Read the policy.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  171. #139 Stashiu3:

    First, if military service doesn’t end with death

    From the mouths of even the most stupid of those walking the planet, an unintentionally factual pearl can drop.

    A service member that dies on active duty is never discharged. Witness the City of Windsor, Ontario raising a pair or three US Navy vessels that went down in the 1860s. The Navy allowed Windsor to have the vessels for museum use, but required that the sailors be returned for burial.

    The really, really stupit part of comments adjoining the unintentionally truthful statement is the “fully confirmed consent on the part of the public.”

    Sorry, dunceweed, the “consent” of the public has nothing to do with the Executive’s conduct of warfare, confirmed or informed or whatever. The only effect the public has on the conduct of warfare is through the House and the budgetary process. Democracies are historically very difficult to keep engaged in warfare over a long period of time because its expensive (contrary to the bizarro thinking of IMP up there). (Not that the current administration gives a farthing about anything like a budget, but hey…back in the days when people paid in coin, it was an effective damper.)

    As to charging that the past administration is guilty of incompetence, lying, and “responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths, American and other,” you are in no position to ascertain any competency or honesty simply by your claim to be a Democrat: which is a resounding self-disqualification of your ability to judge such qualities in the first place. And finally, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld did not start a war of world conquest over 13 centuries ago that continues to be pursued by elements of the Muslim ummah even today. Its those elements of the Muslim ummah that continue to seek world domination that are “responsible for thousands of unnecessary deaths, American and other.”

    Jus’ whistlin’ dunceweed, indeed.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  172. #168, see #24. My, how you like to tag along behind. Good boy. What a superb fellow (or is it bellow) traveller you make.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  173. Your doctor truly has your best interests at heart, IMP. Take your meds. Maybe that will make you less of a retarded marmoset.

    JD (b3f947)

  174. DCSCAisitalarch:

    Policy is not law. And we can play this game all night.

    How exactly is the Constitution being offended?

    Ag80 (b272f0)

  175. My. Your writing style kinda fits with Iowahawk’s creation:

    http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/09/an-ill-wind-is-breaking-for-our-president.html

    Seriously, dude.

    Will we find that you are going spam a few more of your own golden prose from other posts at some point tonight? Stashiu3 has your number. Funny stuff.

    Go sleep it off. You are wearing the red rubber nose too much this evening.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  176. IMP – no tales of the serial fabulist yet tonite? Chop, chop …

    JD (b3f947)

  177. JD, there are days when it is just not safe for my imagination to read your comments.

    Wonder if I am gonna be able to get the tea stains off the ceiling.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  178. #175 is directed toward the Mickey’s Big Mouth fan, not JD or Ag80.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  179. #165- Hmmm. Perhaps you should discuss that with Rear Admiral Smith and the Pentagon. Their legal team has a deep bench.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  180. JD, Ag80, and others: don’t you get a whole Thurston Howell the Third vibe off this guy?

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  181. Hey! What nickname did Mr. Howell have for his wife?

    Spooky.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  182. #165- Read the policy.

    Comment by DCSCA — 9/5/2009 @ 9:01 pm

    DCSCA – I suggest you reread it and try yo understand it this time. Also see comment #165.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  183. #174- Read the policy. If you object to how it is currently interpreted, file a suit, contact your congressman or the Pentagon.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  184. EW1(SG),

    You’re right of course in that sense. That’s not the type of “service” JW spoke of though, and she would object to if it was an administration she didn’t approve of. Her argument was essentially that soldiers were still obligated to contribute even after they died and their names, likenesses, and reputations were property of and under the control of the government, and hence they (and their families in their name) had no right to any privacy.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  185. Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life DCSCA. A man with your vast worldly experience should know that by now. Have the police tuck you in.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  186. DCSCAimnotawitch said:

    #165- Hmmm. Perhaps you should discuss that with Rear Admiral Smith and the Pentagon. Their legal team has a deep bench.

    I’m sure they do, but I can’t get over that enumerated right that the press has to imbed.

    It’s not in the Constitution as I read it, or the Bill of Rights. Please illuminate us.

    Maybe Admiral Smith’s team of lawyers has the answer.

    Ag80 (b272f0)

  187. DCSCA – What year did the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  188. Ssssh, daley. He’s on a roll.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  189. #184 Stash, time for me to say “You’re right of course.”

    As Eric often points out, its all in service of the narrative and dunceweed would object strenuously that the soldier’s service (hence the government’s interest in maintaining privacy and decorum) terminates when they do…were it an administration it disapproved of.

    That it would further presume to speak for soldiers in the field is absolutely grating: just that they are there in the field puts the lie to its words.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  190. #188 Eric Blair:

    Ssssh, daley. He’s on a troll.

    FTFY.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  191. DCSCA:

    Here is the Stars & Stripes link for a quote from Rear Admiral Greg Smith that appears in the center of your comment #159:

    “To imply journalists embedded with our forces only serve to highlight positive aspects of our mission slights the professional journalists who regularly embed with our forces and report what they experience, both good and bad.”

    The article concerns a recent controversy that the military was using an outside PR group to vet reporters who request embeds. (The military denies this, saying the reports were used as background only.) Just 3 paragraphs above the quote you used is this paragraph:

    Stars and Stripes reported on Monday that the Pentagon was screening reporters embedding with U.S. forces to determine whether their past coverage had portrayed the military in a positive light. The story included denials by U.S. military officials that they were using the reporters’ profiles to determine whether to approve embed requests.

