Missing the Broader Context

Well, at long last typepad is allowing me entree to the software.

I want to start with an article in today's LA Times that notes that print coverage of the war in Iraq does not generally include photographs of the (American) war dead. This is anything but an original argument, except that during the start of the war the coverage was tipped towards the broadcast medium (and the argument was then referred to as "sanitizing.") Just take a look at how many hits you get for that phrasing.

It's an interesting piece, and it's actually fairly balanced, so I'd suggest you read the whole thing: there's obviously no question that taken at face value, the argument is true. American war coverage shies away from displaying the body of the American war casualty, period, and in doing so the news is different from the war. Of course, that's largely because, as I keep saying, you're watching the news, not the war, and there shouldn't be any confusion between the two.

But the real reason that it's a bit misleading to take this one aspect of news coverage and argue that it's somehow decontextualized, or politicizied, or what have you, is that by looking at this one kind of news story only, you've managed to take the situation neatly out of context, which in this case isn't just Iraq, or coverage of combat, but the way American news displays, pardon me, dead bodies.

As nearly as I can tell in my research, this is a uniquely American sensibility. What came first, the behavior of the media, thus creating audience expectations, or audience sensibilities, thus setting media limitations? That I don't know.

But my point is that these expectations and limitations go far, far beyond combat photography.

Consider local TV news, where they'll cover a car wreck every night if they can. They'll provide shots that represent death -- shoes on the side of the road, a teddy bear on the side of the road, maybe what appears to be a body under a blanket. But never, ever an actual body. The farthest they might go would be an upturned hand peeking out from under that blanket.

Or consider the classic, iconic shot of the civilian plane wreck -- crews moving surreally (and at a discrete distance from the photographer, as if zoom lenses were suddenly unavailable) through a bizarre scene of twisted metal and distorted scenery. But never, ever any bodies or body parts, despite the fact that those hazmat suits are on precisely because plane crashes are biohazards, not because anyone thinks there's likely to be nuclear waste in the midst of the crash site.

There is an unspoken assumption that it is wrong to be disrespectful of the dead, and that photographing them in their moment of extremis is exploitive. The photograph must have particular news value beyond merely articulating the simple fact that they have died before most outlets will consider using photographs of American dead.

I will leave it to you to make what you will of the fact that there seems no compunction about using images of Iraqi dead by the dozen, both enemy and civilian. The article makes a half-hearted effort at ginning up some logistical reasons why that's true, but in many wars where combat photography has been available, it has ever been thus.

It is interesting, of course, and I believe new to this war, that it is not considered to be showing American war dead if you are showing Americans being killed so long as their bodies are not visible to the camera (on broadcast.) So showing convoys at the instant that they are hit, or blown up, has been deemed acceptable by the networks -- and they clearly aren't getting enough grief from their viewers to stop them, the way they get grief when they show even very moving and powerful imagery of a single fallen soldier.

In fact, look at this from this LA Times article:

eA George Washington University survey of about 2,000 TV news segments found that the war had been "sanitized" and rendered "free of bloodshd."

The only way that could be true is if they did not count the literal moments when blood was shed as long as the blood itself was not visible.

The article also makes clear that when units suffered casualties they attempted to block the view of photographers. They resented the photographer's efforts to photograph their grief; the photographers resented what they saw as an effort to prevent them from doing their job. You can say all you want that the result is that the press reports at home are sanitized, but the press reports at home begin somewhere, and that somewhere is the real lived experience of human beings who are having that experience recorded, clearly, in the moment, without their permission.

Consider:

Though a few photographers relentlessly blare the 1st Amendment clarion, most said they found themselves on the battlefield balancing a more nuanced set of values and emotions.

Dean Hoffmeyer of the Richmond Times-Dispatch in Virginia found out how confounding such calculations could become a few days before Christmas, when a suicide bomber attacked the military mess tent where he was waiting in line with dozens of soldiers.

Blasted to the ground, Hoffmeyer pulled himself up and into the chaos of the deadliest attack of the war on any U.S. base. A young man bleeding to death beside him would be one of 22 to die that day.

Despite a broken lens, aperture wide open, Hoffmeyer fired off several frames of the mortally wounded soldier.

He continued taking pictures of the blast scene — images that ran prominently in nearly every American paper in the days to come. But he never transmitted the pictures of the dying GI.

Seeing them weeks later, his editor would describe them as "horrible pictures, wonderfully made."

The married, churchgoing Hoffmeyer has struggled with the decision ever since. He has gotten plenty of support from other photographers and taken hits from a few others, who suggested he left his best work in his camera.

Should be more in a bit as a play catch-up from the morning.

Comments

[rebecca]

Thanks for your comments on this story, Cori. I began reading this LATimes story yesterday, but when I got to the bottom of the first "page" and saw there were 8+ "pages" more, I gave it up. I have dial-up, and it would have taken me all day to finish the article, so I very much appreciate your post. For those who want more depth in their thinking about photojournalism, I recommend this article that I found via Jay Rosen: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR26.2/linfield.html

[rebecca]

Thanks for your comments on this story, Cori. I began reading this LATimes story yesterday, but when I got to the bottom of the first "page" and saw there were 8+ "pages" more, I gave it up. I have dial-up, and it would have taken me all day to finish the article, so I very much appreciate your post. For those who want more depth in their thinking about photojournalism, I recommend this article that I found via Jay Rosen: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR26.2/linfield.html

[rebecca]

Thanks for your comments on this story, Cori. I began reading this LATimes story yesterday, but when I got to the bottom of the first "page" and saw there were 8+ "pages" more, I gave it up. I have dial-up, and it would have taken me all day to finish the article, so I very much appreciate your post. For those who want more depth in their thinking about photojournalism, I recommend this article that I found via Jay Rosen: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR26.2/linfield.html

[rebecca]

Thanks for your comments on this story, Cori. I began reading this LATimes story yesterday, but when I got to the bottom of the first "page" and saw there were 8+ "pages" more, I gave it up. I have dial-up, and it would have taken me all day to finish the article, so I very much appreciate your post. For those who want more depth in their thinking about photojournalism, I recommend this article that I found via Jay Rosen: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR26.2/linfield.html