Should AP photo of dying Marine be published?
On Friday, I was interviewed on CNN's "Situation Room" for a story about the AP distributing a photograph of a seriously wounded Marine in Afghanistan. The Marine, Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard, died on the operating table not long after the bloody picture was taken. He had been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
I am not posting the picture here, nor is the "Sun" publishing it in the paper. CNN also has chosen not to show it. In the CNN interview, I said that if I was an editor of a newspaper, I would not publish the picture. But I also said it is a complicated issue, and that I understood AP's argument for distributing it.
Here's is a link to the "Situation Room" transcript. Here is a link to an online site where you can see the image of the wounded Marine if you want. But before you click to see the image, you should know the Marine's parents asked AP not to publish the picture -- and now strenuously object to the news service's decision to do so.
UPDATE SUNDAY MORNING: You can read the comments of Corporal Bernard's father, John, on the issue in reaction to this post by clicking on comments below.
I want to know what readers think -- especially men and women who served in the military.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent a letter to the AP pleading with the news service not to release the image out of deference to Corporal Bernard's family.
AP says it believes it has a "journalistic duty to show the reality of the war" in Afghanistan "however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is."
The primary duty of the press is to provide citizens with reliable information that they can use to make sound decisions about their lives. As the debate over American involvement in Afghanistan heats up, the information in the picture of Corporal Bernard is certainly the kind of information citizens need to know.
But there are complicating factors. First, the family's plea that the image not be shown. And second is the fact, that the image was captured by an AP photographer embedded with Corporal Bernard's unit -- and all news organizations that ask to be embedded sign agreements not to publish certain information. AP says it is not violating the agreement, but there is room for an argument depending on how you read the language of that contract.
Lara Logan, chief foreign affairs correspondent for CBS News who is on her way back to Afghanistan, said in an interview that aired on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday morning that embed argreements say that next of kin permission on dead and wounded military personnel is required.
Here is Logan's quote: "...And those rules clearly state that if a soldier is wounded or dies from his wounds, then you have to have the permission of the family in order to publish an identifying photograph. If you're not going to obey the rules, you really shouldn't sign that...."
I have an interview in Sunday's "Sun" with CNN's Michael Ware who is in Afghanistan reporting on his own without the protection of the U.S. military. As highly dangerous as that it, Ware says that is the only way he can tell the full story of the war. If a news organzation signs an embed agreement with the Pentagon, I think there is a moral obligation to honor it -- or otherwise, do what Ware is doing. Does it seem like the AP is trying to have it both ways?
In the end given the family request, one has to ask if this is the only way citizens can find out about the horror of a war that is not going well. I say it isn't. I say there are many other stories and images out there, and in deference to the family's request, I would not publish. CNN said it, too, based its decision on the family's request.
But I cannot condemn AP for making it available either. Like I said, it is a complicated call. But maybe I am making it more complicated than it needs to be and letting AP off the hook. Maybe it is a simple matter of empathy or common sense, as Gates said in his letter to AP.
One more complication: is there a difference between publishing it in print or online? I think maybe there is. And just to make it even more complicated, I think this might cut straight to another argument about gatekeepers and filters and old and new media -- and why some younger news consumers say they favor the relatively unfiltered Internet over print and network TV venues.
What do you think?
Comments
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I saw the photo in a local newspaper and was absolutely disgusted! I spoke to the senior editor of that paper and to Paul Colford of AP ( I'm know as the "angry & emotional" woman who called him in some articles) They both had the same back up story and excuses for choosing to run it.. very interesting almost as if they had rehearsed!! I'm a marine wife.. this really hit home.. Death does happen.. almost daily out there it seems, but we should NOT see it as "it is what it is" the AP wanted to get a point across that it's not just numbers it's real people, but from the comments and stuff on other articles I've seen the people who aren't completely against it basically just say they decided to agree with Jacobson as "it is what it is" that's not an emotional reaction they were wanting.. I have questions for her.. I want to know how she can stand back and take photos of this and not help a fellow american who is suffering from a wound.. according to Mr Colford there reporters and photographers such as Jacobson put themselves in "harms way" too so if she was the one wounded would she be okay with the Marines just going about there business and not help her.. I'm sure all the Marines I know would help her in a second! But no, she sat back and took pictures knowing she was going to make her boss who's sitting back in the states behind a desk happy! I feel for Mr. Bernard's family and I am sorry for what the AP is now putting them through! I hope Mr. Gates does not back down. The AP deserves to feel embarrassed, ashamed and guilty... but people who have jobs like them.. I don't believe anymore have feelings like that in them or this photo would NOT have been published "after hours of debate".