    It seems Stars & Stripes agrees that your so-called “right” to embed is not a right at all but a request the military can choose to approve or disapprove. No wonder you wouldn’t directly answer my earlier question.

    By the way, I could only find a link for a small portion of your comment #159. However, the way you wrote it suggests it was all attributable to or a quote by Rear Admiral Smith. If that’s the case, please provide a link to the complete article and quote. Until then, I’m going to assume the bulk of comment #159 is your interpretation of embed policy and not Admiral Smith’s.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  192. EB, how dare you ruin my memories of a wonderful sit-com. Now I’ll always have duckcrap in my mind when I think of Gilligan’s Isle. And for that matter, Kermit’s bathtub song.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  193. It has no grasp of the simple distinction between a Constitutional Right and a policy privilege. And it has the brain power of a lemur on a meth bender. And, Kyoto.

    JD (b3f947)

  194. EW1(SG) #190: eeeeww. I don’t care about his personal life. I wish him every happiness.

    As for the younger set unfamiliar with 60s sitcoms, check out Mr. Howell:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwA3AJPWphQ

    Again, he called his wife “Lovey,” which have to admit is disturbing in the context of this comments section.

    DRJ, I remain impressed that you maintain your positive attitude when dealing with TLEs who are certainly not dealing with you in good faith.

    Oh, and John: sorry about that. I also maligned the last John Belushi a few comments above. I denounce myself.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  195. Sorry, EW1. If the babbling babboon did not puke out its dirty little socialist plagiarisms, I would not feel compelled to point out that there is more honesty in a Vegas pawn shot than IMP has ever known in its life.

    JD (b3f947)

  196. Hey, JD, lemurs can be pretty mean. Perhaps you mean a potto?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potto

    Or a slow loris on meth?

    And yes, I meant “the late John Belushi” in my #194 comment.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  197. DCSCA,

    I read your link to the DOD embed policy. It expresses a commitment to embedding reporters but does not create a right to embed. In fact, on page 3 it specifically describes this as “embed opportunities” rather than “embed rights“:

    EMBED OPPORTUNITIES WILL BE ASSIGNED TO MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS, NOT TO INDIVIDUAL REPORTERS.”

    The document consistently uses the term “embed opportunities” although on page 6 it also recognizes the more general “right of the media to cover military operations.” Thus, your link does not show the media has a right to embed and, in fact, shows the opposite.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  198. DRJ – OH Noes! You mean you think DCSCA is wrong as well, that he has a problem comprehending written english? I’m shocked, truly shocked.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  199. DRJ – You know that facts will not slow the sloppy sloth from servicing Teh Narrative.

    JD (b3f947)

  200. Sigh. DRJ, there will be a loooooong Wall O’ Text in the wee hours tonight.

    You see, this guy is sure he is right. Even if he isn’t. Feelings, you know.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  201. You guys are just jealous that I got to read 13 pages of ALL CAPS and you didn’t.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  202. He doesn’t have a problem comprehending written English, he’s willfully dishonest. If he didn’t understand, he wouldn’t be constantly triangulating his answers to avoid direct questions.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  203. I DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN, DRJ.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  204. And Stashiu3, you get the “Sewer Urchin Award” (ever watch “The Tick”?) for having waded through some of IMP’s posts to reveal the self-plagiarization and goofball predictions. Why, that might have been worse than wading through all-caps.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  205. DRJ – You have the patience of Job, or my grandfather, who had 8 daughters. The dingy duck-billed platypus is only worthy of mockery and scorn.

    JD (b3f947)

  206. Being the father of one daughter, I can say without reservation that Eight is (more than) Enough to make you go insane.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  207. The regs did suck to read. I had to enlarge them to wade through them.

    Good job DRJ.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  208. #191- I feel I took the time answer you fairly, honestly and directly. And as stated, that question is better directed toward the likes of Cami McCormick, Bob Woodruff or Kimberly Dozier. However, you neglected to note in your response that, “ The Rendon profiles reviewed by Stars and Stripes prove otherwise. One of the profiles evaluates work published as recently as May, indicating that the rating practice did not in fact cease last October as Whitman stated.” Which contradicts the position of the military in this profiling matter you stated.

    Stars & Stripes goes on to say, “And the explicit suggestions contained in the Rendon profiles detailing how best to manipulate reporters’ coverage during their embeds directly contradict the Pentagon’s stated policies governing the embed process. “These ground rules recognize the inherent right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information,” reads the “News Media Ground Rules” issued by U.S. military officials for embedded reporters…” As I read it, Stars & Stripes supports the rights as stated in the policy as does Admiral Smith’s email to Stars & Stripes. His email defends the DoD policy.

    Read the policy itself. Credentialed journalists can choose to exercise the right to be embedded and when they are properly cleared, must be permitted to cover combat operations per the ground rules of that policy. The policy clearly says: “These ground rules recognize the right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information,” per the “News Media Ground Rules” issued by U.S. military officials for embedded reporters…”

    “It seems Stars & Stripes agrees that your so-called “right” to embed is not a right at all but a request the military can choose to approve or disapprove.” That’s your interpretation. But the Stars and Stripes reiterates the right to cover combat operations as stated in policy as noted above. And I clearly stated, as does the policy, embeds are subject to clearence, but they have the right to choose to be embeded. Read the policy. The right to choose to embed cannot be denied to a properly credentialed and cleared journalist and when embedded, journalists must be provided with rations, shelter and have access to facilities to report. But if the military wants to try to spin the game on embed profiling, they’ve been outted by Stars and Stripes.

