Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Edward Wesolowski <ids AT idisplay.com>]

Shea: ...good reflections on graphics and war reporting.  thanks for these.
...made me wonder, what would have happened if Matthey Brady could have 
distributed his pictures with the speed of the Internet?
> ... a convention written in the 40's.
> ...methods of distributing the images existed at the time, such as 
> photography and cinematography, there is
> no real comparison to today's media capabilities.  Today the images can be 
> distributed in an instant around the world.  In the 40's it would have 
> taken days, if not weeks to have images available to the masses.  The 
> impact and effectiveness of using images is now greatly magnified because 
> of 24 hour instant coverage.

Ed Wesolowski

========================================

From: "Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>
To: Eudora::"Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/"; 
<internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>

Subject: Re: [internetworkers] disturbing photos from Al Jazeera
Date: 3/25/03 4:13 PM

I apologize if anyone doesn't want the detail I'm about to give.  Don't read
further if you don't want to know.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The video showed approx 5 dead bodies lying on a floor of what the media
called a morgue, but looked like any normal room with a concreate or tile
floor.  It was evident in several of the close ups that 3 of them had been
shot in the forehead at close range - perhaps an execution.  The wounds were
almost dead center of the forehead.

The footage of the prisoners showed them being forced to answer questions.
And by forced, I mean that several of them were proded physically.  I'm
careful not to say hit, but it was obvious they weren't in a normal state of
consciousness...The prisoners were in various degrees of coherency and
appeared almost to be in shock or drugged.  They were slow to respond and in
many cases responded with slightly inappropriate answers or incomplete
answers.  The female prisoner appeared to be in shock and a state of terror.
Several of the prisoners had wounds and some were bandaged.

I personally agree that images of war should not be withheld from public
scrutiny.  I think it's important that the images and facts of war be
available as freedom of information is a cornerstone of democracy.  As far
as our media, I think it is appropriate that the media withhold certain
information such as the names and images of those killed or being held until
the military can notify the families.  Other than that, I think it needs to
be available.  However, I do think the interpretation of the Geneva
Convention being put forth by the US is correct.

And I will concede that this is an interpretation of a convention written in
the 40's.  And although you are correct that methods of distributing the
images existed at the time, such as photography and cinematography, there is
no real comparison to today's media capabilities.  Today the images can be
distributed in an instant around the world.  In the 40's it would have taken
days, if not weeks to have images available to the masses.  The impact and
effectiveness of using images is now greatly magnified because of 24 hour
instant coverage.  So by displaying the video and still images through
instant 24 hour world media, it is in effect marching them through every
town all at once.

I also think the real issue is the intent of the action.  In your example of
marching POWs through a town, the intent is, as you said, to allow for
riducule, harassment, etc.  However there is another intent inherent in what
you mentioned and that is the reason why you would subject POWs to a
situation such as marching them through towns,etc.  That reason is to use
the POWs as a propaganda tool.  Certainly, you can ridicule, harass,
interrogate, beat, or even kill a POW in private.  And that too is against
the convention.  But why do it in public?  The reason is for propaganda
value.  To dishearten the enemy, to bolster your forces, to show your
citizens what happens to those that oppose you, etc. And that is exactly
what the images of the POWs in Iraq are being used for.  So again, I say the
interpretation is correct.

Another difference is that the images were recorded and provided by Iraqi TV
which is state controlled media. Therefore, it was really the state of Iraq
who presented the images for the purpose mentioned before - propaganda.  The
comparison to images on US media outlets taken by journalists is not
appropriate as the US Government does not own or control the media outlets.
Media outlets in the US have free choice over whether to display images or
not and I should point out the freedom to attempt to get images that the
government might not wish to have released or that it would consider
inappropriate to display.  So in the case of images of POWs on US media, the
government did not provide the images or footage.  The media obtained them
and elected to broadcast them.  And I do think that is a subtle and
sometimes not so subtle difference.

As far as this issue being raised before, it was raised in the previous Gulf
War and has been raised by human rights groups - even in regards to those
being held in Quantanimo Bay Cuba at this time.  So it is being debated and
raised.  And in typical fashion, our government argues for this
interpretation in regards to Iraq and in regards to those being held in Cuba
argues that it doesn't apply to "un-lawful combatants".  So we like to have
things our way, no matter what...