Thank you!
Posted by: Erica | September 5, 2009 9:51 PM
As the Mother of a Marine on his way to Afghanistan - I say you are letting the AP off the hook way too soon. If there was any concern for the family of this young man - why did the AP call the family for approval of publishing the photo? They obviously knew it would be a potential disaster for the family - the family declined to have their son's last moments published - yet the photo ran. I can only pray that if the worst nightmare a family can experience befalls my son - no journalist is there to allow his death to become my last memeory of his beautiful smiling face. Shame on all the papers who thought this was just another representation of freedom of the press. I pray you never lose your own child to the horror of terrorism.
Posted by: Beth | September 5, 2009 10:14 PM
This family lost their son. This young man bravely fought for the US. It is simply disrespectful and hurtful to the family for doing this specifically against their wishes. This isn't a matter of sanitizing anything...it's a matter of human decency and compassion. simply put - the media cares more about sensation and ratings than the military personnel and what they are experiencing.
Posted by: Dawn Alford | September 5, 2009 10:17 PM
I'd like to weigh in on this for once and for all. Here is the analogy; A horrific auto accident and the victims have suffered heavy trauma. There isn't a news agency anywhere that would take photos of dying victims in a case like this. The question; why aren't the lives of dying Servicemen given the same defference? The point; this is an unacceptable exploitation of the final moments of a valorous man for the sake of money - regardless of what the photographer or her boss says. Her comment about finding herself in a moral dilemna rings hollow. Any person with a functional conscience would not have 'struggled' as she said she did. She is ( I believe) an American or at least a human being. Her first reaction should have been to throw the camera away and rush to the aid of a dying man. In the final analysis; she failed in her moment just as my son succeeded in his. Shame on the entire media for not having the intestinal fortitude for not condemning this for what it is. Shame on this nation for tolerating you. Joshua Bernard is in Heaven with our Savior because he gave his life to Jesus Christ as a child and did not violate his conscience even unto death. I feel pity for those in the media who can not recognize this simple fact and how far from it the acts of the AP and their photographer are. May God have mercy on your collective souls.
Posted by: John Bernard | September 5, 2009 11:07 PM
"The primary duty of the press is to provide citizens with reliable information that they can use to make sound decisions about their lives".
How about, "The primary duty of the press is to provide everyone with reliable information" PERIOD!!!
..as for your question regarding photos being censored? I don't think it's in good taste to show photos of solders killed in action. But the decision to do so should be generic and never to promote ANYONE's political agenda.
Posted by: Shannondoodle | September 6, 2009 12:25 AM
There is no journalistic rationale behind this decision. The only reason the AP published the photo is to rile up the Moveon.org/Code Pink types who will put pressure on President Obama to pull troops out of Afghanistan. An already grieving family now has to suffer even more just so yet another news organization can push their agenda.
Posted by: Wetzel | September 6, 2009 12:28 AM
Lance Corporal Bernard died. War comes at a terrible cost. What good does shielding Americans from the nature of that cost serve?
Video footage and still photography of the push button battlefield assault the senses on a daily basis during the early days of a war. We see an American President treated to a hero's welcome when he lands on the deck of an Aircraft carrier well out of harm's way. War is only partly real when depicted this way. What little reality survives, vanishes from the consciousness the moment the TV is switched off or the magazine closed and tossed in the recycle bin.