    I can appreciate your angst over this policy. As I said earlier, I personally disapprove of it but until it is changed by the powers that be, I support a free press, good, bad and ugly, to the fullest, their adversarial role and the current embed process they have to work with until it is changed. I asked if you opposed a free press freely covering a conflict within the expressed guidelines and noticed you could not answer me directly. If you oppose the embed policy, I whole-heartedly encourage you to fight it, file suit, write letters or do whatever is in your power to end it. Personally, I would like to see the press freed from any DoD constraints and roam the war zone to report events independently and at will. You may feel differently.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  209. #197: The DoD policy states: THESE GROUND RULES RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE MEDIA TO COVER MILITARY OPERATIONS AND ARE IN NO WAY INTENDED TO PREVENT RELEASE OF DEROGATORY, EMBARRASSING, NEGATIVE OR UNCOMPLIMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  210. Pure unadulterated rubbish.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  211. DRJ- Obviously, I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. A cleared reporter/news organization/ etc., has the right to be embedded. If the Pentagon sends them to asupply camp with no story, that’s tough. But they have the right to be embedded. You interpret it differently. But then that’s why there are courts of law.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  212. The Associated Press is a dirty socialist propaganda collective what has pledged allegiance to Barack Obama. They’re not exploiting dead soldiers as part of a campaign to drive down support for our efforts in Afghanistan without Barack Obama’s approval.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  213. Narrative, narrative, narrative, narrative – They can get the facts wrong – just make sure the narrative is correct.

    CANNOT! show jumpers from the towers – this will stir up anger and hatred and promote USA nationalism – which is BAAAAAAD!!!! Photos of Dead soldiers fighting in an “unjust” and “illegal” war is good as it may stir up feelings of anger and hatred directed inward – which is anti-nationalist and therefore …good.

    Lies on top of lies.

    Someday America will become the Jacksonian paradise that it was meant to be.

    Californio (6c8956)

  214. #201- You guys are just jealous that I got to read 13 pages of ALL CAPS and you didn’t.

    DRJ- Perhaps you just skimmed the document. It is hard on the eyes. Your post regarding the policy document:

    The document consistently uses the term “embed opportunities” although on page 6 it also recognizes the more general “right of the media to cover military operations.”

    Consistently? That is inaccurate. The phrase ’embed opportunities’ appears just twice in the entire 13 page document in Section 3A and 3W. Hardly consistent. If your eyes found more, let me know. I won’t bother to post the sections. Your reference to ‘page 6′ is the opening overview for the embed GROUND RULES and states:

    THESE GROUND RULES RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT OF THE MEDIA TO COVER MILITARY OPERATIONS AND ARE IN NO WAY INTENDED TO PREVENT RELEASE OF DEROGATORY, EMBARRASSING, NEGATIVE OR UNCOMPLIMENTARY INFORMATION.

    I disagree with your interpretation because it based on an innaccuracy. My link to the DoD policy document does show that under the existing ground rules, credentialed media, vetted and cleared, can choose to exercise their right to be embedded/slotted with military units.

    We can agree to disagree on this. I asked if you opposed a free press freely covering a conflict within the expressed guidelines. My question still stands. We may disagree on an answer, but certainly agree that the present policy is not a good one. But I tend to agree with Michael Yon:

    “I believe now as I did then: The government of the United States has no right to send our people off to war and keep secret that which it has no plausible military reason to keep secret. After all, American blood and treasure is being spent. Americans should know how our soldiers are doing, and what they are doing while wearing our flag. The government has no right to withhold information or to deny access to our combat forces just because that information might anger, frighten, or disturb us.”source, Weekly Standard, 10/30/06

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  215. “CANNOT! show jumpers from the towers ”

    Does AP have rights to photos of jumpers?

    imdw (017d51)

  216. Eric @ 200 was spot on. Sputtering wall o’text simply reasserting its conclusions as facts. There is a right for them to request to be embedded, but it is up to the military to vet and clear them. There is no mandatory embedding, prior to vetting and clearance. No matter how many times you copy and paste the same f*cking wall o’text, it does not make your assertion true, IMP. A Right is not subject to approval. Embedding is a privilege, Þhat the military can control.

    Take your damn meds.

    JD (6aa3da)

  217. Would someone please explain why it is suddenly BAD to publish a picture of a dying soldier? I might agree, except it’s been done since the Civil War. This is nothing new, just an opportunity for conservatives to rip the “liberal” media again.

    Americans generally have no clue what it’s really like to fight in a war, and what the reality of this war – and death – is like.

    My heart goes out to this young soldier’s family. But let’s be honest about this war and not try to hide behind the flag as conservatives are doing. To do that cheapens the service of every American soldier.

    JEA (9567b0)

  218. If you do not understand why this is bad, it tells us all we need to know about you. Did you read what Gates wrote? Did you read what the parents said? Why is it that the Leftists always go to the “cheapening their service” BS and claim people are hiding behind the flag? Do you dream in empty platitudes?

    JD (6aa3da)

  219. I love how they presume to speak for the servicemen and women. The same ones who almost universally say the exact opposite.

    JEA, you don’t speak for anyone I know and I’ll bet I know quite a few more soldiers than you do. And isn’t saying “hide behind the flag” the same as questioning their patriotism? I thought that wasn’t allowed. I guess only conservatives can have their patriotism questioned.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  220. And it’s bad because soldiers know that those photos are used by an agenda-driven media to undermine the military mission and increase the dangers soldiers face. We saw it in VietNam and we don’t want it to happen again.

