On AP's "Death of a Marine"

The basic facts beneath the controversy are clear:

On August 14, 2009, U.S. Marine Lance Corporal Joshua "Bernie" Bernard was fatally wounded in an ambush in Afghanistan's Helmand province. In the failing evening light, an Associated Press photographer embedded with his unit, Second Battalion/Third Marine Regiment (2/3), shot a photograph of a prone and bleeding Bernard flanked by two comrades. The injured lance corporal was medevaced, but he died from his wounds at a field hospital. He was 21 years old.

Earlier that day, the photographer, Julie Jacobson, shot images of Bernard on patrol. Days later, she covered his memorial service at a Marine base. Jacobson transmitted these photos, including the image of the bloodied Bernard, to AP.

"For the second time in my life," she says in the online slide show's narration as the disputed photo appears on screen, "I watched a Marine lose his."

AP sent a reporter to interview the Bernard family and discuss the photograph. The young man's father beseeched the AP's representative not to run the photo. AP chose to do so, along with other photos, in a story titled "Death of a Marine: A Photographer's Journal" to clients who receive its "hosted" service. Such stories are fed automatically to newspapers, AP clients, nationwide.

Conservative and rightwing commentators -- and some active and retired military -- slammed AP for going against the Bernard family's wishes and running the photo. So too did the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates.

"I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard's death has caused his family," Gates wrote in a letter to AP's president.

"Why your organization would purposefully defy the family's wishes knowing full well that it will lead to more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right -- but judgment and common decency."

AP issued a written statement defending its decision.

"We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is," Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography, stated.

AP asserts that the photographer -- and the editors and executives who made the decision to run the photo -- followed rules for embedded media laid down by the Pentagon. AP cites the relevant clause in the agreement to make its case:

Casualties may be covered by embedded media as long as the service member's identity and unit identification is protected from disclosure until [the Assistant Deputy of Defense for Public Affairs] has officially released the name. Photography from a respectful distance or from angles at which a casualty cannot be identified is permissible; however, no recording of ramp ceremonies or remains transfers is permitted.

Writers on sites like "Captain's Journal", a conservative blog devoted to military affairs, hammered AP. [Full disclosure: contributors to the site have been critical of my Iraq reporting.]

The site's "captain," Herschel Smith, whose son is a Marine and "who is not a member of the armed forces," says AP violated the embedding agreement. He implies that Bernard's facial features are distinct enough in the photo to identify him. This would be a straight-up violation of the embedding agreement, which Jacobson would have been required to sign before linking up with 2/3.

"The AP signed a contract in order to obtain the protection of the Marines," Smith wrote on September 6. "They violated the terms of that contract, and thus they are liars -- at least, the people who made the decision to release this photo....They blew their moral capital on a whim. They threw away their soul."

Judge for yourself whether the photo includes enough of Lance Corporal Bernard's face to establish his identity.

(As of September 8, "the version of the slide show that will appear on [hosted] sites will be a version of the slide show that will not include the image," AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, told me on the phone. Editors may request a "secondary version" of the show with the disputed image. Several publications, AP clients, have pulled the image from their sites.)

* * *

I have told this story before, but I need to tell it again here.

Mortars started falling on Forward Operating Base Iskandariyah, Iraq, at around 1:00 PM on July 23, 2004. It was my first full day in country as an embed with First Battalion/Second Marine Regiment. Marines shoved me into the mouth of an underground bomb shelter; those inside made room for me. I could here men outside yelling, "I'm hit, I'm hit."

When the explosions stopped, I followed Master Sergeant Allen Benjamin of Weapons Company, with whom I lived, to the Battalion Aid Station. Inside, there was barely controlled chaos. A giant of a Marine silently daubed at a river of blood dripping from his bald head. Another Marine lay on the floor in a pool of blood surrounded by Army medics and Navy corpsmen.

I raised my camera to shoot.

"What the fuck is he doing in here?" a Marine to my right exploded. I explained to him that I hadn't taken a photo, that I was an embed and had permission to be there. Master Sergeant Benjamin came to my defense, quieting the Marine.

I stood still, not shooting, just observing. The battalion's commanding officer entered the BAS and ordered all nonmedical personnel out. I debated staying for a moment, and then left without shooting a photo of the Marine, Lance Corporal Vincent Sullivan, 23 years old. He had a severe chest wound from shrapnel and later died.

I retreated for several reasons, some calculated -- I didn't want to alienate the men on my first day of a weeks-long embed -- and others less so. I was intimidated, to be sure, but I was also overwhelmed by the enormity of the situation.