We've been showing dead and dying soldiers on the battlefield and in hospitals since the days of Matthew Brady. It is a grim reminder of what is at stake and the true cost of battle.
It is far too easy to send young Americans off to battle when what happens to them once they get there is hidden from view.
I served on active duty, and speaking only for myself, the American public needs to know the whole truth about what is being done in our name. If that truth isn't always pretty, so be it.
Posted by: Greg C. | September 6, 2009 1:01 AM
Two words come to mind: dignity and honor. The soldier and his family deserve no less. The picture obviously should not be published.
Posted by: Bill | September 6, 2009 7:29 AM
Erica:
As a retired member of the militrary after 27 years of service and having two sons in the Service, one a Marine rifeman, I see the AP and associated news outlets publication of the pictures as more related to profit and revenue -- hidden by an altruistic smokescreen. I will certainly look forward to the results of the lawsuit and hope that the pain inflicted on the AP is equal to the pain that the AP has inflicted on all of us with children at risk.
I fully understand the tension between the rights provided in the first amendment and the right to privacy of our citizens-- individually and collectively. I also understand the desire of all reasonable citizens of our democracy to use military force as a last resort. These discussions are reasonable and necessary, but wholly uniformed or promoted by the APs sensationalism that divides. Particular since it seems to me that it is unlikely to change the dialog since it is not the pictures but the direct experience of family loss that affects the public conscience.
I am very encouraged by the Sun's and Post's decisions to forgo the publication of these photos that demonstrate more about the first amendment than the floundering of the AP and MSNBC.
Hello Mark, Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I added some information from Lara Logan, of CBS News, and Michael ware, of CNN. Both are now in Afghanistan -- Logan on an embed agreement, ware working without one. Logan, who should certainly know what the embed agreement requires, says there is language that requires news organizatioins to have next of kin permission on images of wounded and dead military personnel -- and that would make a difference, because AP clearly does not have that as you can see from the comments here from Coporal Bernard's father. Ware, meanwhile, takes the great risk of operating on his own because he finds the embed arrangement to restrictive. There is a link in my post now to an interview I have with Ware in Sunday's "Sun." This is an important issue, and I really apprecaite these comments. Thanks. Z
Posted by: Mark H | September 6, 2009 11:11 AM
Out of respect for familys, friends and loved ones that should never be published.
Why do we have to know every morsel anymore of every story?
I agree. Z
Posted by: Irene | September 6, 2009 11:26 AM
Shame on you AP. The editor and photographer should be fired.
We need a law protecting these brave soldiers form this act of final humilation.
Posted by: Ricky Bobby | September 6, 2009 12:13 PM
AP making money off the dead for the corporation
is absolutely tragic and irrehensible.
Posted by: Steve Real | September 6, 2009 12:33 PM
I have a son in the military and God forbid if anything should ever happen to him. If something like this did happen- I would want it posted in EVERY SINGLE paper and on EVERY single website. American's need to wake up and LOOK IN THE FACE the reality of what our troops are enduring. War is real people!! Images of our dying were shown in Vietman and people back home were in outrage and they wanted our troops home!! What has happened to the U.S that we don't want to know what is going on anymore- why aren't WE demanding answers?? We need to know every morsel of every story- that's how we stay in touch with what is really going on out there. LET US NEVER FORGET!!!!
Posted by: Stacie | September 6, 2009 12:33 PM
It is time for this war to end....bring the troops home. No one should have to see this kind of image. We all know its going on, but does the family and friends of these brave people have to SEE IT. Does their greatest fear have to be confirmed in such a raw way? NO IT DOES NOT! This picture was used for one reason only. To make a name for the photographer...she had the chance to delete that pic...but she chose to be insensitive and maybe win a prize for her photo. I hope her family can talk to sense into her and maybe she will show remorse.
Oh yeah I get it, its her job, its a right, blah blah blah.... When I do my job everyday, I also make decisions based on right and wrong. She was wrong.