    Give me a neutral journalist any day over one telling the story of a “higher truth”. I’d let them follow me all day. As Dana said earlier about Casey Sheehan:

    And oddly, not even a published photograph of him in death was necessary.

    As usual, right on target.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  221. I don’t believe the AP’s (and their apologists’) rationalizations. Their work product is what matters to them. Both from professional pride and because that is how they earn their daily bread. They would have been as happy with one that showed the soldier in “I heart NY” underwear.

    DCSCA, you define fuzzy thinking. A policy unilaterally enacted by the DoD to keep Peter Jennings from wandering around Kosovo minefields with a sixteen-year old native guide is not the same as First Amendment freedom of the press.

    nk (df76d4)

  222. Stashiu – Don’t you get it? War is bad, and Teh Narrative must be serviced. And it is a Right.

    JD (00684b)

  223. Rights & Privileges:
    It is amusing in a way, when compared to the context of the above argument, that when Hollyweird wants to do a film that would require, or benefit from, military resources/cooperation, the Pentagon requires submission of a working script to vet whether or not the film will portray the military in a positive manner.
    No positive portrayal – No military resources/cooperation!
    Embedding is a Privilege, not a Right!

    AD - RtR/OS! (d2b2fa)

  224. The incompetence of the International Man of Parody is rather apparent. Hundreds of words and he never confronts DRJ’s point which is that embedding itself is not a “right”. Confusion about the scope of the Constitution seems to just be his ignorance but the reality is that DCSCA knows he is caught and just obfuscating that with more irrelevancies and non sequiturs.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  225. “And oddly, not even a published photograph of him in death was necessary.”

    That’s why the defense of this shouldn’t be on notions of ‘necessaryness.’ Much speech would be lost if only what some person later determined was ‘necessary’ came out.

    imdw (fb5542)

  226. I thought most of the media weren’t even leaving the Green Zone in Baghdad for a couple of years and were just credulously phoning in reports of Iraqi stringers. The ubiquitous Jamil Hussein of the AP was a perfect example of that phenomenon.

    Don’t you guys remember reading those riveting accounts of the media members embedded with SEAL teams and Rangers on their special ops? Me neither.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  227. Hey daley, I have a couple of suggestions of people who should be involuntarily embedded with SEALs and Rangers, since they seem pretty certain that journalists are heroes on a par with our armed forces.

    Good idea?

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  228. One nice thing about DCSCA is that after claiming employment by CBS, he has demonstrated here that he has the honesty and intelligence of an average CBS news anchor or news producer. What’s the frequency DCSCA?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  229. I kinda doubt he actually worked for CBS. What else did he say he did? You know?

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  230. Eric – I’ll bet DCSCA knows Eason Jordan personally too.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  231. Comment by Eric Blair — 9/6/2009 @ 11:16 am

    Didn’t Mike Wallace say that if he saw an outpost or patrol of our soldiers about to be attacked that he would not warn them, that it would be interfering with the story or some such. I think DCSCA is a kindred soul.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  232. Except, daley, that DCSCA would find Wallace’s comment “journalistically fearless” and similar nonsense.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  233. Piece I was looking for:

    Ogletree brought them into the same hypothetical war. He asked Jennings to imagine that he worked for a network that had been in contact with the enemy North Kosanese government. After much pleading Jennings and his news crew got permission from the North Kosanese to enter their country and film behind the lines. Would Jennings be willing to go? Of course, he replied. Any reporter would—and in real wars reporters from his network often had.

    But while Jennings and his crew were traveling with a North Kosanese unit, to visit the site of an alleged atrocity by U.S. and South Kosanese troops, they unexpectedly crossed the trail of a small group of American and South Kosanese soldiers. With Jennings in their midst the Northern soldiers set up an ambush that would let them gun down the Americans and Southerners.

    What would Jennings do? Would he tell his cameramen to “Roll tape!” as the North Kosanese opened fire? What would go through his mind as he watched the North Kosanese prepare to fire?

    Jennings sat silent for about fifteen seconds. “Well, I guess I wouldn’t,” he finally said. “I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans.”

    Even if it meant losing the story? Ogletree asked.

    Even though it would almost certainly mean losing my life, Jennings replied. “But I do not think that I could bring myself to participate in that act. That’s purely personal, and other reporters might have a different reaction.”

    Ogletree turned for reaction to Mike Wallace, who immediately replied. “I think some other reporters would have a different reaction,” he said, obviously referring to himself. “They would regard it simply as another story they were there to cover.” A moment later Wallace said, “I am astonished, really.” He turned toward Jennings and began to lecture him: “You’re a reporter. Granted you’re an American” (at least for purposes of the fictional example; Jennings has actually retained Canadian citizenship). “I’m a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you’re an American, you would not have covered that story.”

    Ogletree pushed Wallace. Didn’t Jennings have some higher duty to do something other than just roll film as soldiers from his own country were being shot?

    “No,” Wallace said flatly and immediately. “You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!”

    Jennings backtracked fast. Wallace was right, he said: “I chickened out.” Jennings said that he had “played the hypothetical very hard.”He had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached.

    As Jennings said he agreed with Wallace, several soldiers in the room seemed to regard the two of them with horror. Retired Air Force General Brent Scowcroft, who would soon become George Bush’s National Security Advisor, said it was simply wrong to stand and watch as your side was slaughtered. “What’s it worth?” he asked Wallace bitterly. “It’s worth thirty seconds on the evening news, as opposed to saving a platoon.”

    After a brief discussion between Wallace and Scowcroft, Ogletree reminded Wallace of Scowcroft’s basic question. What was it worth for the reporter to stand by, looking? Shouldn’t the reporter have said something ?