And again I agree that the media should be careful in how it respects or
'kow-tows' to the wishes of our government.  But of course, they are free to
do it or not.  And that is the critical thing.  And I do think that
sanitizing a war can be very detrimental.  It is a difficult balance that
needs to be struck.

I think that at some point showing images only serves ratings and the morbid
curiousity of viewers.  Does it really make a difference if we show 10 dead
people or report about the 10 dead people and give their names and
information about them?  And does the same decision apply if it's 100, or
200, or 500.  At some points in the Vietnam war we lost upwards of 100
troops a day.  If we have the pictures of them, do we need to show all 100?
I don't have the answer to this - I, too, want to know what is going on and
not be shielded from the truth.  I think that's critical to our democracy
and making informed decisions.  But is it important that I see it?  Or that
I see all of it?  I don't know.

So that's my take on the issue.  Thanks for the thought provoking post.

From: <machett AT ibiblio.org>
To: <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: [internetworkers] disturbing photos from Al Jazeera



> First off, I don't want to stick my foot in my mouth, so I'll ask if
anyone has seen images or footage of the KIAs or POWs?  If so, please
describe to me in detail what they consist of.  I haven't been able to get
to al-Jazeera online, neither Arabic nor English; and I haven't been able to
find any of these so-called horrific images.  I did see a very brief and
censored bit of video on one news station.  I'd like to see these pictures
for myself, or at least get a decent description of them, so I can make an
informed decision.

> Now, in the absence of solid evidence, I make an educated guess at events:
> Images of the dead and dying and of POWs, although terrible to behold, are
a fact of war.  Anyone who thinks such images should be withheld from public
scrutiny is just deluding themselves.  My only caveat is that the Western
media (at least the US media) should adhere to mass communication law
concerning the privacy of the families; but I don't believe there is any
such limitation in these cases (I'll refer to my mass. comm. law text this
evening and get back to you...)
> Secondly, this crap about displaying such images being against the Geneva
Conventions is just that -- crap.  As an interrogator with the US Army I was
required to study the Geneva Conventions; although not an expert, I do have
a certain familiarity with the subject.  The section being quoted by the
military and regurgitated by the media has nothing to do with images of POWs
being broadcast by the media.  The Conventions were created in response to
WWII, and that particular passage was intended to protect POWs from public
display and ridicule, such as marching Nazi POWs through a town and allowing
the townspeople to curse at, spit upon, throw objects at, or strike the
POWs.  Photography and cinematography existed in 1949, at the time of the
Conventions creation, so if this were truly an issue of concern then the
creators would have addressed it then.  Furthermore, this issue, as far as I
know, has not previously been raised.  We've seen footage before of KIAs and
POWs from Som
>  alia to the first Gulf War to Kosovo; why is it suddenly an issue?(answer
below)  And it hasn't seemed to stop the media from presenting images of
Iraqi POWs in US camps.  I've seen videos from times past of incinerated
Iraqis hanging half-way out of their burning vehicles and of poor souls on
the streets of Haiti being set ablaze by angry mobs.  Why wasn't the issue
raised then?

> I am disgusted and disappointed with the media's kow-towing to the
military.  "Shock and awe" is right; but it describes the effect on the
media, not on the Iraqi people.  I suspect that the Powers-That-Be don't
want any fuel added to the fires of dissent; they learned their lessons from
VietNam and Somalia, wherein images of dead and dying US troops swayed
public opinion back home.  But these are the sort of truths the public needs
to know in order to make an informed opinion on the matter.  It's painful,
but it has to be done; the sterilized images of precision bombing must be
accompanied by the grotesque reality.  It will hurt some; it will relieve
others.  Since yesterday I have read and witnessed two interviews of wives
of former POWs.  One said it traumatized she and her daughter; the other
said it was a welcome relief to know that her husband was indeed alive.

> my $0.02,
> Alan
>
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
> To unsubscribe visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers


---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web 
site!  http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
To unsubscribe visit http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers