|
Not a Pretty Picture:
Looking this war in the face proves difficult when the press itself won't even put in an appearance
by Sydney H. Schanberg
| "History," Hegel said, "is a
slaughterhouse." And war is how the slaughter is
carried out.
05/17/05 "Village
Voice" - - If we believe that the present war in Iraq is just and
necessary, why do we shrink from looking at the damage it
wreaks? Why does the government that ordered the war and
hails it as an instrument of good then ask us to respect
those who died in the cause by not describing and depicting
how they died? And why, in response, have newspapers gone
along with Washington and grown timid about showing photos
of the killing and maiming? What kind of honor does this
bestow on those who are sent to fight in the nation's name? |
Baghdad E.R. doctors
examine a child who was fatally wounded in an aerial
bombing attack.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
|
The Iraq war inspires these questions.
| The government has blocked the press from
soldiers' funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. The
government has prevented the press from taking pictures of
the caskets that arrive day after day at the Dover Air Force
Base military mortuary in Delaware, the world's largest
funeral home. And the government, by inferring that citizens
who question its justifications for this war are disloyal
Americans, has intimidated a compliant press from making
full use of pictures of the dead and wounded. Also worth
noting: President Bush's latest rationale for the war is
that he is trying to "spread democracy" through
the world. He says these new democracies must have a
"free press." Yet he says all this while
continuing to restrict and limit the American press. There's
a huge disconnect here. |
An Iraqi comforts a wounded
fellow civilian who was shot in the arm and chest by U.S.
troops after not heeding warning shots.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
|
More than 1,600 American soldiers have died in this war that
began a little over two years ago. Wounded Americans number about
12,000. No formal count is kept of the Iraqi civilian dead and
wounded, but it is far greater than the military toll. But can you
recall the last time your hometown newspaper ran a picture spread
of these human beings lying crumpled at the scene of the
slaughter? And when was the last time you saw a picture of a
single fallen American soldier at such a scene?
Yes, some photos of such bloodshed have been published at times
over the span of this war. But they have become sparser and
sparser, while the casualty rate has stayed the same or,
frequently, shot higher. At the moment, five GIs die every two
days.
Some readers may object to my use of the word slaughter. I do
respect other points of view. But I served in the military, and as
a reporter I covered several wars—in India, Vietnam, and
Cambodia. I came away persuaded that whether one considers a
particular war necessary or misguided, the military goal in armed
combat is always to kill and thus render helpless those on the
other side. That being the case, what is a government's basis for
depriving the public of candid press coverage of what war is all
about? How else can voters make informed decisions about a war
their government has led them into? The true reason why a
government—in this case, the Bush administration—tries to
censor and sanitize coverage is to prevent a public outcry against
the war, an outcry that might bring down the administration.
The photographs that accompany this piece are not gratuitously
violent. They are merely real. All but one were taken by David
Leeson, a highly regarded photographer at The Dallas Morning
News. He and his Morning News colleague Cheryl Diaz
Meyer were awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize in breaking-news
photography "for their eloquent photographs depicting both
the violence and poignancy of the war with Iraq."
| realize there are other sides to the story.
One is the government's side. President Bush says that none
of the government's actions can be characterized as
censorship or intimidation of the press. He says he is
merely honoring the fallen by protecting the privacy of
their families in their time of grief. A New York Times
columnist—his name is not needed; the issue is what's
important—offered another slant a week ago. He called for
less coverage of the war's violence because the press was
"frantically competing to get gruesome pictures and
details for broadcasts and front pages" at a time when
there is "really nothing new to say." He seemed to
think the use of these "gruesome pictures" was on
the rise—though others in the media-watching industry,
such as Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post, have
been recording a decline. The Times columnist said
the press was, wittingly or not, assisting the "media
strategy" of the suicide bombers and their leaders. |
Zahraa Ali, four years old,
lies in the burn unit of a Baghdad hospital. Her family was
hit by an aerial bombing attack while driving. Her parents,
24-year-old brother, and nine-year-old sister died. Zahraa
eventually died. Only her three-month-old sister survived.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
|
A columnist, of course, is permitted to offer up
pretty much any opinion he or she chooses, but still it's very odd
to see a journalist—since we historically have always pressed
for transparency—recommending that information be left out of
stories. He insisted he was "not advocating official
censorship" but simply asking the media for "a little
restraint." Also, he cited the press controls used by former
New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani as a model for achieving
"restraint." Giuliani, the column said, had told his
police department "to stop giving out details of daily crime
in time for reporters' deadlines," in order to keep "the
day's most grisly crime" off the 11 o'clock television news.
| I don't hold much esteem for the usual
crime-and-catastrophe formula on most late-news shows, but I
have even less for contentions that withholding information
from the public is good for them. Because we are a country
of diverse culture groupings, there will always be
differences of view, about war photographs and stories, over
matters of taste and "shock" issues. But, while
the reporter or photographer must consider these impact and
shock issues his primary mission has to be one of getting
the story right. And getting it right means not omitting
anything important out of timidity or squeamishness. When I
would return from a war scene, I always felt I had to write
the story first for myself and then for the reader. The goal
was to come as close as possible to make the reader smell,
feel, see, and touch what I had witnessed that day.
"Pay attention," was my mental message to the
reader. "People are dying. This is important." |
An Iraqi civilian, struck in
the head by shrapnel from an aerial bombing, collapses, and
an army medic rushes over to help.
photo: David Leeson/The Dallas Morning News
|
A generation later, the photographer David Leeson, whom I
talked with on the phone, has similar passions.
He said: "I understand the criticisms about blood and
gore. I don't seek that. When I approach a body on the ground
after a battle, I'm determined to give dignity to that person's
life and photograph him with respect. But sometimes, as with my
pictures of child victims, the greatest dignity and respect you
can give them is to show the horror they have suffered, the
absolutely gruesome horror." Leeson went on: "War is
madness. Often when I was in it, I would think of my work as
dedicated to stopping it. But I know that's unrealistic. When I
considered the readers who would see my photos, I felt I was
saying to them: 'If I hurt inside, I want you to hurt too. If
something brings me to tears, I want to bring you to tears too.'
"
I don't see any place for "restraint" in this
picture.
Copyright © Information
Clearing House. All rights reserved. You may republish under
the following conditions: An active link to the original
publication must be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove
any text within the article, including this copyright notice.
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