    Wallace gave a disarming grin, shrugged his shoulders, and said, “I don’t know.” He later mentioned extreme circumstances in which he thought journalists should intervene. But at that moment he seemed to be mugging to the crowd with a “Don’t ask me!”expression, and in fact he drew a big laugh—the first such moment in the discussion. Jennings, however, was all business, and was still concerned about the first answer he had given.

    “I wish I had made another decision,” Jennings said, as if asking permission to live the past five minutes over again. “I would like to have made his decision”—that is, Wallace’s decision to keep on filming.

    A few minutes later Ogletree turned to George M. Connell, a Marine colonel in full uniform. Jaw muscles flexing in anger, with stress on each word, Connell said, “I feel utter contempt.”

    Two days after this hypothetical episode, Connell said, Jennings or Wallace might be back with the American forces—and could be wounded by stray fire, as combat journalists often had been before. When that happens, he said, they are “just journalists.” Yet they would expect American soldiers to run out under enemy fire and drag them back, rather than leaving them to bleed to death on the battlefield.

    “I’ll do it!” Connell said. “And that is what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get . . . a couple of journalists.” The last words dripped disgust.

    Not even Ogletree knew what to say. There was dead silence for several seconds. Then a square-jawed man with neat gray hair and aviator glasses spoke up. It was Newt Gingrich, looking a generation younger and trimmer than he would when he became speaker of the House, in 1995. One thing was clear from this exercise, Gingrich said. “The military has done a vastly better job of systematically thinking through the ethics of behavior in a violent environment than the journalists have.”

    That was about the mildest way to put it. Although Wallace and Jennings conceded that the criticism was fair—if journalists considered themselves “detached,”they could not logically expect American soldiers to rescue them—nevertheless their reactions spoke volumes about the values of their craft. Jennings was made to feel embarrassed about his natural, decent human impulse. Wallace seemed unembarrassed about feeling no connection to the soldiers in his country’s army or considering their deaths before his eyes “simply a story.” In other important occupations people sometimes face the need to do the horrible. Frederick Downs, after all, was willing to torture a man and hear him scream. But Downs had thought through all the consequences and alternatives, and he knew he would live with the horror for the rest of his days. When Mike Wallace said he would do something horrible, he barely bothered to give a rationale. He did not try to explain the reasons a reporter might feel obliged to remain silent as the attack began—for instance, that in combat reporters must be beyond country, or that they have a duty to bear impartial witness to deaths on either side, or that Jennings had implicitly made a promise not to betray the North Kosanese when he agreed to accompany them. The soldiers might or might not have found such arguments convincing; Wallace didn’t even make them.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199602/americans-media

    daleyrocks (718861)

  234. Comment by daleyrocks — 9/6/2009 @ 11:42 am

    Thanks for that, daley.
    Too many have forgotten how journalism has provided their own descent into depravity and irrelevance.
    That show was probably the most chilling of that entire series, in its’ revelation of a complete lack of morality in the world of journalism.
    It must have taken every bit of control that the Colonel could muster to not go across that table, rip Wallace’s head off, and puke down his open neck.

    AD - RtR/OS! (fad78f)

  235. We watch many of our soldiers die.

    imdw (f46f2b)

  236. Hmmm. “We” do? Maybe you need to change the channel, and instead visit a wounded soldier or PayPal them some spare change.

    If it was wrong and tasteless to post footage of people jumping off the Towers, it is wrong to post photos of dying or dead soldiers. It’s not a difficult calculus.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  237. Like here, off the top of my head.

    http://www.veteransforamerica.org/woundedwarrior/

    We have several veterans who post here, and I’m sure that they would be happy to suggest other ways that you could help.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  238. And I myself give money to this organization:

    http://usacares.org/

    But everyone is different.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  239. Would someone please explain why it is suddenly BAD to publish a picture of a dying soldier?

    #218 — Comment by JEA — 9/6/2009 @ 5:49 am

    It’s a human thing, a parent thing, an honor thing…it’s one of those things where if you must ask the question, you will not understand the answer.

    I feel sorry for you JEA.

    Pons Asinorum (39c941)

  240. DCSCA – Does the media have a right to embed on a nuclear sub?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  241. Perhaps they could be embedded among the control rods, daley.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  242. Or, they could have a front-row seat to an underwater launch, and document what the nose-cone sees.

    AD - RtR/OS! (fad78f)

  243. “If it was wrong and tasteless to post footage of people jumping off the Towers, it is wrong to post photos of dying or dead soldiers.”

    And yet. Both of these were published. by the AP.

    imdw (490521)

  244. #218- Would someone please explain why it is suddenly BAD to publish a picture of a dying soldier? I might agree, except it’s been done since the Civil War. This is nothing new, just an opportunity for conservatives to rip the “liberal” media again.

    Americans generally have no clue what it’s really like to fight in a war, and what the reality of this war – and death – is like.

    My heart goes out to this young soldier’s family. But let’s be honest about this war and not try to hide behind the flag as conservatives are doing. To do that cheapens the service of every American soldier.