There was no censorship. I could have stayed, but I self-censored, which is akin to lying. At the very least, it is unwitting collusion with those who could keep the American public ignorant of the wars going in their -- our -- name.

That's my view.

The day after the 2004 mortar attack, the Marine who chewed me out in the aid station, Ricky Funderburk, then 21 years old, apologized to me. "I had friends that passed away last year, but not that close. Until Vince," Funderburk explained. He was defending Sullivan's dignity when he yelled at me, he told me.

I called Funderburk and asked him what he thought of the Bernard photo controversy. We talked, and he responded via email:

I think the press should respect the families wishes and not publish the pictures. I understand that people have a right to know, but there are some things that just don't need to be published.

If someone wants to know that bad what it's like, they have two options: one is read the story and [then] picture it in their head; or join the military and go see what it's like. If the AP wants America to know what it's like in war, then they should go to the V.A. Hospital and talk to vets.

You leave that place physically for what you hope will be forever, but it stays with you mentally forever. It haunts your dreams. One sound or sight can remind you of it at anytime, anywhere.

Now, because of this picture, the other two Marines in the picture -- every time they see it, they will be reminded of it and will go back to that place in their mind of such a dark time. I hate that place. All of us vets hide it the best we can, but it seems like it's brought up too often.

I have respect for the press, people like yourself, Brian, but I feel like they should have respect for the dead, and especially the families of the dead, and not publish the photo. Let it be in black and white letters, not colorful pictures with so much red in them. It haunts you forever!

As much as I respect Funderburk -- he is a friend now -- I can't agree with him. This is where journalist and Marine inevitably part. His loyalty is to the mission, the Corps, and his comrades. Mine -- a journalist's -- must be to the public and to history.

In the current fractured and heavily politicized news environment this may sound grandiloquent and anachronistic. Anyone with an iPhone can be a journalist, we're told. And these days, journalism can be anything -- opinionated and unsourced blogs, the entertaining propaganda, pandering, and patter of cable news.

We journalists are not certified or licensed by any authority or organization, like plumbers or surgeons. Our standards are determined to a large degree by our audience, which also judges the success or failure of our work by consuming or ignoring it.

We journalists have little in our professional quiver of arrows besides our credibility and integrity. Forty years ago, many people paid attention to stories by a freelancer named Sy Hersh about a placed dubbed My Lai because he backed them up with gumshoe reporting -- eyewitness testimony and carefully gathered facts. Gruesome photos made by Ronald Haeberle, a U.S. Army photographer, that day in 1969 supported Hersh's reporting, as did other news accounts. It was a different time, with fewer contending media voices and an all-consuming war (with a draft, which naturally focused public attention), but many people gave credence to the harsh, sometimes graphic, reporting and photography from Vietnam -- by Gloria Emerson, Sydney Schanberg, Wallace Terry, Don McCullin, Philip Jones Griffiths, Larry Burrows, Nick Ut, and others -- because the work stood up to examination and critique. The vision was ugly, but it reflected the grim reality of a conflict that consumed millions of Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans.

"People get killed in war. That's what it's all about," Phillip Knightley, author of The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker from the Crimea to Iraq, wrote to me an email. I resort to his book when I need historical perspective on current imbroglios over war coverage.

"Governments don't like this being made obvious with photographs of their deaths. It's considered bad for morale. So they try to censor and intimidate the media into not using them. It's my belief that the media has been too complicit in this policy and that the more the reality of war is brought home to everybody -- no matter how grueling this might be for relatives of the casualties -- then the more likely it is that we'll think twice about supporting any war."

War is a public endeavor of the gravest importance; it is never a private matter, the comments of the Secretary of Defense notwithstanding.

Yes, each soldier and Marine is a unique individual with a history and loved ones. But abroad, on the streets of Iraq, in the mountains of Afghanistan, and in any of the myriad countries where U.S. troops are deployed, each service member is an instrument, often deadly, of our national power.

I believe that Ricky Funderburk, other service members who fought for this country, and their families have a right to look away from horrible -- and horribly real -- photos such as Jacobson's image of Lance Corporal Bernard.

But the American public has a right to know what our fighting men and women are doing in our name, and what is happening to them. And as citizens, we have a responsibility to look, even when it shocks and discomfits us.

Follow Brian Palmer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bxpnyc

Comments

[Liberterna]

I don't wanna weigh in on a family's suffering.

But I do think that generally, the American Public is too sanitized to violence. And that's not healthy.

If we engage wars we shouldn't cower from their results. And try to distract ourselves.