Posted by: Bethlehem | September 6, 2009 2:09 PM
I had to post on this. I have some down time right now. I do not think in that this picture should have been published. I will not go the the link to view the picture. I think the AP should have put the famiy's wishes before and contract even if they had a right to publish the picture. I think the most hurtful would be it was taken and the families wishes were not respected.
Posted by: Sherry T | September 6, 2009 2:10 PM
Stacie
What you want is not necessarily what your son wants or what Joshua wanted. I was wounded in Vietnam and the agony I experienced is not something I wanted civilians to see. It is only for my comrades who could understand.
Posted by: Edgar Taylor | September 6, 2009 2:28 PM
The only reason I disagree with the decision to publish the photo is that the family asked them not to and I disagree with the decision, but only on those grounds.
The reason the AP (or any journalists) are there is to show the rest of us what the war is like. That means that yes, we SHOULD be seeing every morsel of this story.
How many people only think about the war when they see on the news/read in the paper that someone from their town died? Probably pretty much everyone, unless they have a friend or family member serving.
Posted by: Kelly | September 6, 2009 2:53 PM
If the AP or any other news org didn't get the permission of the Marine's family, then no. Otherwise it would amount to sensationalist journalism for the express purpose of ratings.
Posted by: Stacey | September 6, 2009 5:29 PM
It was the AP that lobbied for this sort of thing, even if there were coffins. No one considered that these men have families.
Posted by: Stacey | September 6, 2009 5:32 PM
The family has the final say. If they do not wish the photo shown that is the end of the issue. Without going into the political sides of this story it is a matter of simple human decency to abide with family wishes concerning the final moments of their loved one.
Posted by: ruth | September 6, 2009 6:24 PM
Denial is what people do when they don't do drugs.
To pretend war is an exercise of sterility is foolish. Americans, who underwrite the conflicts in Iraq and Afganistan have this marine's blood on their hands as well as every life, Muslim or American, which has been extinguished or bludgeoned by the sheer stupidity of our presence there.
George Bush was an idiot war mongering president. Obama carries on the legacy.
All of those who are happily passionate about our presence there should be happily in favor of risking their own lives or their children's. If you can't or won't get to that place, then shut up and shrink back into the night.
This marine's blood is real. His death is even more stark. Americans need to see it and be repulsed by it.
Skip
Posted by: Skip Cook | September 6, 2009 6:52 PM
If the AP wants to show the horror of war, they can wait for a family willing to have their son's or daughter's photograph. The family's wishes should have been respected.
Posted by: Meg Doherty | September 6, 2009 7:48 PM
Show the blood. Nothing is fair in war. Nobody has a say. Show the BLOOD.
Posted by: Skip2 | September 6, 2009 8:52 PM
I want to say to the family of this Marine that I am truly sorry for their loss. I think we need less graphic representation and more compassion in the print or online representation. The families wishes should always come first. Otherwise I think we risk numbing ourselves to the true tragedy of war, which is a very personal loss for one of our American family's. I think I said this above, but my fingers did not hit any of the right keys.
Posted by: Sherry T. | September 6, 2009 9:10 PM
The AP's first obligation is to get the approval of the family. Gratuitously printing the picture of their son's death hurts them more than it helps the public at large. If photos like these are to be printed in the future, it must be with the approval of the family.
Posted by: Nat Atkins | September 7, 2009 6:54 AM
I'M A WW2 SUB VET, WHO JOINED THE SERVICE SO MY FAMLILY WOULD NOT SEE ANY PHOTOS OF ME IF SOMETHING WENT WRONG. WE NEED TO GET OUT OF THERE, FIGHTING A WAR THAT CAN'T BE WON. THEY HAVE BEEN FIGHTING EACH OTHER FOR EVER AND WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT. WHY WE TRY TO FORCE OUR STANDARDS ON OTHER COUNTRIES IS BEYOND ME.
Posted by: DEAN | September 7, 2009 7:42 AM
'The emperor has no clothes' or Julie Jacobson (AP) cries out.
From Wikipedia:
"An emperor of a prosperous city who cares more about clothes than military pursuits or entertainment hires two swindlers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime. The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital showing off his new "clothes". During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, "the emperor is naked!" The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession."