    Comment by JEA — 9/6/2009 @ 5:49 am

    It isn’t. It’s distasteful, it’s painfully tragic and unconfortable to see, in print or broadcast. Of course everybody’s heart and sympathies go out to the Bernard family and to the thousands of other less publicized families who lost loved ones in combat. But an editorial decision was made, for better or worse. That’s part of the ugly price for a freedom of the press, and the debate on how to restrict that freedom or shape the message it delivers is high on the conservative agenda and not foreign to the liberal POV either. Where is the conservative outcry opposing the publication and broadcast of images of two planes slamming into the World Trade Center instantly killing hundreds of people aboard at once. Their familes suffered the anguish of seeing their loved ones perish as well. Should the media have censored itself and not aired the mass killings as the planes hit? Did the we really need to read about and see the bodies of the dead at Jonestown… or Auschwitz, or Gettysburg? Was it really necessary for the world to see the Zapruder film capturing the death of the CIC, President Kennedy, in bloody detail? These are editorial decisions and should rightly be challenged by media consumers. But in today’s world, information is fast becoming ubiqutious. And what one media outlet doesn’t show, another someplace will. Yet when the tragedy becomes more personalized, and more powerful, as in viewing images of individuals perishing as they jumped from buildings– or an individual soldier is killed in action, the cry is it out-of-bounds– if it suits your agenda.

    News consumers should challenge every news story when they sense biases or lack of objectivity. (You can see it here on this blog for sure and it’s great.) Journalists (as opposed to pundits on opinion cable programs) are keenly aware that they have nothing but their integrity to fall back on as they strive for objectivity but it is not an absolute, only a goal to work toward. They’re human. And once this is compromised and they are outted as biased or bought, their damaged careers often fizzle.

    ‘daileyrocks’ posting regarding the Jennings/Wallace hypothetical is well taken and that was a superb series. Aside from the premise of the hypothetical, the key point to journalists is how quickly Wallace chided Jennings, reporter to reporter. He was, in effect, reminding him of his obligation as a journalist to avoid as best he could becoming part of the story. To the rest of us and to others on the panel, and quite understandably so, it sounded outrageous and reprehensible. Of course, in a real situation, events may have played out differently and there are varying instances where war correspondents became part of the story they were covering. Murrow, Cronkite, Pyle. Daniel Pearl. Terry Anderson. But in the hypothetical situation, in the cool calm of a televised panel program, Wallace put Jennings in his journalistic place. And Jennings knew it.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  245. Pure rubbish

    daleyrocks (718861)

  246. “Of course, in a real situation, events may have played out differently and there are varying instances where war correspondents became part of the story they were covering.”

    Of course, a perfect example is Christiane Amanpour and the CNN crowd whitewashing the atrocities of Saddam Hussein’s regime in order to retain access, essentially becoming part of the story.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  247. “Journalists (as opposed to pundits on opinion cable programs) are keenly aware that they have nothing but their integrity to fall back on as they strive for objectivity but it is not an absolute, only a goal to work toward.”

    Sort of like how the MSM failed to properly vet one of the candidates for president last year or to report on the Van Jones growing scandal until he announced his resignation.

    Objectivity is like tilting at windmills with an built-in liberal bias in the media, jackass.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  248. Does saying the same old same old over and over and over and over and over and over and over satisfy some deeply seated need, DSCSA?

    JD (224d7d)

  249. JD – I can cite fresh material. All he’s got is the same old stuff.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  250. DCSCA #214:

    Consistently? That is inaccurate. The phrase ‘embed opportunities’ appears just twice in the entire 13 page document in Section 3A and 3W. Hardly consistent. If your eyes found more, let me know. I won’t bother to post the sections. Your reference to ‘page 6′ is the opening overview for the embed GROUND RULES and states:

    I read the entire document. “Embed opportunity” or “embed opportunities” appears at pages 3, 5 and 6 of the document. “Opportunity” is also mentioned on page 4 in a similar context regarding the opportunity to observe combat operations. The media’s “right” is only mentioned in one place (on page 6, as I noted in my comment above) regarding military operations in general.

    My use of the word ‘consistently’ was accurate. You owe me and my eyes an apology.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  251. DRJ, good luck on that apology thing. But don’t hold your breath.

    His goal is to get you to do all the work, then quibble about semantics. And let’s face it, posting more “Walls O’ Text” than could be found in the Winchester Mystery House does not take a lot of research. Especially when people keep finding that the links don’t say what IMP claims they do, or are quoted out of context to support his fevered commentary.

    More to the point:

    Hey, DCSCA. Have you ever claimed to be involved with the armed forces as a post on this or another blog? I believe you once claimed to have been part of a SEAL effort along with the NSA.

    So say “No, I never wrote that,” if you haven’t. If you did write that, please cop to it. Lots of people will want to know more.

    Just as with Stashiu3 uncovering your self-plagiarization the other evening, we ALL look forward to your answer to that question.

    I think that birds nest in the branches at the end of your long wooden nose, personally, but if I am wrong, I want to know it.

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  252. imdw,

    You can find more photos of Abu Ghraib than of the 9/11 jumpers. The media delighted in the former but embargoed the latter:

    “The resistance to the image — to the images — started early, started immediately, started on the ground. A mother whispering to her distraught child a consoling lie: “Maybe they’re just birds, honey.” Bill Feehan, second in command at the fire department, chasing a bystander who was panning the jumpers with his video camera, demanding that he turn it off, bellowing, “Don’t you have any human decency?” before dying himself when the building came down. In the most photographed and videotaped day in the history of the world, the images of people jumping were the only images that became, by consensus, taboo — the only images from which Americans were proud to avert their eyes. All over the world, people saw the human stream debouch from the top of the North Tower, but here in the United States, we saw these images only until the networks decided not to allow such a harrowing view, out of respect for the families of those so publicly dying. At CNN, the footage was shown live, before people working in the newsroom knew what was happening; then, after what Walter Isaacson, who was then chairman of the network’s news bureau, calls “agonized discussions” with the “standards guy,” it was shown only if people in it were blurred and unidentifiable; then it was not shown at all.”