These kids, our fellow citizens are dying, I understand why a father would want to keep his pain private. Yet I also think it's crucial that as a democratic society we don't stick our head in the sand at this crucial juncture in history.

There are things that are bigger than any one event and I generally welcome a more honest portrayal and discussion of the wars we're in. And we won't be able to do that, if our narration is sanitized like a comic book. Violence without blood, death without consequence and "good-guy" "bad-guy" portrayals don't work.

[A Concerned Citizen]

The wishes of his family were violated. Pain and suffering were caused by the choice to run those photos. There is no argument with those facts. However in this nation we have a free press. It is the right of those on the line with out troops to write the stories and take the pictures. When a person signs the contract that makes him a member of the US military he has given up a number of his rights and has made himself an object of recognition. In bootcamp we were told to always act like Marines because there would always be someone watching. And that extends on the the battlefield. There is or at least should be someone watching. The people must be not only informed but emotionaly involved. War is to terrible an undertaking to only effect 1% of the nation. I feel great empathy for this young Marines Family, but maybe incidents like this will help to remind the Nation that we are at time of war.

[fbr79]

This is the second opinion piece on this matter I read on HP, the second with the same opinion. It is not only conservative people who feel this is inapropriate....the family asked not to show it, period.

[BuzzingAlong]

The local newspapers in my town barely acknowledges that our military is fighting in two countries let alone list the casualties. Weeks go by without a mention of Iraq or Afghanistan. The papers may mentioned that a soldier died but they do not discuss the total numbers of the dead and wounded Americans, Iraqs or Afghanistanis.

There might be the occosional letter to the editor taking them to task, but all in all, the people in this state don't care. It has been years since I can remember anyone mentioning Iraq or Afghanistan in conversation. If you bring up the wars in conversatation and mentioned how many people died, the response goes no further that "oh yeah".

There is no interest.

I kid you not.

[Cranbot]

During the Vietnam war Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson were on tv every dinner hour reporting from the field. There were plenty of images of wounded soldiers being tended to and carried from the battlefield. LIfe magazine and major newspapers ran photos of war, in all its reality, all the time. Reality is what we need to inform our decisions and opinions. If you never see the cost of your government's decisions made in your name then you have no idea what is being done.

"Protecting" ourselves from the atrocities of the world does not protect us. It insulates us and make us numb and dumb.

[sonoffestus]

Just the way they want it, numb and dumb.

[jjsardo]

If the soldier’s or marine’s identity is concealed for family reasons, I can accept and even encourage the media to reveal the brutality of war through photos. Pictures of young men dying in a senseless war drive the message of war’s tragic consequences home in the most powerful way possible
.
So-called embedded journalists are vehicles for spreading government propaganda. These embeds are willing victims of government control and censorship and the journalism they produce is misleading, unreliable and reprehensible.

Show us the photos, show us the films, even if you have to sneak them out. A little more courage on the part of journalists could result in worthwhile journalism and might save the lives of many more young men.

"People get killed in war. That's what it is all about." It is usually the kids who have their whole lives ahead of them. Show it. It will help stop it.

[Ergon]

How many people know the number of US casualties in Afghanistan? http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx
As of 09/09/09, 830.

[jcwtts1]

I have to say this, there are two competing interests and I still don't know which one to serve.

The family has a right to privacy, to not see photos of their son dead or dying. They have this right and they have paid for it with blood. Who are we, sitting comfortably at our computers, never putting on a uniform once in our lives, who are we to make this level of decision about another families pain, about another families service.

The second interest, the one that is altruistic and pure is that journalism, at its best, is about truth, about sharing and showing a truth that is necessary for the well functioning democracy. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and pictures are the most powerful medium to tell that truth. Words, even brilliantly written words, don't get it done, not in the same way. My problem is that this kid, and 21 is still a kid in my world, this kid didn't sign up to be a beacon of truth, to be a teachable moment, his death is more than that, or should be. I see why they say they ran the picture but ultimately I don't trust them, their motives, their reasoning. They have lost the ability to be honest brokers, especially AP.

[soldiergirl]

I'm in total agreement with you, jcwtts1. I think that by showing the picture of this young Marine severely wounded, this journalist infringed on the privacy of this family and the Marine. As you said, "this kid did not sign up to be a beacon of truth, to be a teachable moment." I cannot even fathom the thought of how I would feel if this was my child and I was his mother, to see my child used to make a point or further an agenda.
As a retired Soldier, I do not know of a single Soldier that I deployed with that would want to be put in this position, and have the worst possible moment of your life put on display like this. I think it's worse than just poor taste, it is unconscionable, deplorable and horrendous. The family had asked that this picture not be posted, but their feelings had to take a back seat to the journalists desire to put a face on the war. I don't think that by posting this picture, any higher level of awareness of the wars was achieved, but I do think that it did cause more hurt to a family that was already in unbelievable pain. Their feelings should have been respected.

[jcwtts1]

I have been thinking about this issue all day. I have to agree with you. I just don't see the point of it, shock value? I don't know. A story broke tonight that a journalist at ABC violated an off the record conversation with the president tonight. I just don't trust the motives of these corp media types. I don't see the search for truth, I see cheap ratings and circulation hits as the underlying goal and the stepped on the grave of a brave young man who died defending his country. I just don't see the good this does soldiergirl. The parents have rights, the soldiers have rights, they have to.

J

[chocolatecity]

If the family OK's it then I don't have a problem with it.

[oldGunny]

FTA "The young man's father beseeched the AP's representative not to run the photo."

AP chose to do so, along with other photos, in a story titled "Death of a Marine: A Photographer's Journal"

[Raiderfan0524]

I'm torn about this.

On one hand, I'm a journalist. I believe that the First Amendment came down on stone tablets from Mount Sinai. Because of this, I also believe that anyone who opposes the Associated Press's publication of these photographs needs to re-read Amendment I of the Constitution. This is what's being done in the name of the American People using our tax dollars. We have the right to see it, talk about it, and make our own decisions.

But on the other hand, my father was a medic in the Army for 32 years and would come home with stories about this type of thing. He was one of the people who saw this stuff in his sleep like the gentleman in the article above. If he were fighting in the current conflicts, I'd want him to have some peace.

So what I'd have to do is weigh my obligations: is it family first and then the Constitution or the Constitution first and then family?

I'd have hated to have had to make that decision.

[jcwtts1]

Raider,

I hear you man, but I believe,deeply, that you have set yourself a false dichotomy. It isn't either or. There is discretion, the first amendment doesn't say, you have to do this, it says you can. But the price of living in a free society is using judgment. This, unfortunately, isn't the only soldier that is going to pass before this war is over. Search for one that gives permission for this, not one whose family begged, and I use that term specifically because my understanding is that the family actually begged AP, not to have the picture shown. There is a story out tonight about ABC violating an off the record conversation. I find that disgusting, and it lends itself specifically to my distrust of the motives of printing this picture. Why now. Why today. Why not 3 months from now, or 6 when the family isn't still raw. Where is the timeliness for this picture... I just don't buy it man.

J

[AJH]

I think we do the honor of our military men and women a disservice by not publishing these photo's. We can all hear the by-line 3 US soldiers killed in roadside bomb or ambush but that is cold and impersonal.

What is remarkable about these photo's is they truly bring home the bravery and honor of our soldiers. Not just the ones which die for the policy but the ones standing beside them that the next day will go out and subject themselves to the same risks.

War is a terrible horrible thing that should not be entered into lightly. We should honor the ultimate sacrifice made by these men and women. Publishing such photo's forces our politicians to express the need to be engaged something they have been getting away with doing poorly as a result of photo's like these not being published.

Politically it may be hard at home, such photo's may also be beneficial in the moderate islamic world where they often see the bloody results of mistaken targetting but also are seperated from the price in blood our troops are paying. This could lead to a view we are placing the majority of the risk on their people. Seeing soldiers on the ground, paying the ultimate price might moderate that perception. We don't just shoot bombs from drones and only get killed while driving in well secured convoys. We are out among the people fighting to protect their villages and dying as well.

[soldiergirl]

I do not know of any of my battle buddies that would want photos of them posted anywhere if they had gotten injured or worse in the war. That is the very last thing that I would want for myself.

[JBS]

Not just a right to know, but a NEED to know.

And a responsibility to know; not just turn away to pretend they don't see.

[oldGunny]

"Publishing the photo widely against the wishes of the soldier's family is an excess."

I agree.
If we published Photographs of the aftermath of DUI wrecks of 18-25 year olds, some would say it could be educational. But doing it against the families wishes would get a far larger outcry.

Semper Fidelis

[JBS]

Never had to watch "Death on the Highway" in driver's ed?

[howeverfaraway]

Anyone notice that since that pic was published, the voices screaming to get out of Afghanistan got louder by 10-fold?

[fbr79]

No they didn't.

[jsgaetano]

When liberals see soldiers dying for no good reason, they say we need to withdraw our troops.

When conservatives see soldiers dying for no good reason, they say we need to stop the media from reporting it... and send more troops.