Posted by: Pablo PARRADO | September 7, 2009 7:43 AM
I'm not one in favor of lawsuits but I think that any media organization that published this picture should have to pay big time. This family asked that the picture not be published. The Secretary of Defense asked that this picture not be published as well. It was absolutely wrong for this picture to be published given these requests. It is bad enough that this family has to deal with the loss of a loved one sacrificing for his country.
As for those who say that war is hell and they would want their relatives' dying photos published, may I remind you that your relatives are in a voluntary military -- unlike those that were drafted for the Vietnam War and before. It was your relative's decision to enlist and you need to recognize that and abide by their wishes -- not yours or your philosophy.
Posted by: Dee | September 7, 2009 8:29 AM
I love these overeducated idiots. Complicated decision?
How about common sense? The family asked it not be shown.
Out of RESPECT it should have been pulled.
Apparently YOUR PARENTS TAUGHT YOU NOTHING!!!!!
Posted by: SW | September 7, 2009 8:37 AM
it should be shown above the fold on the front page of every paper in the country.
With more credibility than I can muster:
"Do I think that the press should publish such photos? Not yes but hell yes on afterburner. Every time an editor covers for the Pentagon, every time papers refuse to show the charred bodies still…slowly…moving, the dead children, the…never mind. The effect is to ensure that more kids will die the same way. And the press almost always does exactly this. ..."
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Gates.shtml
Hi, Thanks. I had to edit a bit for language. Z
Posted by: MrRational | September 7, 2009 11:45 AM
If the son or daughter of an editor or reporter from a newspaper is mangled in a car accident...will their dying son or daughter be shown in the newspaper to deter the horror of car accidents?? I think not...we need to protect our military from opportunists newspapers!! This makes me sick..
Posted by: Bev | September 7, 2009 1:48 PM
Marines are warriors. They accept the risk of death. All that is asked is to let it be dignified in the ranks of their brothers. How can anyone put career and corporate selfishness ahead of this extreme sacrifice? We prefer to mourn our brothers in private dignity. Semper Fi
Posted by: Dale Bolan | September 7, 2009 3:07 PM
Without photos like this, civilians will never know what's exactly going on. I do not want a gatekeeper to choose what information is appropriate for me to view. Why are we so afraid of the truth?
Posted by: MB | September 8, 2009 3:23 PM
"Without photos like this, civilians will never know what's exactly going on. I do not want a gatekeeper to choose what information is appropriate for me to view. Why are we so afraid of the truth?"
The AP publishing this photo had NOTHING to do with the truth, but rather with making money. I pray that you are never in this family's situation where a newspaper publishes photos of your dying loved one, over your protests. Pretty heartless MB.
Posted by: Suzanne Wehrly | September 8, 2009 3:50 PM
Double standard much? I can think of two famous photographs, both published through AP, that nobody really thinks about being disrespectful now that are kind of the same thing.
One was the Kent State photo. A guy got shot and John Filo caught this woman at that crushing moment of grief.
The other was Eddie Adams' famed photo in Vietnam of Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong.
These photos are important points in American history, yet they both depict someone dead or about to die.
Posted by: Tyler | September 8, 2009 5:49 PM
Absolutely not. My heart goes out to his parents and family. One of my sons was in Iraq and Afghanistan...to think this might have happened to him. Too hard
War is hell...what fool needs a picture to figure that out?
Posted by: cassandra | September 9, 2009 12:21 AM
War is Hell, Blah Blah Blah, anyone with a brain knows war is ugly and cruel and death stalks all battlefields.
This had NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with keeping the public informed. It was plain and simple shock journalism to sell papers. The AP has made a tidy profit on this photo. If they are so "conflicted" maybe they and anyone who profited from this photo should give the money to his family or to a wounded veterans fund.
We all know this will not happen because the motivation behind publishing this photo was GREED, not to keep the public informed.
Every community in this country has been affected by war, we don't need shock journalism to wake us up. We as a country have been SHOCKED and SHOCKED INTO TOTAL SUBMISSION by a media world that only cares about the financial gain.
