In this article from the LA Times the writer seeks to clarify why there is a restriction on violent media from Iraq, and why there is such an atmosphere of tension surrounding the whole situation. This image of a dying soldier called Travis Babbitt which was published in a New Jersey newspaper is the main inspiration for this piece.
The main points of this article include:
Only a handful of photographs featuring injured or dying soldiers have been released- Journalists believe they are delivering an incomplete portrait of the war.
- There are logical reasons for this such as the number of war photographers in Iraq (3-15).
- Controls on war coverage come directly from the Whitehouse.
- No recognizable faces are allowed, family most be notified before publication.
- Some journalists who published violent photos were transferred to a different station.
- These photos hurt morale, aids the enemy and intrude on intimate moments.
- Family of these servicemen do not want to see their own in this situation.
- Soldiers want to be shown as brave not as injured broken men.
- Photos of dead Iraqui's occur more often, there is no restrictions on these photos.
Should this photo be published in the Durango Herald? What sort of effect would it have on the surrounding community? What sort of impact could it have on our town?
In my opinion yes it should have been published. If the correct procedure is followed to the fullest extent then I see no reason why images such as these cannot be published. Seeing pictures of your own countrymen lying dead is not something you want to see I know, but seeing a picture like the one of Travis Babbitt really brings home the reality of the war.
I realise that younger children might see a blood stained man, but they must be told that this is war and it is a bad thing. As for adult people who say they support the war, they cannot be against this type of media. The family's of the dead are understandingly going to be upset, but if they don't want their son published they can deny it themselves.
Lets look at the Vietnam war, the first widely daily televised war in your country. What did these streaming images of both sides in pain do? Ultimately it began anti-war campaigns which brought about an end to that cruel war.

Nice job overall, Andy. And your layout helps make the post readable.
ReplyDeleteNow work on working in more specifics -- quotes, numbers, facts, etc. -- to strengthen your summary so it's not so much what the article talked ABOUT and more what it SAID.