    DRJ (3f5471)

  253. DRJ, it is ALL about Teh Narrative™.

    Watch how this character justifies it. Here, I will help him with the short version:

    1. Posting a photograph of Americans killed by Islamic terrorists would inflame anti-Islamic sentiment and help encourage the public to support military action: therefore, baaaaaaad.

    2. Posting a photograph of Abu Ghraib or a maimed soldier helps solidify public disapproval of a Republican President’s policies, including military action: therefore, gooooood.

    Again, watch how these people tapdance to make it seem consistent without admitting outright alphabetist partisanship.

    To me and thee, it looks like hypocrisy. But in the “I hate Daddy” mindset of Teh Narrative™, it makes perfect sense. Bill Whittle’s video is well worth reviewing in this context:

    http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_with_Bill_Whittle/MSNBC_%26_The_Great_Liberal_Narrative%3A_The_Truth_About_The_Tyranny_of_Political_Correctness/2343/

    Eric Blair (0b61b2)

  254. #252- DRJ- This is what you posted:

    The document consistently uses the term “embed opportunities” although on page 6 it also recognizes the more general “right of the media to cover military operations.”

    Your response has now been modified to this:

    I read the entire document. “Embed opportunity” or “embed opportunities” appears at pages 3, 5 and 6 of the document. “Opportunity” is also mentioned on page 4 in a similar context regarding the opportunity to observe combat operations.

    If you want me to apologize for your original post, fine. No problem. Thanks for noting it and modifying it. It is a hard document to read.

    The media’s “right” is only mentioned in one place (on page 6, as I noted in my comment above) regarding military operations in general.

    Yes, this is in the overview of the GROUND RULES.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  255. DRJ- My question still stands unanswered from you: I asked if you opposed a free press freely covering a conflict within the expressed guidelines.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  256. Speaking of unanswered questions….

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  257. Simple solution: Embed reporters but put them in point roles on patrols.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  258. “If you want me to apologize for your original post, fine.”

    DCSCA – She doesn’t want you to apologize for her comment, moron. It was just fine. She wants you to apologize for not recognizing it in yours, crapweasel.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  259. C’mon, daley. Thurston Howell the Third is never wrong. And he is incredibly brave. Look at his background!

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  260. Eric – I think he’s admitting he did not read the document.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  261. IMP – I am sorry that you are a dishonest douchebag, a lying crapweasel , and/or a retarded marmoset.

    JD (c40e14)

  262. The International Man of Parody expects DRJ to apologize for making him embarrass himself in public again.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  263. JD, what did a retarded marmoset ever do to you?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  264. It climbed the wrong tree to pluck forbidden fruit.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  265. SPQR – I realize that the comparison is fundamentally unfair to marmosets, douchebags, and crapweasels. I denounced myself, pre-emptively.

    JD (c40e14)

  266. DCSCA:

    I asked if you opposed a free press freely covering a conflict within the expressed guidelines.

    I support the right of the press to cover the military within military-approved guidelines. However, my view of what those guidelines provide is at odds with your view.

    I strongly object to the way you’ve mischaracterized my words and position. Please reconsider what I said above and your responses, as well as provide an answer to my earlier question.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  267. JD, isn’t your denunciation post-emptive?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  268. The International Man of Parody expects DRJ to apologize for making him embarrass himself in public again.

    Comment by SPQR — 9/6/2009 @ 7:01 pm

    INSTANT CLASSIC!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  269. Notice how we still don’t hear about the NSA Navy SEALS business. Hmmm. Time to go looking for those posts, and thwap him over the head with it each time he gets rude.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  270. That was on the oil rig off the coast of Libya, wasn’t it?

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  271. John – It was a Libyan hit squad that was out to get SCSCA and his family and they were plotting countermoves with the CIA, I believe, at the U.S. Embassy in London, where he also partied with the U.S. astronauts that landed on the moon, in between finding a cure for cancer which the drug companies won’t fund because it will put them out of business, and taking Princess Di’s virginity.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  272. daleyrocks,

    I thought DCSCA was working with CSI to track down a faulty SCSI interface for the ISS which was preventing the secret SDI from being completed. This was coordinated through the IMF and CIA despite heavy interference from CHAOS and SMERSH, with MI5 and the PPG (Power Puff Girls) assisting.

    That’s the simplified version anyway.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  273. #268- I support the right of the press to cover the military within military-approved guidelines. However, my view of what those guidelines provide is at odds with your view.

    Thank you. On that we can agree. Do you support eliminating the embed policy completely so the public may be directly informed from military and government PA briefings?

    I strongly object to the way you’ve mischaracterized my words and position. Please reconsider what I said above and your responses, as well as provide an answer to my earlier question.

    DRJ- Mischaracterization was certainly unintended and if you interpreted it that way I apologize if you considered it such. I quoted what you posted in #197 and they are your own words, not mine:

    The document consistently uses the term “embed opportunities” although on page 6 it also recognizes the more general “right of the media to cover military operations.” Thus, your link does not show the media has a right to embed and, in fact, shows the opposite.

    And this is what you posted in #251, and they are your own words–different words, not mine:

    I read the entire document. “Embed opportunity” or “embed opportunities” appears at pages 3, 5 and 6 of the document. “Opportunity” is also mentioned on page 4 in a similar context regarding the opportunity to observe combat operations.