American apathy is a consequence of being over shocked.
"Marines are warriors. They accept the risk of death. All that is asked is to let it be dignified in the ranks of their brothers. How can anyone put career and corporate selfishness ahead of this extreme sacrifice? We prefer to mourn our brothers in private dignity. Semper Fi" Posted by: Dale Bolan
Lest we forget THEIR sacrifices!
Thank you Dale and all your brothers.
Posted by: Karen | September 9, 2009 10:53 AM
The purpose of journalism, and in this case, of photojournalism, is to provide citizens with the reliable, verified information they need so that they can make informed decisions about their lives. This is a classic example of the photographers' moral dilemma during moments of crisis or peril: should one go against that duty as a journalist by dropping their camera and running to the aid of a dying victim, or should they remain an independent eye or lens that merely documents the event? To whom does their loyalty lie? In this case, I think it’s acceptable that the photographer did not rush to help Lance Corporal Bernard. As you can clearly see in the photograph itself, there were already two other soldiers who likely were better equipped and better prepared to save him.
I will say that not having any military experience or close friends in the military, it's difficult for me to relate to the feelings of the Bernard family, and my thoughts and prayers are with them. That being said, I do support the AP's decision to publish the photograph. To not do so would be a journalistic sin. Unfortunately, not everything covered by the media is easy to swallow or look at, but it’s the responsibility of the journalist, or photojournalist, to bring light to the public.
Finally, for those who disagree with AP, we’ve seen this same dilemma countless times throughout history. Should Eddie Adams’ famous photograph of a Viet Cong prisoner crying seconds before his public execution have gone unpublished? Or, when the twin towers went crumbling to the ground and thousands of innocent people lost their lives, should news agencies not have published those photographs? Is this really that much different?
Posted by: Billie Weiss | September 10, 2009 12:57 AM
I would be more apt -perhaps- to accept that there was some morality involved in the publishing..if it weren't for the fact that the news media -on the whole- has done a poor job of showing all of the good that our soldiers do..and they have also done a poor job of reporting on stories... like the shooting of US military recruiters by a muslim extremeist just a couple months ago. Private Richard or Andy Long"s death was buried by the press. I think Cnn and fox covered it. It was a major story, but where was the coverage on non-cable news shows and papers?
Posted by: Maureen | September 13, 2009 2:30 AM
First, I'd like to say that I am very impressed with the responses of several military families who shared that they would support such a photo being published if it were of their own kin. You certainly understand service better than I.
But I would also like to echo what Billie said, that it is not the place of a photojournalist to drop her camera to save a wounded Marine. She is not trained to do so. His comrades are. A photojournalist, or any journalist for that matter, is trained to "get in there" and show us what they can see, let us know what is really going on in Afghanistan right now. She was doing her job as Corporal Bernard was. Neither of them are easy.
Posted by: Will Napier | September 13, 2009 2:54 PM
The reason I see the 9/11 photos as different is that it was documenting a historical moment and involved many, many American's. It would be not be possible to use the same journalistic coverage. In this case though the family asked for the photo not to be published and this was a very personal loss for them, maybe there are other families who feel differently and would not mind the photo being used. I think it was just the complete disregard for the family that made a difference to me. The journalist could have dropped everything and helped under the Good Samaritan act. But, maybe I am coming at this from a different persepective. They are collecting photos from anyone on the 9/11 tragedy for people who want to submit any picture from where ever they were that day if they chose. Global 9/11 history??? I have something to submit.
Z, did you decide on links?
Posted by: Sherry T. | September 13, 2009 4:42 PM
This is disgusting. Listen to the kid's father .... No family deserves to have the memories of their loved ones exploited on TV. Second of all, this is no pulitzer prize winning photograph. The main reason it's being shown on the networks that are willing is for shock value and pageviews. The AP should find a new source of revenue besides the journalistic exploitation of our fallen heroes.
Posted by: Benjamin Fairbank | September 14, 2009 8:05 AM