When the Media Gags Itself
During the Vietnam war, there were some key photojournalism moments that changed the course of the war by influencing public opinion. Here are three of them:
To some extent, the same held true in Iraq with the Abu Ghraib photos. The torture and suffering that America witnessed in those images were in stark [...]
During the Vietnam war, there were some key photojournalism moments that changed the course of the war by influencing public opinion. Here are three of them:
To some extent, the same held true in Iraq with the Abu Ghraib photos. The torture and suffering that America witnessed in those images were in stark contrast to what most of us feel are our national values and what we stand for as a country. Attitudes toward the war started changing when these photos were published. Yes, it is somewhat disconcerting that, despite ACLU lawsuits and a judge’s ruling to release additional images and video footage from Abu Ghraib, the Pentagon continues to stonewall and hoard some of the most graphic photos and videos. Still, that’s the government holding back the images, and (to some extent) I can at least understand the regime’s resistance to releasing more damning evidence that only it posseses.
But what if a media outlet had access to some damning photographic evidence of a Mai Lai-style massacre that occurred in Iraq, and was holding back the images, ostensibly so as not to damage the tender sensibilities of its readership? (In a moment, you’ll understand why I use the term “ostensibly”.)
This past Sunday, the Washington Post buried a story on Page A14 that could certainly have a significant influence over the public’s perception of future U.S. involvement in Iraq:
Capturing images of war on their digital cameras, as many troops in Iraq have done, Marines took dozens of gruesome photographs of the 24 civilians who were killed in Haditha, Iraq, in November 2005…
…Among the images, there is a young boy with a picture of a helicopter on his pajamas, slumped over, his face and head covered in blood. There is a mother lying on a bed, arms splayed, the bodies of three young children huddled against her right side. There are men with gaping head wounds, and a woman and a child hunkered down on their knees, their hands frozen around their faces as if permanently bracing for an attack.
…The images are contained in thousands of pages of NCIS investigative documents obtained by The Washington Post. Post editors decided that most of the images are too graphic to publish… [emphasis mine]
During a week when George Bush is preparing to announce his strategery for escalation of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and on a day when five more servicemen were killed, the Post editors made a decision that they wouldn’t publish graphic images of the war, either in their newspaper or online.
Post editors decided that most of the images are too graphic to publish.
There should be red flags flying everywhere. Why is the WaPo holding back graphic images of a civilian massacre in Iraq? Could it be that they’re trying to avoid controversy and outrage from the neocon howler monkeys if the images were to be made available?
In documenting the tragedy of war, historically, images have been the most visual way to communicate the horror (and triumph) of battle. Since at least the time that the Magdalenian started etching images of the hunt on cave walls, mankind has been visually documenting battle, whether the battle was with with their food or their human enemies. A picture is truly worth a thousand words, particularly when it comes to documenting the horror of war.
By making the decision not to publish the photographs from Haditha, the Washington Post editors are no better than the Holocaust deniers that recently met in Tehran. More importantly, if photographic evidence didn’t exist of the Holocaust (or was held back, or destroyed), it would be so much easier for the deniers to credibly make their case that the Holocaust didn’t happen. In fact, history could easily be rewritten.
It’s time for the Washington Post editors to make a decision. By holding back these images of atrocities committed in the name of the American people, the Post editors allow the atrocities to continue. This is particularly true in a week which decisions are going to be announced that will define U.S. involvement in Iraq for at least the rest of George Bush’s term in office.
If you run a blog, I humbly ask that you bring this story to the attention of your readers, and that you ask your readers to contact the ombudsman at the Washington Post:
Deborah Howell
202-334-7582
ombudsman@washpost.com
We deserve the truth. We can handle the truth. We must know the truth in order to make informed decisions going forward.
I’ve emailed and put in a call to Ms. Howell - and will update if/when she responds.
Update: Ms. Howell responded to me. A separate posting on the followup can be found here.
Can’twait to see Howell’s response, Richard. Perhaps she’ll say they were wrong to publish the photos back in the 60’s. After all, that’s the only way tojustify not publishing them now.
Couldn’t agree more - thanks for this post.
My letter:
I understand your editorial decision to refrain from publishing some of the photos from the Haditha incident (which may become known to history as the Haditha “massacre”). Obviously, photos of “men with gaping head wounds” are probably too graphic to be shown in a newspaper. But a newspaper is more than just a vehicle for entertainment and commerce. Its highest purpose is news: to inform on important issues of the day. There are iconic photos from previous wars, such as the shot of the Vietnamese police commander executing the captured VC guerilla in Saigon during the Tet offensive, that are widely recognized as making a major contribution to public discourse simply by virtue of their publication.
I imagine that some of the Haditha photos might fall into that category. I would urge your editors to reconsider the decision to publish only a handful (two, in the online article I saw) of these pictures. Remember the core mission of your institution. It’s precisely why your business was given explicit protection in the Constitution of the United States.
Thank you.
“It’s precisely why your business was given explicit protection in the Constitution of the United States.”
Great letter - killer argument.
One quibble: It’s “Holocaust”, not “holocost”. I don’t mind, but the neocon nitpickers will use this misspelling as an excuse to distract from your main point.
Thanks, PW - I kinda threw this together on the fly - of course, I should have spell checked in any case…fixed.
TWC - thanks for writing that letter to Howell. From what I understand, the chances of her actually getting back to me run somewhere between slim and non-existent. I, too, love your last sentence. Ba-boom. Right to the gut.
Absolutely great column, Richard! No doubt!
There is so much secrecy and deception about this war. We have spent billions of dollars, been responsible for the death and/or maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Americans, and there is now reason to believe that we have debased ourselves as a nation. These photos represent behavior that shames all Americans. This is not the way to win “hearts and minds.”
And just where is Iraq getting that 10 billion that Bush said that they were putting into the pot?
Seems to me this is just more of same, one lie upon another.
Considering the level of support our society has had for the war in the past I feel supporters need to see such graphic images.
The author of this piece was too kind in her evaluation of the Washington Post’s motives for squelching the truth. The Post, like most of our media outlets are owned or controlled by the plutocracy which is profiting enormously from this and all previous wars. Follow the money trail to the merchants of death.
I wrote the following to the ombudsman and thank you sincerely for highlighting yet another atrocity. The truth is having such a hard time being seen.
This was my letter:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am surprised to read that you are withholding images at the Washington Post because they are too graphic. Surely, if they are that graphic, then the scenes they depict are unlawful and those involved should be brought to justice. Making the war a clinical event will not bring the reality of the suffering to an end - you are hiding the truth and that surely goes against every journalistic principal?
The article that appeared on page 14 on Sunday is included in part below for your refernece. Please do let me know what will happen as a result of what the images contain, who will be brought to justice and who the photos will be passed to if not the public. Thank you for your time.
Namaste,
Tina Louise
http://www.armsagainstwar.info
http://www.tinalouise.co.uk
The Americans get bad press in the UK because they act like idiots. Mai Lai and Abu Graib are only isolated examples. And then we Brits or Euros travel to or through the USA and get treated like fuckwits by your armed immigration monkeys. And then get ripped off by your cab drivers and anyone else that smells a pound or a euro. Rotten then and rotten now.