    You feel the phrase ’embed opportunities’ was used consistently throughout the document. We can agree to disagree on that and our interpretation of the overview expressed in the ground rules as well. No problem. I’m good with the intent of your position and I believe I answered your question in para. 3 of #208. But we seem to agree, from differing points of view, that it is a poor policy.

    A safe Labor Day to you all.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  274. #257-Speaking of unanswered questions….

    Comment by Eric Blair — 9/6/2009 @ 6:41 pm

    See #24.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  275. Stashiu3, I haven’t found the posts by IMP referencing his cloak and dagger experiences with the NSA and SEALs. When I do, I think we all just need to post that link every single time he acts like a prat around here.

    Just to remind newcomers that he is…um….not to be trusted.

    And yeah, the bit with trying to mess with DRJ was irritating. But not out of character for IMP. Maybe, Stashiu3, as you suggest, it has to do with Chemical X.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  276. DCSCA,

    Where did I say it is a poor policy?

    And, No, I don’t think you answered my question but at this point, I don’t think anyone cares.

    DRJ (3f5471)

  277. The only thing that we agree on is that you are an unabashed idiot. My apologies to idiots.

    JD (285452)

  278. I think everyone knows that you lie like a Turkish rug, DCSCA. I intend to see that everyone is reminded of your laughable false history when you act like a jackass. Which is pretty often. Stashiu3 started tagging you on your lies and spamming.

    It kind of takes the wind out your oh-so-tony sails (which is the ironic part of your calling anyone else at all condescending).

    The correct response to DRJ is “I’m sorry.”

    But you cannot help but absolve yourself of any responsibility.

    What a prat.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  279. I realize that I use the word “prat” an awful lot with this TLE, but Vivian Louise’s term is so apt in this case.

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  280. #278- DCSCA,

    Where did I say it is a poor policy? I said we ‘seem’ to agree from differing POVs that it is a poor policy. So you feel it is adequate. Or not. Or you have no point ov view on it at all. ‘Seems’ I misinterpreted. Thank you. And we can agree, no one cares.

    Have a safe Labor Day.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  281. We can agree that you have the mental powers of a compost heap.

    JD (524c3d)

  282. JD, is that fair to compost, or to heaps?

    Eric Blair (721b15)

  283. But a compost heap is infinitely more beneficial because when that fertilizer gets spread around, life is actually nourished.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  284. Eric Blair,

    Here is where he first hints at his CIA exploits. I would work forward from there.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  285. Do you know how to use Google site:search? You need to try various keywords to narrow things down, but go to the google page and an example would be “site:patterico.com dcsca seal” (without the quote marks) which gives you this.

    Stashiu3 (ed6467)

  286. “The media delighted in the former but embargoed the latter:”

    And yet, the AP published the latter, as I showed you. Do you think there are some that haven’t been published yet?

    And we’re still trying to see some other detainee pics.

    imdw (490521)

  287. 1.

    Sorry, I didn’t finish my thought in my previous post:

    “I think anyone who wishes to somehow make the truth of war disappear, and I’m talking about someone who supports a war that is pointless is doing a disservice to the truth.”

    Now Gates is out there saying the publishing of this photo is an outrage. And I’ve read countless posts agreeing with him. I wonder, if we didn’t see or hear anything about this war, if the death, dying, torture, and corporate greed would mean anything to us.

    Personally, and I say this with all due respect to the family of the fallen hero:

    If it were me, I would want people to know who I was and what I died for. I want everyone to know everyone, and to get off this corporate train that is sucking the very blood and soul of all of US Americans completely dry.

    Peel the label of corporatism away and you will see brownshirts just like Hitler made.

    Peel away the label of corporatism, and what you will see is FASCISM.

    Comment by Boneman — 9/5/2009 @ 6:01 am
    2.

    102:

    Sorry, I didn’t finish my thought in my previous post:

    S’Okay. Morons aren’t expected to think in complete, coherent sentences.

    In spite of your paranoid delusions (like this one:

    Peel away the label of corporatism, and what you will see is FASCISM.),

    that indicate you have a tenuous grasp on reality to start with, (and this one, that completes the picture of a patient in a mental health care facility:

    “I think anyone who wishes to somehow make the truth of war disappear, and I’m talking about someone who supports a war that is pointless is doing a disservice to the truth.”),

    )there is a point to waging war when you are being attacked by an enemy whose goal is a relentless global conquest, the bloodier the better, and the destruction of Western Civilization a benefit in their eyes.

    Now, do the adults a favor and crawl back into the shithole you came out of.

    Comment by EW1(SG) — 9/5/2009 @ 6:48 am

    An America divided is an America weakened. The way you speak to me in the post was as though you want to fight. And you don’t even know me. If there is not a place where all of US from this country can voice our thoughts and feelings concerning something that we are all involved in without causing someone to go off his rocker than what’s the point. I mean if the only thing you want to hear is your own voice and others like it, then why don’t you go to a country that has only one voice and not many. Because as far as I know, that’s one of the hallmarks of America. Telling me to, “do the adults a favor and crawl back into the shithole you came out of” shows a complete disregard to any possibility that I may be a brother who may one day come to your (another American, I’m assuming) aid.
    Like Sergeant Hulka in Stripes said, “one of these guys may save your life someday”, and of course Winger’s response was, “then again, maybe we won’t”.

    As far as your desperation and desire to show hate to someone you do not know goes, methinks you might want to relax that a bit before you go off half-cocked.
    As I said… If it were me, I would want my friends and neighbors and the rest of the country to know that I had died for my country.

    Boneman (ba2811)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0035 secs.